Supreme Court Rules in Favor of "Indefinite Imprisonment"

[Typhoid]

I agree with it to an extent..I guess. Especially if it's a child sex offender.

However holding someone after their release date that had been decided seems so very wrong, especially for sex offense and not something like murder. I understand it's the whole "This person isn't rehabilitated" stance, and agree that's a good reason to keep someone in. However it could also prove to keep rehabilitated people in jail just because a handful of dudes don't think he's okay, which is almost like false imprisonment, so long as his time is up.

The judge and courts decide on X years for a sex offender, and after that X years can just say "Nah, kidding, you're staying here for a while. We'll tell you when you can go."

I say all or nothing. Either they should be able to hold every person in jail longer than their sentence, or nobody.

But if it's for anything, I definitely think it should be enacted for murder, because I don't think 'the system' is hard enough on people who kill people.

[KillerGremlin]

Sex offenders are a big problem. I mean, what do you do with someone who likes to fuck children? On one hand, the sex offender is probably a victim themselves, and they are probably in need of serious rehabilitation. Prison is not rehabilitation of course...but since rehabilitation is moderately effective at best, prison has the appeal of keeping these people away from the kids. It's just a thing, the whole mess of it.

Personally, I think this ruling by the Supreme Court is bad because it sets expectations and future precedence that could be abused. The current legal system already has dropped the ball on providing good legislation regarding sex offenders: you become a sex offender if you get caught taking a piss in public. It's pure insanity! But yeah. On one hand I see why this law could be deemed noble, but I think if people were willing they could come up with better solutions that waste less tax payer money.