Time for me to make an unpopular stand...

[conuly]

Or not.

First of all, I love how "I want proof that they're so mentally ill that they need to be involuntarily committed past the time that the law said they should serve (but not so ill that they couldn't go to prison like normal people)" turns into "Being a sex offender isn't wrong in any way". Let's read what's actually written.

Secondly, am I the only one who doesn't want the government saying via fiat that if I go to jail for something (and there are such things as wrongful convictions!) I can be kept there indefinitely, even past my sentence? Oh, sure, now it's "those damn sex offenders", but that's... that's just a *really* bad precedent. By which I mean bad. I don't care if we're talking about notorious mass murderers, I don't want that precedent being set. (Not that it hasn't already been...)

And, of course, I agree with the judge in general. If somebody is that ill that they're a constant threat to others (and it's not being mentally ill that merits, in any view, being committed, it's being a danger to everyone else), you need to *prove* it. One conviction isn't proof, no matter what the conviction is for - or if it is, then they need to be committed outright, not chucked into prison first.

Edit: Well, I just called that ditz of a girl an idiot. I feel better now.

Comments

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

And "sex offender" also doesn't neccesarily mean kids were involved (which is where I think people get the most upset). An 18 year old with a 17 year old can be labeled a sex offender.

(And conuly - I agree with you).

[conuly]

*nods* Thanks.

[carlanime.livejournal.com]

An 18 year old with a 17 year old can be labeled a sex offender.

::nods:: Yup--which is why the whole "lock 'em up forever" thing scares me.