Wednesday, November 27th, 2013
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
IS THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO SAVE US FROM OURSELVES?
George Orwell’s novel 1984 paints a disturbing scenario where one can be accused of a crime, arrested and prosecuted for his or her thoughts.
“The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed… the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thought crime they called it… sooner or later they were bound to get you.”
The Orwell scenario comes to mind when digesting a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law that allows the indefinite civil commitment of federal prisoners who have completed their sentences, but are deemed “sexually dangerous.” This travesty of justice is based on the thought that a crime might be committed in the future
Now if you think the only dissenters expressing concerns over such a draconian ruling are bleeding heart liberals, think again. Add to that number the likes of Rush Limbaugh, and the two most conservative members of the Supreme Court, Justices Scalia and Thomas. The majority of the court cited that congress could pass such laws because it has “enumerated powers,” then conveniently failed to list any such powers or constitutional authority. Hogwash, said Justice Thomas. He pointed out that offenses allowing indefinite jail time need not even be a sex crime. Someone serving time for mail fraud or tax evasion could be declared “dangerous” if a prosecutor feels he or she might have a “tendency” to commit further crimes, even if the sentence was not for a criminal conviction.
Sex crimes, violent crimes, property crimes, drug crimes – whatever the circumstances of the offense, one would think that when the sentence is done, it’s done. If there is a terrible crime involved, then the courts should hand out longer sentences. It should be noted that three of the five defendants appealing their sentences to the Supreme Court were convicted of possessing pornography, not physically endangering any child. Continue Reading…………….
Alas, Jim, you and I know full well that we’ve had express thoughtcrime statutes on the books for decades. The Supreme Jerkoffs are merely giving their fellow State gangsters the “legitimacy” so that the booboisie will tug their chins and say “it must be okay because it is legit.”