Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Congress Can Lock Up Sexually Dangerous Persons (371 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  these are civil commitments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet

    we do it all the time for those who are mentally ill and a threat to society.

    So long as they are getting treatment and continual review, in theory, this isn't "throwing away the rule of law."

    •  Civil committments are usually very limited and (0+ / 0-)

      "treatment and review" can be woefully inadequate.  Such as:  "Here's some meds, see your local clinic and there's the door.  Goodbye!"

      •  That's not an indictment (0+ / 0-)

        of the concept, but on the execution.

        Which is something that can be addressed when it arises through judicial review.

        The concept does not offend the Constitution.

        •  Not that many years ago civil commitments (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jrooth, jfdunphy

          could put people in mental institutions for years with no trial, no real representation and no way out.
          This was so egregiously abused that laws were changed to protect the mentally ill. Civil commitments are limited as they should be.

          Treatment is another issue.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (59)
  • 2016 (50)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (37)
  • Media (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • Law (29)
  • Jeb Bush (29)
  • Culture (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • LGBT (16)
  • Congress (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site