The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Comstock made it permissible t
ID: 3488180 • Letter: T
Question
The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Comstock made it permissible to use civil commitment to further detain sexually dangerous offenders beyond their date of scheduled release. This means that a person can be convicted, sentenced, serve their entire sentence and be scheduled for release but still detained.
In your post, discuss what is supposed to be accomplished by this further detainment and how this detainment may be terminated. What are some of the requirements of this detainment, and are these requirements justifiable?
Please make sure this is in your own words and not plagiarized........
Explanation / Answer
In your post, discuss what is supposed to be accomplished by this further detainment and how this detainment may be terminated. What are some of the requirements of this detainment, and are these requirements justifiable?
The purpose of this detainment is that the people who have been convicted, will not be released until it has been established that they could survive properly in the society. Until the fact that their ability to live in the society will not harm anyone again, and that they would not commit the same crime again, only then they should be released from the prison. The addition of this law was not a violation or misuse of the powers that congress had, rather, it is an addition to the laws, that were already meant for the good of the people. This detainment will only be terminated when it would be established that the person is mentally fit to live in the society and has absolute control over his actions and will not commit the San scrims again. Hence, this detention can stay for an indefinite amount of time. When it would be established that the person is capable of causing se-xually deviant behaviours, his sentence or civil commitment would be extended. Only one requirement is there to assert this law, that the government should be demonstrating that the prisoner would be having lack of ability to control his behaviour. There are no strict a regulatory stands to establish this, and hence this is not very justifiable, because a strict rule of law has not been placed for the same. The judgement can be fairly subjective and there may be potential human errors, since there is no fixed state of criteria. If the determination criteria were set, it would be more justifiable.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.