Haven’t read much about this decision yet, involving several convicted sexual deviants that have so far spent more than two years in prison beyond their original sentence. SCOTUS has upheld a law that federal prisoners can be detained indefinitely if it is determined that they continue to be ’sexually dangerous”. It appears that in the cases at hand , the men are being held until someone decides that they are somehow no longer a risk. I’m unclear on who makes that decision or how.

In the past, I have suggested to a friend that it is time to, at least, have a serious discussion about just such a law. I say this because it seems clear to me that there is no currently no “cure” for, say, pedophilia. So why pretend that a freed pedophile won’t strike again? Yes, I’m familiar with the high recidivism rate among most types of criminals, but i suggest that some crimes, such as those specifically aimed at children, might be a special case. Should there be a “two strikes” rule? If so, what should be the sentence? It seems to me that there should at least be a sentence–it should be something more defined than “X years plus whenever we decide to let you out”. Maybe “life with possibility of parole”? And on what is it contingent? A future therapeutic cure, consent to chemical castration, what?

Do you think this is a legally-defensible ruling? A morally-defensible one?

h/t to Talking Points Memo