1012 Offended

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Watching the news. Gov. Pataki and legislature talking about a law that would keep s3xual off3nders* locked up in psychiatric hospitals after their prison sentence expires.

I don't understand.

I understand the argument that some types of s3xual off3nders revert after prison. I understand the argument that they "can't be cured". Not that I necessarily agree, I just understand the argument.

What I don't understand is that if a psychiatric hospital is the proper place for them because they are still "sick" and require treatment, etc. etc., which is the proffered argument for detaining them beyond their sentence, then isn't that where they should have been in the first place? What was the purpose of putting them in prison for yea many years first, where they got no or very little treatment? Isn't there something in the Bill of Rights about this? If this is what we really want, if this makes sense, then shouldn't the original sentence have been hospitalization until certified cured? Why aren't they changing the sentencing quidelines/requirements to that?

It's like the more powerful party to a contract changing the terms of a signed and executed contract just because they later decide they don't like it.

I can think of several areas this kind of thinking could expand into, and it scares me.

------------
* the "3" is in there to foil search engines. I don't especially want people searching for that term to find this.
.