I hate agreeing with Scalia

I also hate writing posts about sex offenders and child pornography because there's no way around it--it's really just kind of awkward. The things I do for you people. Anyway, I'm about to agree with Scalia AND simultaneously disagree with a law permitting extra confinement of sexual predators, so hopefully I still have readers tomorrow. (Hooray for class assignments and mandatory readers!)

So, getting down to business--today the Supreme Court handed down the ruling in U.S. v. Comstock. The Court upheld a law allowing extra confinement of individuals deemed to be "sexually dangerous," specifically allowing the civil confinement of "an individual who is currently “in the custody of the [Federal] Bureau of Prisons,” §4248, if that individual (1) has previously “engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation,” (2) currently “suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder,” and (3) “as a result of” that mental illness, abnormality, or disorder is “sexually dangerous to others,” in that “he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.” §§4247(a)(5)–(6)."

Essentially, making it easier to lock up sex offenders--always a good thing right? Don't hate me, but in this case PLEASE NO. The Court justified this decision by deciding that Congress has "broad authority" to pass laws that are "rationally related" to its constitutional aims. Furthermore, the "choice of means" for carrying out its aims is left "primarily … to the judgment of Congress." Those are some SWEEPING statements if I ever heard any and expands Congress' authority by considerably more than any previous decision.

What would motivate the Court to go so far? I'm pretty sure it's got to be The Children. There is a definite cultural precedent that we must at all cost PROTECT THE CHILDREN, Constitutional rights and precedents be dammed. This fear is what lead the Court to criminalize the mere possession of child pornography in the much-criticized Osbourne v. Ohio. Innocent-seeming images that appeal to a pederast are illegal to possess, effectively creating the codified idea of a thoughtcrime--it is illegal to THINK that an image is arousing. Slippery. Slope.

I understand where this impulse comes from. Sexual abuse of a child is a heinous, horrifying crime. But I will argue that to ignore the rights of the perpetrator is worse.

Even if that makes me a conservative for the day.