>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html?hpt=T2
>>
>>Finally, they show some guts.....
>
>I disagree STRONGLY. Tough on crime doesn't mean arbitrarily changing sentences and holding people beyond their sentence. Tough on crime means being tough at the time of sentencing and within the law.
>
>As much as I would love to see sexual predators behind bars indefinitely, if the government or society needs dangerous people behind bars indefinitely to protect society, then I think the sentencing law should have changed instead. Once the sentence is served, they should be free (as horrible as that idea is). If they need the opportunity to keep sexual predators behind bars, then the law for the possible sentences should change. Once a person is sentenced, that is his/her sentence unless he/she breaks the law again, (which will trigger a new sentence or new court case) or breaks parole (which puts them back into jail by already existing laws). You cannot arbitrarily decide to keep someone behind bars after their sentence is completed. That is getting too close to the practice of governments 100 years ago who would keep people behind bars indefinitely. Scary. Where will it stop? This is just another example of government overstepping its bounds I'm afraid. It is a clear case of overstepping the bounds and very very scary. What offenses will be affected next? Who decides who is so dangerous that they can be held indefinitely beyond their sentence? CRAZY
>
>I agree with Judge Clarence Thomas on this one - the federal government has overstepped its bounds.

Blame Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_offender