>Not going to start a long discussion on that now. Shouldn't need to anyway becuse I've posted so much in the past that it should be clear. My view on this is NOT inconsistent with that. Even if it were, I listed some of the issues with the supreme court ruling but that doesn't mean that I fully supported or agreed with every issue. I am surprised (based on previous posts of yours) that you support this which would actually cause me to question your "consistency" on some of those conservative views.
>
>Regardless, In this discussion, it looks to me like you are using a diversionary tactic in order to avoid the issues I listed. Instead of addressing them, you start interrogating my views on other issues to see if they are "consistent." I don't have time to play this round robin game though right now. Just too much to do. Besides not interested on the flame games anymore. I try not to play devils advocate anymore because it just goes on and on. Sorry...
>
>Rubbish - you're avoiding the question. I asked you if you supported the lawsuit. This is not a diversionary tactic. I'm not asking for a long discussion, I'm asking for a yes/no.
>
>I've already said that I wouldn't see the Supreme court decision as necessary or even correct, if there weren't such a colossal issue of violent sexual predators getting out early and doing the same thing again. I really do not care if a sexually violent predator has to stay locked up. AFAIAC, the Supreme Court (finally) questioned the accountability of a large part of the legal process. I wonder if you'd see it the same way if a repeat victim had been your own daughter.
>
>We are not talking about the Supreme court arbitraily deciding when to keep someone in prison - we are talking about a specific issue. You're barking up the wrong tree.

I do have relatives who have been victims. Regardless, that comment was a low blow and you know it. This will be my last post on this to you I think because of it.

My primary point remains - we cannot risk what is right about this country for a special circumstance that you feely strongly about. Instead, it needs to be done legally within the constitution and our laws and our judicial system. Change the laws so repeat sexual offenders can be sentenced adequately and retained if necessary for the public's safety based on demonstration of repeat offenses and/or psychological evaluations. That needs to be a part of the sentencing. Even the psychological evaluation requirement is disturbing if the person wasn't found mentally unsound when they went to trial. It would be too easy for the govt to find a psychiatrist to give the recommendation they want when they want it to meet that requirement. The civil commitment law at the state level is what needs to be used - and the sentencing laws.

I've already pointed out why the supreme court's ruling is wrong on so many levels.