Predatory Precedence

The Supreme Court recently decided it was ok for the government to hold what it dub's "Dangerous Sexual Predators." Justices, in the 7-2 ruling, said that some sexual predators are just too dangerous to be release into society after their prison sentences end. The court claims civil commitment laws being used to keep so called predators locked up after their prison sentences ends is not a violation of due process under the constitution.

No doubt, some of the men being civilly committed after their prison term are without much question, heinous criminals and predators by definition. But, the way court ruled, there is a very dangerous precedent being set that could someday allow anyone the government deems "dangerous to society" to be locked up indefinitely. That fact in and of itself is a gross violation of every fabric of constitutional law and principle as well as prior legal precedent. It will undoubtedly open Pandora's Box for the next big "coined predator" and we should all be alarmed by that.
 
If the government wants to keep sexual predators in prison indefinitely, why not change existing laws to provide the courts with such a remedy as life in prison. Why the court opens the door for the government to subjugate and grossly contort the constitution to fit its needs is beyond anyone's guess. What is next, "drug dealers are a dangerous predator ….murderers are dangerous predator….a shop lifter is a dangerous predator…" the list could go on and on and with this decision, the door is wide open to make a case to nullify an individual's most basic due process rights.  A prison sentence should end when it ends and if society wants so called sexual predators to remain in prison then courts and juries and judges should be give the legal remedy to do so without endangering everyone else's constitutional rights.

The fact remains that just as many offenders of other types who leave prison commit serious and sometimes heinous crimes as sexual predators. It should not be up to the courts to remedy a perceived wrong in the justice system by subverting the constitution to clean up its own horrid mess to begin with. To do so just sets a predatory contitutional precedent in general and in law.

Are we to go back and decide people we locked up three, four, five, ten years ago should stay in prison longer because we do not like the sentence they received in the justice system? This whole idea smacks of the very kinds of legal injustices our founding fathers fought against and who made a point to address with such constitutional law governing due process. It is a frightening thought to think, our Supreme Court of the land would antagonize these principles and open the door to a meltdown of due process in the name of a socially trendy position.