Post a response:
|
Wow, Tyred's really going to some length to attack you...how curious. Trying to get a rise out of you, for sure! The only thing that jumped out at me from your look-up of a.i. was the vagueness, i.e. if one is "targeted" or not. Whoa! Looks to me like there are SEVERAL vague bottom lines to these laws, including the federal (and i'm glad you looked into that!). The state i was interested in was Washington state. Where some were recently seeking to openly organize but fear got the best of them. They appear to not even know of this law in their state. NOT only for those whom have already been convicted. Here's some of the info i found via Oncefallen.com (a powerful indy project by a badass Registered Citizen who often goes on TV): (...) "The Hendricks decision opened up a disturbing trend of lowering strict standards that existed in the past. The decision upheld the Kansas statute which allowed civil commitment for a lesser standard of “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder.” SCOTUS stated they never made a standard of proof for civil commitment, instead opting to allow legislatures the discretion to determine the standard for civil commitment and the legal definition of mental illness or similar definitions. Each state legislature can essentially adopt their own standards and burden of proof for civil commitment. (...) "In Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, (a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer) the US Supreme Court held that Hendricks set forth no requirement of total or complete lack of control, but that the Constitution does not permit commitment of the type of dangerous sexual offender considered in Hendricks without any lack-of-control determination. Required proof had to be sufficient to distinguish the dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjected the offender to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case. The Court concluded that an absolute finding of lack of control since this approach would risk barring the civil commitment of some highly dangerous persons suffering severe mental abnormalities. "The Court noted, “Hendricks referred to the Act as requiring an abnormality or disorder that makes it ‘difficult, if not impossible, for the [dangerous] person to control his dangerous behavior.’ Id., at 358 (emphasis added). The word ‘difficult’ indicates that the lack of control was not absolute. Indeed, an absolutist approach is unworkable and would risk barring the civil commitment of highly dangerous persons suffering severe mental abnormalities.” "In short, SCOTUS set the bar fairly low for allowance of civil commitment by allowing civil commitment under the lower standard of “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder” that makes it “difficult” (not impossible) to control certain sexual urges. While some degree of proof of dangerous must be proven, there is no universal standard, and the Courts have not offered a definitive standard. (...) SOURCE: https://oncefallen.com/civil-commitment/ Note: i was surprised that the NAMBLA website has nothing about this. Does anyone know if NARSOL has info? i didn't find anything easy to find, anyway. Bottom line, i see the vagueness of this kind of law. And tyranny loves vague laws. Of course, "lawful" or not, when tyranny shows up (often in the form of zealous hysteria mongers, whom seem to be everywhere), such vagueness is used to do heinous shit. Nothing new going on here. So why doesn't BC have a link to such laws as they show up??? i find that most disconcerting. Something oriented to legalese would make major sense, right? Thanks for your quickwork to help me get into some research of my own. As for myself, when this stuff started being implemented, i well remember how i was analyzed and dealt. The group of professionals, and then, once, when two or three such similars sent a toddler down my way, all by himself. Where i was resting in the shade on a hot day. Seeming to assume/think i was So Sick that i would immediately rush upon the small kid and go Nuts! Wow! What ideology can do to the ideologically-challenged! [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst] |