Here is a short synopsis of the case----

http://tinyurl.com/pbum6qy

rewdiazepam

Wow. " criminal law has nothing to do with likability; it either applies to you or it doesn’t." Who would ever have imagined? On a personal level, Does this mean that people whose conviction didn't involve children but who maybe got violated anyway on Halloween (because they didn't post "NO Candy signs") might have a legal leg to stand on even if they too aren't scored as "likable" by society? Or does "compliance" require you to comply or be violated no matter how unlikable your PO is??? No matter what the actually hazy "Halloween" Letter says? I'm even starting to like Scalia a little more. Well, depends on what Scalia does here... LOL

I wouldn't be surprised to see Scalia rule in favor of the defendant. And no coastie that doesn't mean that he is better for us than other justices or conservatives are better than liberals. He may support us in terms of procedural due process but most certainly does not support us in substantive due process. Procedural due process will stop the bleeding now, but if we ever, EVER want long term change for this solution it is in substantive due process that we must hope for.

I see the 'I hate coastie fan club' is out today....
Wasn't even gonna post on it.

I don't hate you at all, there are even things we agree upon. I was just stating that I don't think procedural due process in our situation matters nearly as much as substantive due process. When Scalia is against this it just makes the congressmen and women work harder to pass another bill and add clearer, less vague wording to their draconian bills. It doesn't do anything to fix the underlying issue that punishing sex offenders differently and more harshly from all other criminals is not only wrong on its face it actually causes more harm than good.

It's the how it's implemented versus the why. I don't care as much of the how, let's work on getting rid of why we are even doing this in the first place and the how won't matter anymore. Again I'm not saying I am not grateful in the short term for conservative justices and what they have done with making sure the procedure is implemented fairly. I'm saying the long term solution is substantive, the why. The why is how we will win eventually.

The government luring someone into committing a crime? Who would have thunk it?

He already had CP Phillip so it wasn't like this was someone who wasn't ready to commit a crime and the government pushed him over the edge. Nevertheless, the amount of prison time for this crime seems beyond silly.

In the hands of Scalia? Sorry, but I see no good in the SO's ruling.