1984 Watch

Jeanine Pirro (D.A. for Westchester County, New York) was on Bill O'Reilly yesterday and made a stunning assertion, with relation to a supreme court-approved law that enables individuals that have been determined by a jury to have a mental imbalance, to be held indefinitely. She maintained that this law could and should be used to incarcerate (or what she terms in chilling Orwellian double-speak 'civil confinement') sex offenders who have already served their sentences, as long as the state is able to prove that they are mentally abnormal. Since sex offenders have been proven to have a mental abnormality, what this interpretation of the law would do, is to empower the government to lock them up even AFTER they've served their sentence. In Pirro's own words:

"If the state would pass the law that the Supreme Court has already said is constitutional, that is to civilly confine them, then we would be on absolute strong ground...what else are we to do with 5,000 sex offenders who are roaming around free, where they are capable of striking again?"

O'Reilly (in a rare episode of standing up for civil rights) countered with double jeopardy (that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime) and the following exchange ensued:

O'Reilly: "Even though these people are out on the street, they've served their time...you'd re-arrest them and put them in front of a jury?"
Pirro: "What we do, is we flag them as a sexually violent predator, there's a hearing and a jury trial"
O'Reilly: "A trial? A trial on what?"
Pirro: "On whether or not they suffer from a mental abnormality that pre-disposes them towards violent sexual..."
O'Reilly: "This is a civil trial?"
Pirro: "A civil trial where we can treat them and separate them from our children...all approved by the U.S. Supreme Court"

Now, I'm no fan of sexual offenders but I'm even less of a fan of such blatant violations of civil rights. I mean, if the law determines a punishment at a certain level, how can it then go back and change the terms? Is this the kind of trust we want to breed in our government, in our laws...in our way of life? It just seems like an abuse (or, more accurately, manipulation) of law which, once a precedent has been set, can easily be applied to other groups of people.

In any event, it's very Orwellian and I don't like it one bit.