Biden’s SCOTUS nominee once argued judicial system is ‘unfair’ to sexual predators

Jackson argued the unconstitutionality of certain preventative measures adopted as common practices by state governments and applied to confirmed sex offenders.

Per the Harvard Law Review article “Prevention Versus Punishment: Toward a Principled Distinction in the Restraint of Released Sex Offenders,” she argued that America’s judicial approaches might be unfair to sex offenders.

“This Note critiques current judicial approaches to characterizing sex offender statutes and suggests a more principled framework for making the distinction between prevention and punishment,” Jackson wrote in the piece.

Jackson maintained that “even in the face of understandable public outrage over repeat sexual predators, a principled prevention/punishment analysis evaluates the effect of the challenged legislation in a manner that reinforces constitutional safeguards against unfair and unnecessarily burdensome legislative action.”

SOURCE

35 thoughts on “Biden’s SCOTUS nominee once argued judicial system is ‘unfair’ to sexual predators

  • March 1, 2022

    So Jackson is being criticized because she wants the laws to be constitutional! Interesting

    Reply
  • March 1, 2022

    I hope she gets on the Supreme Court and thumbs her nose at Senator Cruz and his ilk in the Senate. Time to end this draconian law that has destroyed more lives than it’s helped.

    Reply
  • March 1, 2022

    With Regard to Judge Jackson:

    From The Washington Post:

    For her thesis, titled “The Hand of Oppression: Plea Bargaining Processes and the Coercion of Criminal Defendants,” Jackson read scholarly work but also reported on the ground, spending her first year after college in New York as a reporter at Time magazine, then sitting in on meetings and interviewing 25 judges and lawyers as she interned at the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem. She read novels such as Tom Wolfe’s “Bonfire of the Vanities” in search of the emotional realities behind each case file……..

    Over more than 128 pages, she built an argument that the system pushes many defendants — “coerces” them — into taking pleas. But again and again, she pushed back against her own theory, weighing the benefits of pleas: lesser punishments, speed and a certainty that no trial can offer.
    In the end, Jackson decided it was unfair to push people to plead guilty to crimes they insisted they had not committed: “For the government to be allowed to engage in a prime facie injustice solely for the purposes of maintaining a system that is supposed to be dispensing justice is, to me, not only paradoxical, but also nonsensical.”
    Yet she concluded that plea bargaining could not be abolished. “I must be realistic,” she wrote. Pleas were simply “far too prevalent and much too ingrained to be easily dismissed.”

    Yep, She Gets It, But Will The Politicians Get It?

    Reply
  • March 1, 2022

    I hope this is a sign that the vindictive public doxing (AKA: SORNA) is crumbling.

    Reply
  • February 28, 2022

    I want to stay positive, however she is only one person. I have seen so many cases where one or two justices did the right thing but the majority squashed people’s hopes and dreams like a steam roller running over a child’s freshly fashioned snow man.

    Reply
    • March 1, 2022

      CherokeeJ…Yes, That is So True!

      Only RGB and Some Other Jurists Have Correctly Argued/Dissented about the Constitutional Issues That We Face

      So If This Newest Jurist is Confirmed, Would It Not Be A Step Forward Because She Will Call Out Her Esteemed Colleagues When They Do Not Uphold The Constitution, Etc!

      This Potential New Jurist Calls it Like it is….SHe has ONLY been dissented by 12 Times in 600-plus Cases that She Has Been Involved With….SHe has been a Trustee of Sorts on both sides of the Political Spectrum..She is a Balanced Jurist—She is NOT a Mad Black Lady Pissed Off at the World-She Gets It!….She Has Ruled on an Affirmative Action Case That actually went against an African-American Person and she got some flax from her friends but she just Keeps Marching ON!

      FYI-For The Record
      Her Husband’s Twin Brother is Married to Paul Ryan’s Sister-in-Law!
      -Her Husband is from a very Tawny Bostonian White Family!

      Reply
      • March 2, 2022

        To Truth:

        There is an old Cherokee saying (Ok I do not know where it came from) that states:

        “Only time will tell”.

        Reply
  • February 28, 2022

    🤷🏻‍♂️ Oh well, with an opinion like that, she’ll never be confirmed. 🙄😫
    (Hopefully, she’ll be confirmed quickly with minimal uproar and slanderous commentary from opponents.👍🏻)

    Reply
    • February 28, 2022

      But seriously, its a wonderful shock when a judge actually “gets it” and SAYS SO!!

      Reply
    • March 1, 2022

      David…

      She Will Only Be Railroaded By People Like Cruz And Other Like Imposters! Those That Drink Some Weird Kool-Aid!
      -It Should Be Somewhat Tamed and She Will Probably Become Our Next Jurist!

      Please Remember, I am ‘A-Political’: Neither a Repub or a Demo….A Centralist/Realist!

      She Will Become The ‘Nudge’ on The Court That Will Keep Everyone Thinking and ‘ON Their Toes’

      She Will BE the Fourth Female On The Highest Court in Tandem!…So Now 4 Females!

      Something to Relish About! Probably, Much Better Reasoning Will Occur!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *