The plaintiff in this case is a serial molester of young children, convicted twice, paroled, and sent back to prison when he acknowledged contact with two kindergarten-aged children (a grave violation of the terms of his parole) and admitted to considering molesting them.

There's not much more justice in committing him involuntarily, nor would we prefer to incarcerate him for the rest of his life, if we can find other ways to prevent him from coming into contact with children.

> There's not much more justice in committing him involuntarily

In what way are you describing a healthy person? Would we call a person as being healthy if they had a problem with being aggressive, repeatedly committing assault, convicted several times, and admitting that they can't control their aggression and intentionally goes and look for people to beat up?

I think such person is likely to have a medical condition, psychological or actually brain damage, and treatment (involuntarily if needed) is best for both the individual and society. Trying to "find other ways to prevent them for coming into contact with people" would be horrible bad idea and unlikely to work.

> If Wisconsin's law is good, then why not apply it to all criminals that has been found guilty of serious violence?

I honestly don't have a problem with that.

I think we should acknowledge that some people are psychopaths who are mentally incapable of having moral qualms about hurting people, whether sexually or otherwise. They can't be redeemed; the only thing you can do is keep people safe from them.

Who decides?

What prevents this from degenerating into "You voted for X in 2016, so you have to wear this bracelet / 'voluntarily' attend this re-education camp / only travel in the orange zones on the map"?

"What prevents gay marriage from degenerating to polygamy and beastiality?"

This is the same argument just from the other side.

Now while I don't agree with this law on principle I really hate this type of hypothetical argument. If you embark on this road you can argue that a law which is aimed at fixing pot holes will cause the rise of the 4 riech.

It's not the same argument at all.

Why not beastiality? Consent.

Why not polygamy? Agency, inherent power inequality.

The reason why gay marriage won't "degenerate to polygamy and beastiality" isn't because people are somehow reasonable and know where to draw the line on the slippery slope.

It's because there's no slippery slope at all.

We have involuntary registration of various violent offenders for several decades now. Some offenders like sexual offenders actually have to go and make it known to all of their neighbors that they are a sexual offender. However I have yet to see it degenerate to people having to go around admitting that they voted for Bush. Slippery slopes are only as slipper as people want then to be. Society knows very well where to draw the line usually if it didn't it wouldn't function, you might not like where it draws it but it's not up to you to decide that on your own anyhow.

The constitution -- and the fundamental inalienable rights it enumerates -- were written to provide a backstop for when society fails to draw the line on a slippery slope.

This is exactly what happened with the legalization of gay marriage through the judicial branch.

Your comment is incredibly naive in the face of even contemporary world history, nevermind the generations of slave and feudalistic societies that came before us.