- Joined
- Nov 7, 2012
- Messages
- 7,039
- Reaction score
- 3,268
- Location
- Denio Junction
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
First I think there should certainly be a distinction between violent and non-violent felons. Disarming non-violent felons is absolutely irrational.
As far as the violent ones go, I tend to lean more towards the belief that once they've completed their prescribed punishment, they should be treated equally. If they are still seen as "violent" or "owing something to society" then their punishment wasn't over.
Nope, they shouldn't be allowed to vote either.
The 2nd Amendment does not ban a convicted felon of any kind from owning a gun, but most states do. In fact the Federal Government does by statute. Should this be the law of the land or as the extreme gun right advocates say should a person released from prison, completing parole, and becoming a part of society have a right to keep and bear arms simply because the constitution doesn't say they can't?
When we sentence someone to a specific term in prison, (rather than death or life without parole), we are in effect saying "your crime is one with a finite cost and a finite payment; serve this time and your debt is paid".
To return them to society as a second-class citizen lacking many of the rights enjoyed by other citizens is a contradictory expression, saying that they have NOT finished paying for their crime.
Now I'll grant, as I've said many times, the way we do "criminal justice" is seriously fracked up. People are incarcerated who should not be; people get released who should not be released. But we need to fix that instead of engaging in self-contradiction.
Sexual offenders are sometimes "often?" pathological offenders. They are put on registries for the safety of the public. Violent offenders often aren't pathological, either involved in an escalated confrontation or taking revenge on an act that went unpunished. THe other violent offenders would be those who were thrust into the circumstance, I.E a home invader with no intentions of fighting someone is forced to engage in physical violence or be killed by the home owner. I see no logical reasons to disenfranchise felons post-rehabilitation.I disagree, I think that there should be enhanced consequences and certain privileges/right not being extended to convicted criminals. If you commit a violent felony it should be reasonable, under due process, to remove that person's gun rights after they have served their time. Felons can't vote, sex offenders are put on registries, and I don't think it's unreasonable to keep someone who committed a violent crime from owning a gun.
Sexual offenders are sometimes "often?" pathological offenders. They are put on registries for the safety of the public. Violent offenders often aren't pathological, either involved in an escalated confrontation or taking revenge on an act that went unpunished. THe other violent offenders would be those who were thrust into the circumstance, I.E a home invader with no intentions of fighting someone is forced to engage in physical violence or be killed by the home owner. I see no logical reasons to disenfranchise felons post-rehabilitation.
Do you fold or wad the Constitution before wiping your ass with it?Nope, they shouldn't be allowed to vote either.
"Often" suggests the majority, and denying rights to the majority based upon the actions of the minority is certainly questionable in practice.I don't want to put trust on "often." I think after time enhanced consequences are merited, doing the crime forfeits the right to own a gun post release.
Sexual offenders are sometimes "often?" pathological offenders. They are put on registries for the safety of the public. Violent offenders often aren't pathological, either involved in an escalated confrontation or taking revenge on an act that went unpunished. THe other violent offenders would be those who were thrust into the circumstance, I.E a home invader with no intentions of fighting someone is forced to engage in physical violence or be killed by the home owner. I see no logical reasons to disenfranchise felons post-rehabilitation.
My post followed along the previous suggestions of an alternative criminal sentencing that practiced rehabilitation as opposed to punishment. Sorry for making such an equivocal post.We're talking violent felons with an apparent pre-disposition to violence. We're also talking about our criminal rehabilitation system or lack thereof. Most matriculate in the can. We punish but we really don't rehab so when the time is served, it doesn't mean the problem has been cured. To me recognizing that fact says clearly not to give violent felons access to guns.
I disagree, I think that there should be enhanced consequences and certain privileges/right not being extended to convicted criminals. If you commit a violent felony it should be reasonable, under due process, to remove that person's gun rights after they have served their time. Felons can't vote, sex offenders are put on registries, and I don't think it's unreasonable to keep someone who committed a violent crime from owning a gun.
Under our current "legal justice system" I have reservations about restoring all rights to a convicted violent felon.
First I'd prefer to reform the system, so that the incorrigibles are either executed or put away somewhere secure and unpleasant for life, while those felons who are fixable are incarcerated in rehabilitation facilities and are not released until there is solid evidence of real reform.
If that were how our system worked, then once released from custody I would expect the reformed felon to have all his rights restored to him.
Even under our current system, the rule against felons owning guns is something of a bad joke. I've known felons to re-arm themselves within 24 hours after release. Best to assume anyone you cut loose into society WILL re-arm himself if he chooses to do so. The fact that they can't legally buy from a dealer doesn't slow them down in the slightest.
Your avatar being the perfect fictional case-in-point.Except that it doesn't. Keep them from owning a gun, I mean. They still can and many do, just not legally.
I'm saying if we can't trust them with a gun, don't let them out at all.... because if they want one, they'll get one.
Nope, they shouldn't be allowed to vote either.
I don't want to put trust on "often." I think after time enhanced consequences are merited, doing the crime forfeits the right to own a gun post release.
First I think there should certainly be a distinction between violent and non-violent felons. Disarming non-violent felons is absolutely irrational.
As far as the violent ones go, I tend to lean more towards the belief that once they've completed their prescribed punishment, they should be treated equally. If they are still seen as "violent" or "owing something to society" then their punishment wasn't over.
To be fair though, if you put non-violent people in jail with violent people, they have to become violent to survive, so they will be violent on release.
This is why I think non-violent offenders should ALWAYS be separated from the violent ones. They should be in minimum security prisons and treated completely differently. These people actually have a real chance of integrating back into society. Putting a tax evader in with murderers and rapists is just insane.
But that is exactly what happens and there are consequences to that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?