MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
A law could be passed to ban the inclusion of anything affecting voting rights into a sentence, so the topic is still legit for discussion.If one of the penalties for conviction of a felony is loss of voting rights, it is wrong to claim a felon has finished paying their debt to society for their actions when they have finished their sentences and parole.
Perhaps the correct way to address the voting issue is to either reconsider what constitutes a felony, or to identify which felonies should not include loss of voting rights once the other parts of their sentence have been completed.
A law could be passed to ban the inclusion of anything affecting voting rights into a sentence, so the topic is still legit for discussion.
We allowed Teddy Kennedy to be Senstor for the ret of his life.....
Fair enough.That is what I suggested.
However, the argument on this issue typically includes a statement that the felon has paid their debt to society, but still doesn't have the right to vote. The loss of the right to vote is part of that debt, so it's not accurate to claim they have finished paying it.
Once that can be honestly admitted to, the debate can center on whether a debt that includes loss of voting rights is too high, or whether it applies to a far too broad category of offences.
Once all punishment has been completed, the full of a citizen's rights should be recognized once more.
Fair enough.
My fear, should popular opinion ever sway lawmakers in this direction, is that judges would then start adding draconian fines to sentences that the vast majority of felons would never be able to pay, thus meaning the sentence is never truly "paid". They could be let out of prison at x-time, but they'd still have fines owed. We (lawmakers included) can never seem to leave things at face value, we have to find a way around the intent of something.
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
I have never understood how illegally-earned money can be legally taxable. In my mind the government's expectation of taxes legitimizes the illegal activity.I guess that is why they have, if I recall correctly, various categories of felonies.
The other thing is, if a felony involved money (drugs, etc.) the IRS is always there to apply unreported income standards and to levy tax/fines for failure to report the income. A person could serve time, and then upon release, the taxes, penalties, and accrued interest will be waiting, never to go away.
Sometimes those fines take many forms.
All the more reason to avoid qualifying for them in the first place.
I have never understood how illegally-earned money can be legally taxable. In my mind the government's expectation of taxes legitimizes the illegal activity.
Actually, to me, this is a perfect example of a government "end-run".
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
Of course they should. They paid for their crimes.
It's this irrational drive to keep them under a permanent stigma that causes recidivism.
They should be granted full rights once they have fully completed their criminal sentence.
Well...SOCIETY would and has said that there are certain rights you forfeit when you willfully commit a felony. That HAS been the standard for pretty much...ever.Of course. I don't know why anyone would say otherwise.
There should be some form of established standard and they should be able to petition the courts for the reinstatement of their rights. All of them. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.
There should be some form of established standard and they should be able to petition the courts for the reinstatement of their rights. All of them. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
Taking away voting rights shouldnt be taken lightly. We should all fear that the government has the power to remove Constitutional rights. The right to vote, the right to bear arms (etc) should not be violable by our government. Yes I know some people say that voting is not a right, but what good is our Constitution if the government can dictate who can vote? Some States dictate that felons cannot vote. There is no federal law regarding voting rights of convicted felons. This is just another example of States trampling Americans rights.
When one has had their license revoked they have to go through the process of taking the written test and driving test as well as show compliance with judgements that caused them to loose their license in the first place. I dont think it is unreasonable to expect a felon to demonstrate to show cause for the reinstatement of their rights.I think it should be the other way around. If the government wants to continue punishment, they should be the ones to petition for the extension of force.
When one has had their license revoked they have to go through the process of taking the written test and driving test as well as show compliance with judgements that caused them to loose their license in the first place. I dont think it is unreasonable to expect a felon to demonstrate to show cause for the reinstatement of their rights.
Thats OK. We just disagree with procedure...not in the restoration of the rights. Im not comfortable with the blanket restoration of rights. Im not comfortable with automatically restoring the rights of a felon to keep and bear arms. Id like some sort of show of good faith.Yeah, but for rights (rather than license) I think it's the State that must make its case for continued force. This is due to my personal opinion that upon completion of punishment, rights should automatically be recognized again.
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
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?