TwitchALot
Member
akodo said:It is part of the sentence. It is applied 'en-mass' when a crime is classifed as misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony. Felony means you have the tag 'felon' tied around your neck for the rest of your life. However, the purpose of this isn't to give you a paperwork version of a scarlet letter, it is so that additional parts of the sentence continue to apply to you FOR LIFE, even though your actual physical incarceration may end after just a few years. That's why most of the time it is called 'felony conviction' because you are getting jail time + lifetime status as a felon.
Kind of how it was part of the sentence, applied 'en-mass' when the crime was the color of your skin, and a less than High Road word means you have the tag "not so high road word" tied around your neck for the rest of your life? And so even if you were released from "servitude," you were still a "not so high road word" and those additional parts of the "sentence" continue to apply to you for LIFE, even though your servitude may end after a few years?
Hardly. If someone isn't sentenced, in a court of law, to not be able to possess firearms for a period of time for their crime, they shouldn't be punished for it, plain and simple. The deprivation of rights should only occur through the due process of law.
To all of you who think that as soon as you serve your given time, the slate should be wiped clean. Does that hold for pedophiles? Should an elementary school teacher provider who molested children be able to walk right out of jail and get a job as a playground monitor or a janitor at a day-care center? Or are we allowed to let the person out after 10 years, but still apply some restrictions to him such as 'no unsupervised interaction with children for the rest of your life'
It holds for everyone, because everyone should be equal under the law. And as I said earlier, you should be allowed to apply restrictions such as, "no unsupervised interaction with children for the rest of your life" PROVIDED that it is done through the due process of law and is a part of the sentence given. Passing a law that prohibits a certain group from doing something is hardly that, and in addition, hardly qualifies as "equal under the law," as far as I'm concerned. Laws that selectively target people for punishment shouldn't be laws at all.
If you are so concerned about a pedophile molesting children in the future, then how hard would it be for you to ask the judge for an additional sentence that includes staying away from certain areas? How hard would it be to plead your case in a court of law and administer punishment appropriately and justly, through the due process thereof?