Court Considers Voting Rights For Ex-Cons

[Safety First]

I believe once a felon has served his time,he should still be able to vote...as for firearms, if the felons crime was not of a violent nature with or without a weapon, then what right does the government have to tell the felon he loses his right to bear arms once he has served his sentence.. ? In Ga a convicted felon can not even hunt,not even with a bow and arrow...personally I see no sense whatsoever in doing that to anyone who has served their time...Even good people can go wrong, but once the term is over,why should he keep paying?

 

[geekWithA.45]

In light of the fact that "felony" is losing it's meaning...

With ever more trivial crimes being defined as felonious, it's just too damned easy to become a felon. Get caught peeing by the road in some states? Well, yer busted for exposing your genitals, nevermind that you where 20 yards in the woods, behind a bush. And exposition of the genitals is a SEX CRIME, and SEX CRIMES are FELONIES...you starting to get the picture?

It makes it too damned easy to disenfranchise people. You wanna disenfranchise car owners? Declare 3 unpaid parking tickets to be a FELONY.

You wanna disarm/disenfranchise gun owners? See NJ as a model.

I'm going to have to side with the rights restoration crowd.

Long story short, there are lots of folks who deserve second chances. Search TFL for stories of guys who lost their gun rights because of some stupid stunt they did when 18, and spent a year in the pokey, and then lived the next 20 years as model citizens.

Besides, perhaps it'll motivate honest folks to get the bleep up and vote, knowing that the felons are on the case

 

[Ebbtide]

Search TFL for stories of guys who lost their gun rights because of some stupid stunt they did when 18, and spent a year in the pokey, and then lived the next 20 years as model citizens.

Okay, after 20 years that's ok by me (kind of follows JackC's comments). But after serving that one-year sentence if he were able to get his rights restored where is the deterrent for the next guy who does something "stupid" (BTW "stupid" is when it happens to some one else, some folks call it "awful" when the crime is commited against to them, or their children)?

Aside from the "peeing at the side of the road" type felonies, which are still in the minority, I still don't understand how we can spend money on public defenders, prosecution, incarceration, prison guards, state and local police, judges, jurors, bailiffs, higher property and medical insurance premiums, alarm systems, holsters, guns, ammo, medical bills for the uninsured, etc....... and after a few years in jail we all call it even and you are free to go vote or carry a firearm.

We still need accountability and punishment for criminals that goes beyond what society can afford, taking away their rights is the only way in my opinion. Unless some of these ex-felons want to pony up some cash for me to offset the my costs of the above, then I will call it even and that they have repaid their debt to society.

 

[geekWithA.45]

First, to clarify:

There are some crimes that should have long lasting repercussions. We all know what they are: murder, rape, major assault, and the like. I'm not talking about those.

I'm talking about kids joyriding cars, pinching a case of beer, the long list of people busted for pot posession, and other felonies that simply don't have far reaching, long term consequences.

Do I approve of any of these activities? Nope. (I'm conceding pot posession = bad for the sake of this and only this argument, lest we get sidetracked.) Should they get off with a slight slap on the wrist? Most of the time, no. The punishment should FIT the crime.

Should they result in permanent loss of inalienable rights, in these lesser cases?

Nope.

There are plenty of folks who need to be come down upon HARD, but we must disciminate (in the original meaning, which is: to use sound judgement) between who is hardcore and hopeless, and who isn't.

Unless some of these ex-felons want to pony up some cash for me to offset the my costs of the above, then I will call it even and that they have repaid their debt to society.

So, the value of inalienable rights (rights revocation sorta begs the whole inalienable scene, doesn't it?) can be described in the equation:

inalienableRights = $prosecution + $incarceration + $victimRestitution?

 

[Silver Bullet]

If their sentence is complete, they should have their rights restored completely.

I agree with this.

 

[Ebbtide]

inalienableRights = $prosecution + $incarceration + $victimRestitution?

Yes at a minimum, in the context of criminals having their rights restored. I would even go as far to add restitution to society, which can never be satisfied which is why the punishment lasts for life (although you could make a case for that young man who ran into a burning building several times to rescue babies).

Case in point: A friend was hit by a drunk driver my senior year of high school and lost his legs. This was back when a DUI was not a "serious" crime and Insurance was not required by law. He was in the a hospital and recovery too long and missed his chance to use his athletic scholarship, he did not go to college, could not get a girl, could not have kids, and got no money from the driver of the car. Now, he is on disability and we (taxpayers) have more than a million dollars vested into this man. The case was pleaded down to reckless op and he got off with a few thousand dollars of lawyer fees and costs. Now, just how in the heck is the driver supposed to pay him restitution and serve off a million dollar debt to society? What are legs worth these days anyway?

I agree with your "lesser cases" point, and that is why beer pinchers can have their record cleared after demonstrating they can live by the rules we tell them. But "kids" are kids, and juvenile offences do not follow them to adulthood. If you are 18+ and are joyriding around in my car, I must have not gotten off a clean shot, or my rights were infringed to the point that the criminal should lose theirs (or both).

Don't get me wrong, the system needs to be fixed and not all felonies should be categorized that way. I just can't argue that once time is served, regardless of the crime, the criminal should get his rights back.

 

[JackC]

Think about it now, just what rights can be and cannot be taken.
Freedom of speach-I shout fire in a theater, get busted, pay my fine /jail time. Do I have my vocal chords removed?? I do it again, same question. Do it a third time ( can't help it, slow learner. I are a BT).
Next case, I own a small town newspaper, and hate your guts. I print a story accusing you of commiting unnatural acts with the next door neigbors french poodle. You prove the neigbor has a 150 lb rottwiler that has a Brinks truck for a chew toy. I'm tried and convicted for slander, but still own the newspaper. I hate you even more now, so I reprint the same story. Is my right of free speach removed?? How about voting? How about owning a handgun? How about attending the church of my choice?
Next case, I am tried and convicted of income tax evasion, what rights should be removed??

The point I'm getting to is a RIGHT cannot be removed by the government, if it can be removed, it's a privlege, not a right.
As to the case of the drunk driver, looks like the judge and district attorney are the ones that allowed the plea bargin, maybe they should be the ones you need to question.
Violent crime sentencing should be harsh, strict, and unbarginable.
strongarmed robbery-10 yrs
with a weapon (armed robbery) -15 yrs
Someone hurt in robbery -20 years. all for first offence
2nd offence double the sentence, no good behavieor - I expect good behavier in jail. No proale or probation for violent offences.
All rights restored upon completion of sentence.

As to the right to vote, I like the Heinlin idea in Starship Troopers. Only those serving or did serve in the Armed Forces have the right to vote, if you don't love your country enough to to defend it, than you don't vote. Only voters can serve in elected office .

Jack