bikemutt
Member
I said yes to non-violent only.
I've met enough people in my 60+ years to realize some need a do-over in order to get it right.
I've met enough people in my 60+ years to realize some need a do-over in order to get it right.
Should ALL Felons Regain Their Gun Rights Upon Completion of Sentence/Parole?
- Thread starter Red Wind
- Start date
- Status
alsaqr
Member
Go work as a corrections officer; then come back and tell me all convicted felons should have their gun rights restored.
Reconviction rates of felons :
http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm
i cry no tears for convicted felons, especially violent felons.
Reconviction rates of felons :
http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm
i cry no tears for convicted felons, especially violent felons.
General Geoff
Member
If a person can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be let back into society at all.
BK
Member
A man who is a former convict and felon works or me. His crimes were years ago. He did seven or so years for it. I think I hired him in 2011.
He's likely the most honest and hardworking individual that I've met in my life. Infinitely so, more than the average American that I enteract with day by day.
Honestly guys, several times over these years, I've been bitterly tempted to sneak him a firearm. Why? Because I truly, honestly believe that it is completely and utterly wrong that his "sentence" must keep him helplessly disarmed for the remainder of his life.
This is just one anecdote example, but I do believe that if they are allowed to live next-door to me and work in my shop, they should be able to carry the same tool that hangs on my belt.
He's likely the most honest and hardworking individual that I've met in my life. Infinitely so, more than the average American that I enteract with day by day.
Honestly guys, several times over these years, I've been bitterly tempted to sneak him a firearm. Why? Because I truly, honestly believe that it is completely and utterly wrong that his "sentence" must keep him helplessly disarmed for the remainder of his life.
This is just one anecdote example, but I do believe that if they are allowed to live next-door to me and work in my shop, they should be able to carry the same tool that hangs on my belt.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
Should they? Yes
Should we have a recidivism rate of 75ish%? No
While we have a recidivism rate that high I don't support giving them back any rights, apparently they shouldn't even be out of prision. Get that recidivism rate down under 20% and maybe we can deal, until then.....nope.
Should we have a recidivism rate of 75ish%? No
While we have a recidivism rate that high I don't support giving them back any rights, apparently they shouldn't even be out of prision. Get that recidivism rate down under 20% and maybe we can deal, until then.....nope.
Bingo!
deadin
Member
This old chestnut again.......
First off, we would have to completely change our system of jurisprudence where all violent felonies would be for life unless it was determined that the detainee was no longer a danger to society.
Second, who gets to make this decision? And what happens if they were wrong?
Deus Machina
Member
Until prisons actually rehabilitate felons, no.
RX-79G
You have a point, were did that come from.
If you release a person from prison? Are you not saying all is well with this individual now? And it is safe for we Citizens to have them walk the streets of the places we live in.
I voted non violent crimes.
You have a point, were did that come from.
If you release a person from prison? Are you not saying all is well with this individual now? And it is safe for we Citizens to have them walk the streets of the places we live in.
I voted non violent crimes.
alsaqr
Member
Prisons cannot and do not "rehabilitate" convicted felons. Yes, prisons can institute programs to make rehabilitation of convicted felons possible. Convicted felons must "rehabilitate" themselves.
This country locks up more people per capita than any other civilized country on earth. For decades "law and order " has been the cry of the political right. Just lock them up and throw away the key.
Arguably the largest industry in the US is privately run prisons. Many "law and order" political hacks are in the pockets of the companies whose business is locking folks up.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20880-for-profit-prisons-eight-statistics-that-show-the-problems
Many states still lock folks up for simple possession of dope. OK is one of those states.
From my link:
Redlg155
Member
I've. been in the prison business for close to 20 years now, both in administration and security, so I have seen the pendelum swing front rehabilitation to punishment as a form of what we consider to be "justice". That being said, there are some who may benefit from intensive cognitive programming combined with vocational opportunities, while others are "institutionalized" and know nothing but prison life and don't see life in prison as a negative consequence of crime. In the end it is not the prisons who determine what treatment approach has is used, if any, to combat recidivism...it is the legislature and the legislative intent of prisons and the budgeting allowed for programs.
That being said, we can not involuntary hold someone in prison past the sentence imposed except in special circumstances. In Florida we have the Jimmy Ryce act for Sexually violent predators who receive a civil...not criminal. ..hearing for involuntary commitment.
Do I believe felons should own guns? Sometimes good people make bad mistakes or poor life choices. If you want to own a gun, request for the restoration of your civil rights and possible commutation of your sentence to the Governor and the parole commission. These decisions are best made on an individual basis and not by blanket policies.
So yes, if you took a ladder valued at over $300 from a construction site as an idiot teenager to make a deer stand, you should be considered. If you are a gang member with multiple violent felonies, then no. Each case is different.
That being said, we can not involuntary hold someone in prison past the sentence imposed except in special circumstances. In Florida we have the Jimmy Ryce act for Sexually violent predators who receive a civil...not criminal. ..hearing for involuntary commitment.
Do I believe felons should own guns? Sometimes good people make bad mistakes or poor life choices. If you want to own a gun, request for the restoration of your civil rights and possible commutation of your sentence to the Governor and the parole commission. These decisions are best made on an individual basis and not by blanket policies.
So yes, if you took a ladder valued at over $300 from a construction site as an idiot teenager to make a deer stand, you should be considered. If you are a gang member with multiple violent felonies, then no. Each case is different.
If you drove to work today, you probably committed five felonies before you got in the parking lot. On your return trip home, you will commit seven.
The basic question in my opinion is whom can you trust?. That is a difficult question and one that has never been answered and maybe never will. A quick google search will reveal all sorts of papers and studies, this one has a title I like: Violent crimes and their relationship to personality disorders. There are people out there who are dangerous, can't control their impulses, are predatory, these sorts should not have access to weapons. Finding them is not so easy and identifying them is not so easy.
The basic question in my opinion is whom can you trust?. That is a difficult question and one that has never been answered and maybe never will. A quick google search will reveal all sorts of papers and studies, this one has a title I like: Violent crimes and their relationship to personality disorders. There are people out there who are dangerous, can't control their impulses, are predatory, these sorts should not have access to weapons. Finding them is not so easy and identifying them is not so easy.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
It is fundamentally cruel to send a man out into the free world on his own, unable to defend himself. Sentencing him to a life of abuse by others leaves few options for survival but breaking of the law. If he truly must remain controlled longer, let it be in an institution, for both society's and the criminal's benefit. If there is no redeeming or forgiving his crimes, and if we are a society who loves freedom, a life of prison with no end is even more cruel. Freeman, or slave, all the way. No half-measures that end up blurring the distinction for everyone.
TCB
TCB
chicharrones
needs more ammo
I don't see how that is even possible for the average person going to work and back.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Then why did we let them out of jail to walk among us?
P5 Guy
Member
Restore!
If we are allowing a felon out into polite society then that ex-felon should have all the rights of any citizen.
:banghead:
If we are allowing a felon out into polite society then that ex-felon should have all the rights of any citizen.
:banghead:
I'm sort of in the middle on this. While I agree that in a perfect world no person should be allowed into society if he can't be trusted with a firearm, we don't live in that perfect world, and all things considered we can't afford to incarcerate every dangerous person indefinitely.
So what I would like to see is loss of rights considered in each case as an integral part of sentencing, instead of a taken-for-granted result of a conviction. If a judge says that 10 years of loss of 2A rights is part of the convict's debt, then his debt to society isn't paid until he's completed that part of his sentence. A lifetime loss would only be indicated in particularly violent crimes, when it is very unlikely the person will ever be truly rehabilitated, though may be granted parole at some point.
As it is now, by default, a felon's debt to society cannot ever be repaid, because included in that debt from the time of sentencing is a lifetime loss of civil rights. That fits with the 'punishment' model many still cling to, but flies in the face of the concept of rehabilitation.
So what I would like to see is loss of rights considered in each case as an integral part of sentencing, instead of a taken-for-granted result of a conviction. If a judge says that 10 years of loss of 2A rights is part of the convict's debt, then his debt to society isn't paid until he's completed that part of his sentence. A lifetime loss would only be indicated in particularly violent crimes, when it is very unlikely the person will ever be truly rehabilitated, though may be granted parole at some point.
As it is now, by default, a felon's debt to society cannot ever be repaid, because included in that debt from the time of sentencing is a lifetime loss of civil rights. That fits with the 'punishment' model many still cling to, but flies in the face of the concept of rehabilitation.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
That, or we once again recognize that life in prison without parole is less moral, and far too expensive, for everyone involved including the inmate, and reimagine our punishment systems to reward unforgiveable crimes with execution, and drastically reduce sentencing for those we don't feel are worth killing over. Basically the system we had before progressive "feelers" dreamed that prisons could be turned into sanitoriums, under the mistaken notion that crime was a communicable disease that could be contained & cured, absolving themselves/society of the difficult decision regarding life or death by locking away men for longer and longer periods whatever the crime.
We bankrupt ourselves keeping them contained as long as we can then toss them back into the free world defenseless, hoping they will be murdered in bloodless execution grounds like Chicago away from the decent people, or by the police if they should dare to arm themselves (or if they fall back into crime because "rehabilitation" has always been mostly a fraud). The goal is for society to avoid condemning these criminals to death, since a lifetime of crime, or being hunted by other criminals, or abused in prison, or an abuser in prison, is morally superior to a long drop from a short rope. This way we can all remain "untainted" by the needs of justice (as if we ever can, though)
TCB
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I see this argument over and over again and it just doesn't work with our penal system. It is a PENAL system, not some sort of behavior rehab. People who break the law have to pay a penalty, but nothing says they have to change. They may be just as bad as when they went in, or worse, when they leave, that part of their penalty being over. Part of the penalty for felonies is a loss of rights. That is a consequence and part of the penalty of being convicted of committing the felony.
Keep in mind that if we stopped releasing people because we thought they were still bad people, we would not be releasing approximately 77% of the people. The recidivism rate with 5 years is that high and about 56% are re-arrested within 1 year of release and 68% with 3 years.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx
With that said and already touched upon, I think it is fine that folks go through the process of petitioning to get their rights back, when it is applicable.
Technically, nowhere in the Constitution. Felons ostensibly should be allows to have firearms in prison. After all, what does "shall not be infringed mean," right? This isn't supported by federal law or state law, however, both of which uphold disenfranchisement to varying levels.
HoosierQ
Member
I, uncharacteristically, said yes. I say that only if we executed my grand plan to fix the justice system in this country. We've got a serious problem in this country. Incarceration. In my view, if you can't be trusted with your constitutional rights, you should not be let out. If you are somebody who can come and go from jail as a nice little punishment, you probably shouldn't be incarcerated (or hit with a felony) in the first place.
We ought to do like Singapore. Flog people. Do some piddly crime thing, you get a bunch of very painful whacks with a cane...and back into to society you go, presumably the wiser. They also execute a lot of people for things we wouldn't (and IMHO probably should). No, neither is practical and both come with a huge can of worms.
So my yes was hypothetical. We can be sure there are thousands of people locked up in prison who'd be perfectly safe with a gun on the outside. We can also be sure there are people who we let out that, allowed or not, society should cringe if they have a gun. That's just not right.
We ought to do like Singapore. Flog people. Do some piddly crime thing, you get a bunch of very painful whacks with a cane...and back into to society you go, presumably the wiser. They also execute a lot of people for things we wouldn't (and IMHO probably should). No, neither is practical and both come with a huge can of worms.
So my yes was hypothetical. We can be sure there are thousands of people locked up in prison who'd be perfectly safe with a gun on the outside. We can also be sure there are people who we let out that, allowed or not, society should cringe if they have a gun. That's just not right.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Good points, Double Naught.
jamesjames
Member
It is a chilling, sobering concept that rights can be taken away. If a rationale can be constructed to take away a felon's rights (and not all rights, only the ones we want to take away to make us feel better or think we can manage him easier), then a rationale can be constructed to take away certain particular rights from anybody for any feel-good reason. At that point they aren't rights anymore--they are privileges bestowed and regulated by the state.
Any discussion of suspending a violent felon's rights in favor of permanent incarceration means that society can find a justification to regulate or suspend any right that they fear. In an urban society, individual rights can be suspended in favor of supporting the smooth operation of the interdependent systems that modern urban society depends on. Instead of a "Brave New World", it should be considered a Cowardly New Order.
Taking away gun rights is always based on fear.
Any discussion of suspending a violent felon's rights in favor of permanent incarceration means that society can find a justification to regulate or suspend any right that they fear. In an urban society, individual rights can be suspended in favor of supporting the smooth operation of the interdependent systems that modern urban society depends on. Instead of a "Brave New World", it should be considered a Cowardly New Order.
Taking away gun rights is always based on fear.
Last edited:
- Status
