should ex felons be restricted
- Thread starter cheese_head
- Start date
- Status
TinCup
Member
Absolutely YES a convicted felon sould be restricted. The commission of a crime is a choice. If you choose to commit a crime, you pay the penalty. There's no need for debate on the subject...it's called personal responsibility.
TC
TC
beerslurpy
member
This is such a cop out.
1) these consequences didnt exist until 1993 and are steadily getting worse as more "serious" crimes are getting added to the list that prohibits firearms purchasing. They are even trying to add childhood offenses to the list. If your kid hits another kid in school, they could get him on assault, which is a serious felony for adults and would bar him from firearms use. Soon misdemeanor drinking and pot arrests will quality.
2) the brady system bars people that have had their rights restored because the ATF ignores requests to update their computer system. Once you get listed as a "prohibited person" you are prohibited forever unless someone like the president steps in for you.
3) the system treats murderers and check bouncers and youthful pot smokers all equally. No one is arguing that violent criminals and crazies should be allowed to get guns (I'm arguing that they dont belong in general ciruclation anyway) we resent that the police can enforce laws in a biased way and thus disenfranchise significant portions of the population.
Why is it that drug use is very widespread amongst the white population, but black people make up like 80-90 percent of arrests even though they are only 10 percent of the population? When you watch cops, to whose house are the police called for (now disqualifying) violent domestic disputes? Poor white people.
Its not a coincidence that the people that government generally doesnt want voting or owning guns are also the people that the cops are most often sent to harass. I think the real abuses of the brady system are yet to come. Wait until people have gotten used to it and they start adding traffic infractions and other even more petty crimes to the list.
I'm going to say that punishment should only be a lifelong thing for capital offenses. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, armed robbers, armed home invaders, etc. should be killed, no questions about it. They demonstrate a higher degree of disrespect for people's rights and property than do any other group of criminals; hence thier punishment should last just as long as it takes to flip the switch on the electric chair (pull trigger on fireing squad, open trap door on gallows, etc.).
However, for other groups of criminals, those that do not endanger life in their activities, I see no reason why after doing their time and hopefully learning their lesson, that they should not be able to exercise their rights.
Inalienable rights are those rights which we all possess. Even the most heinous criminal has the right to self defense and freedom. We just infringe upon that right by locking them up in a place where they (hopefully) can't get weapons.
The law isn't about taking rights away or restoring rights. It is about infringing upon existing rights, and the removal of that infringement.
I am of the mind that once a criminal has served their time (provided that crime was NOT one of those mentioned above that I believe warrants death), that all infringements upon their rights should be removed.
This is a practical consideration.
If a person (ex-convict or otherwise) wants a gun they will get one. Laws against it just ensure they will get one by less than legal means.
Laws against where a person can work make it very difficult for a person to find employment. It does no good to send a person to jail for a non-violent felony and have them get out unable to get any kind of meaningful job, leaving them with little choice but to either flip burgers or rob someone.
Their are many many felony crimes on the books, and not all DAs are as busy as those in major cities. It is not unimaginable for a person to commit a felony without even knowing it, get convicted and thrown in jail for a "crime" that is absolutely silly. Should that person have his/her rights infringed upon by society forever?
However, for other groups of criminals, those that do not endanger life in their activities, I see no reason why after doing their time and hopefully learning their lesson, that they should not be able to exercise their rights.
Inalienable rights are those rights which we all possess. Even the most heinous criminal has the right to self defense and freedom. We just infringe upon that right by locking them up in a place where they (hopefully) can't get weapons.
The law isn't about taking rights away or restoring rights. It is about infringing upon existing rights, and the removal of that infringement.
I am of the mind that once a criminal has served their time (provided that crime was NOT one of those mentioned above that I believe warrants death), that all infringements upon their rights should be removed.
This is a practical consideration.
If a person (ex-convict or otherwise) wants a gun they will get one. Laws against it just ensure they will get one by less than legal means.
Laws against where a person can work make it very difficult for a person to find employment. It does no good to send a person to jail for a non-violent felony and have them get out unable to get any kind of meaningful job, leaving them with little choice but to either flip burgers or rob someone.
Their are many many felony crimes on the books, and not all DAs are as busy as those in major cities. It is not unimaginable for a person to commit a felony without even knowing it, get convicted and thrown in jail for a "crime" that is absolutely silly. Should that person have his/her rights infringed upon by society forever?
Bemidjiblade
Member
I'm probably insanely stupid for saying this...
But I've cruised this with intense interest, what with me being a felon and all.
(No, I'm not going there, so don't ask).
But you guys are all law abiding citizens who either haven't committed serious crimes, or, just as likely, haven't gotten caught. I'm really respectful of this community at THR, so I'm going for the former.
So... At the risk of my good standing here, I feel a responsibility to weigh in. On the wrong side of the tracks we talk about being off of probation or parole (probation being if you've been in jail, parole being if you've been sent to prison) as being "off paper".
You have talked about recivitism, but I doubt many of you are familiar of the actual repeat offending rates of most crimes. I will never forget the day my PO summarizing that murderers have the lowest repeat offending rates, and sex offenders have the second lowest, just for starters. Most of the remoseless felons I know of are drug dealers and drunk drivers. Tell me those two things don't destroy lives...
You'll all probably be surprised to hear me agree with a lot of your arguments. I particularly empathize with the embittered and frustrated things I hear from the Parole Officers and Corrections Officers on this thread and others. I don't think I'd have the heart to do those jobs, even if I were permitted. I've been on paper for about 2 years now, and I've already seen too many men prove to me how untrustworthy they really are. And I've lost too many friends who didn't put in the effort to change their thinking and life, and they went back.
Ezekiel, you made a GREAT point about someone serving 7.5 yrs in prison and then being back on supervision for life. But you're probably also familiar that many felons never even see the inside of a prison, but merely a county jail et cetera.
My take on it is this: Once a felon is off paper, RKBA should be restored. That may sound too easy to many of you, but I doubt most of you are familiar with the enormous amounts of time that some of us are on paper for. It's nothing for the more violent offenders to be on paper for the rest of their lives, or for forty years. For all but extreme cases, I don't think that we should be allowed to use/possess fire arms while we are still on paper. And for many of the cases you are all discussing, that means a life-long ban. That is good and right! I agree with you on that one.
The hard truth is that many felons should never be trusted with firearms. But some of us are trying hard to correct the things in our lives that helped us make the wrong choices and committing the illegal acts that landed us on paper. I believe that this is reflected in the length of time felons are on probation, and that varies widely, from individual to individual and from crime to crime. I think that this does well to reflect the possibility that some of us are capable of rehabilitation. Whether that's a slim minority or not will probably depend upon your personal experiences and worldview. I know that the judge's opening statement for my own sentencing was, "Bemidjiblade, you give me hope."
I believe that felons should be able to expect a full restoration of rights if they get to the point where they are no longer "on paper".
I believe that if the crimes a felon is convicted of are such that they are on paper for forty years, or life, then they should resign themselves to not having the right to keep or bear arms during that period. While incarceration can vary widely at a judge's discression, probation/parole lengths seems to be much more consistent and conservative, and I think they make an excellent barometer for the RKBA.
The big problem I see with this, and perhaps the PO's and Corrections Officers can correct you all if I'm wrong, but if the felons I know of violate their probation, they don't get additional time on supervised release. I think they should have more time added to their supervision, so that probation lengths become a better reflection of the trustworthiness of the human being.
With that disclaimer, people should be able to get back the RKBA when they're done with probation or parole.
Just to restate, I think that felons should be able to regain the RKBA when and IF they are able to successfully complete their terms of probation and/or parole without showing any further antisocial behaviors.
Given the opinions posted here, I'm quite ready for this to be my last post on THR for the sake of the peace of the forum. I've really enjoyed my time here.
Oh, I've mentioned knowing other THR people. I hope that you won't think any less of them for associating with me. They're wonderful people with such strength of character I'm often amazed. I'm working hard to become more of the sort of person they already are.
PS. The statement that felons can defend themselves w/ their fists is debatable, but that's the plan. And what arms I may bear, (swords and my ability to train to defend myself), molon labe! Bemidjiblade signing out for now.
But I've cruised this with intense interest, what with me being a felon and all.
(No, I'm not going there, so don't ask).
But you guys are all law abiding citizens who either haven't committed serious crimes, or, just as likely, haven't gotten caught. I'm really respectful of this community at THR, so I'm going for the former.
So... At the risk of my good standing here, I feel a responsibility to weigh in. On the wrong side of the tracks we talk about being off of probation or parole (probation being if you've been in jail, parole being if you've been sent to prison) as being "off paper".
You have talked about recivitism, but I doubt many of you are familiar of the actual repeat offending rates of most crimes. I will never forget the day my PO summarizing that murderers have the lowest repeat offending rates, and sex offenders have the second lowest, just for starters. Most of the remoseless felons I know of are drug dealers and drunk drivers. Tell me those two things don't destroy lives...
You'll all probably be surprised to hear me agree with a lot of your arguments. I particularly empathize with the embittered and frustrated things I hear from the Parole Officers and Corrections Officers on this thread and others. I don't think I'd have the heart to do those jobs, even if I were permitted. I've been on paper for about 2 years now, and I've already seen too many men prove to me how untrustworthy they really are. And I've lost too many friends who didn't put in the effort to change their thinking and life, and they went back.
Ezekiel, you made a GREAT point about someone serving 7.5 yrs in prison and then being back on supervision for life. But you're probably also familiar that many felons never even see the inside of a prison, but merely a county jail et cetera.
My take on it is this: Once a felon is off paper, RKBA should be restored. That may sound too easy to many of you, but I doubt most of you are familiar with the enormous amounts of time that some of us are on paper for. It's nothing for the more violent offenders to be on paper for the rest of their lives, or for forty years. For all but extreme cases, I don't think that we should be allowed to use/possess fire arms while we are still on paper. And for many of the cases you are all discussing, that means a life-long ban. That is good and right! I agree with you on that one.
The hard truth is that many felons should never be trusted with firearms. But some of us are trying hard to correct the things in our lives that helped us make the wrong choices and committing the illegal acts that landed us on paper. I believe that this is reflected in the length of time felons are on probation, and that varies widely, from individual to individual and from crime to crime. I think that this does well to reflect the possibility that some of us are capable of rehabilitation. Whether that's a slim minority or not will probably depend upon your personal experiences and worldview. I know that the judge's opening statement for my own sentencing was, "Bemidjiblade, you give me hope."
I believe that felons should be able to expect a full restoration of rights if they get to the point where they are no longer "on paper".
I believe that if the crimes a felon is convicted of are such that they are on paper for forty years, or life, then they should resign themselves to not having the right to keep or bear arms during that period. While incarceration can vary widely at a judge's discression, probation/parole lengths seems to be much more consistent and conservative, and I think they make an excellent barometer for the RKBA.
The big problem I see with this, and perhaps the PO's and Corrections Officers can correct you all if I'm wrong, but if the felons I know of violate their probation, they don't get additional time on supervised release. I think they should have more time added to their supervision, so that probation lengths become a better reflection of the trustworthiness of the human being.
With that disclaimer, people should be able to get back the RKBA when they're done with probation or parole.
Just to restate, I think that felons should be able to regain the RKBA when and IF they are able to successfully complete their terms of probation and/or parole without showing any further antisocial behaviors.
Given the opinions posted here, I'm quite ready for this to be my last post on THR for the sake of the peace of the forum. I've really enjoyed my time here.
Oh, I've mentioned knowing other THR people. I hope that you won't think any less of them for associating with me. They're wonderful people with such strength of character I'm often amazed. I'm working hard to become more of the sort of person they already are.
PS. The statement that felons can defend themselves w/ their fists is debatable, but that's the plan. And what arms I may bear, (swords and my ability to train to defend myself), molon labe! Bemidjiblade signing out for now.
Bemidjiblade
Member
why I told you...
Oh yeah...
I didn't weigh in for your sympathy.
But because of excellent people I know, and my love for the passions and principles of the founding fathers of this nation, RKBA is very important to me, and so it seemed like I needed to weigh in from my perspective, even if the cost was your respect.
Oh yeah...
I didn't weigh in for your sympathy.
But because of excellent people I know, and my love for the passions and principles of the founding fathers of this nation, RKBA is very important to me, and so it seemed like I needed to weigh in from my perspective, even if the cost was your respect.
lostone1413
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 447
I don't think felons should own guns. Allot of people will say what about the non violent felon. The trouble with that is how many of the non violent felons had some money to start with so to do their dirty work they just hired someone. To me he would be as guilty as the one he hired. I bet almost the majority of the ones in a federal prison would fall in this class.
45-auto
Member
That about says it all, in my opinion. But then I'm an absolutist where the Second Amendment is concerned: I believe it absolutely prohibits any governmental regulation of arms whatsoever. Felons should NOT be an exception.
Lock 'em up or kill 'em, but if you let them loose they regain every right they lost when they went into the joint. That's practical reality.
No.
If an ex-felon (or felon on parole) is going to use a gun to commit a crime, why were they let out? Doesn't the parole board know that a criminal can get an off-paper firearm within hours of release?
Aside from that, it's mostly unenforceable.
If an ex-felon (or felon on parole) is going to use a gun to commit a crime, why were they let out? Doesn't the parole board know that a criminal can get an off-paper firearm within hours of release?
Aside from that, it's mostly unenforceable.
I, for one, would love to ask DMF if he (or she/it? PC you know) knows every single law in the US? There are so many laws that have been made into felonies that I'm sure that he (she or it) has broken enough (just like the rest of us) unknowingly to be in the same boat. As a federal officer, I'm sure that he (she or it) is "in the know".
If you can't be trusted with Rights that are yours from birth then you shouldn't be on the street. If you are on the street then you have (not should have) all your Rights.
I, for one, don't care what DMF or the government or whatever "power" is in charge, you are on the streets, you have your Rights. PERIOD. It's not our fault or problem that people like DMF can't keep the ones that shouldn't have guns off the street. It's not our problem that people use guns for killing/robbing/etc.. It's not our problem that the revolving door of the feds and the state governments allow people that can't be trusted from getting guns or committing crimes.
Our problem is the federal and the state governments and their employees letting those that can't be trusted out to commit more crimes.
Is a convicted person's (rightfully or wrongfully) life lower than ours? Do they deserve to die or to be defensless? If the answer is yes, then why doesn't the federal and the state governments and their employees just get it done when the person is caught?
Until you give a straight answer on why a person is lesser than another just because of a mistake and should be left to die at the hands of another, and don't give this "it's the law" BS, then I don't think that you really have a leg to stand on.
Oh, and DMF, don't go to Florida and spit on the sidewalk and be sure to dismantle your car if a horse is coming the other way... these laws are still on the books and are... felonies.
Wayne
*Don't get me wrong, but until you read each and every law on the books, don't tell me that anything is a "choice". You could be committing a felony at anytime without even knowing it and of course "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
If you can't be trusted with Rights that are yours from birth then you shouldn't be on the street. If you are on the street then you have (not should have) all your Rights.
I, for one, don't care what DMF or the government or whatever "power" is in charge, you are on the streets, you have your Rights. PERIOD. It's not our fault or problem that people like DMF can't keep the ones that shouldn't have guns off the street. It's not our problem that people use guns for killing/robbing/etc.. It's not our problem that the revolving door of the feds and the state governments allow people that can't be trusted from getting guns or committing crimes.
Our problem is the federal and the state governments and their employees letting those that can't be trusted out to commit more crimes.
Is a convicted person's (rightfully or wrongfully) life lower than ours? Do they deserve to die or to be defensless? If the answer is yes, then why doesn't the federal and the state governments and their employees just get it done when the person is caught?
Until you give a straight answer on why a person is lesser than another just because of a mistake and should be left to die at the hands of another, and don't give this "it's the law" BS, then I don't think that you really have a leg to stand on.
Oh, and DMF, don't go to Florida and spit on the sidewalk and be sure to dismantle your car if a horse is coming the other way... these laws are still on the books and are... felonies.
Wayne
*Don't get me wrong, but until you read each and every law on the books, don't tell me that anything is a "choice". You could be committing a felony at anytime without even knowing it and of course "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
Ezekiel
Member
To me, Absolutism, in any argument, is inherently simplistic. Are you merely a Second Amendment Absolutist, incorporating an ad hoc and laissez faire attitude towards your alignments, or do you apply a grand sweep of approval across all of the Declaration and Constitution documents? I'm merely trying to identify a pattern here...
Oh. Nevermind: I see a pattern. Basically, "It's not your problem."
Is this what you meant? Please (sincere), I await a clarification of your position as I am not an Absolutist on anything and you don't strike me as a "head in the sand" type.
Here's my position upon which we can debate: It is inherently more expensive (to a great degree) and significantly less fair (in terms of potential for personal/society harm) to continue to jail all offenders who might commit crime with a firearm as opposed to integrating (or attempting to do so) them back into society with restricted rights.
Agree? Disagree?
Thanks,
45-auto
Member
I'm pretty much an absolutist on the whole Bill of Rights. And some things ARE simple.
The BoR is NOT the government's gift to us. It does not give us anything. Instead, it was intended to set whole, large swaths of life clear out of bounds for government interference. It was meant to delineate areas where the government could NOT legislate or make rules of any kind. It was meant as a limit on government.
The whole idea that working out a compromise benefits everybody involved is, in my opinion, naive, especially when applied to civil rights. If you compromise, then you have set in motion a system where you'll simply keep giving rights up until you have none.
And, lawyers notwithstanding, weapons are the ultimate guarantors of all our rights.
The BoR is NOT the government's gift to us. It does not give us anything. Instead, it was intended to set whole, large swaths of life clear out of bounds for government interference. It was meant to delineate areas where the government could NOT legislate or make rules of any kind. It was meant as a limit on government.
The whole idea that working out a compromise benefits everybody involved is, in my opinion, naive, especially when applied to civil rights. If you compromise, then you have set in motion a system where you'll simply keep giving rights up until you have none.
And, lawyers notwithstanding, weapons are the ultimate guarantors of all our rights.
Ezekiel
Member
And, of course, weapons remain the tool most often used to restrict our rights.
As such, following your argument to a logical conclusion, the world would be safest if everyone possessed both nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? This would, of course, "guarantee our safety"?
Am I reading this correctly?
EZ, you're too late, I am the trouble maker here.
Let's just make this easy for you... ban all guns and such and all good things will happen. Put everyone in jail because, knowingly or not, they have broken the law. Hell, lets just kill everyone except government and state employees and get it over with.
If you are a free man or person or whatever, it isn't the governments place to place any restrictions on you. You are out and about, then you deserve to do so with all Rights. If you are not going to use what you have for good, then you should be dead. You another federal agent troll?
I will admit that fear of your fellow person isn't a good thing, but it keeps you honest doesn't it? And you will think twice about screwing someone over. That, is worth it don't you think?
Wayne
Let's just make this easy for you... ban all guns and such and all good things will happen. Put everyone in jail because, knowingly or not, they have broken the law. Hell, lets just kill everyone except government and state employees and get it over with.
If you are a free man or person or whatever, it isn't the governments place to place any restrictions on you. You are out and about, then you deserve to do so with all Rights. If you are not going to use what you have for good, then you should be dead. You another federal agent troll?
I will admit that fear of your fellow person isn't a good thing, but it keeps you honest doesn't it? And you will think twice about screwing someone over. That, is worth it don't you think?
Wayne
45-auto
Member
My last word on this topic: "When you come to get my guns, bring yours: you'll need them."
Pursuing a chain of logic too far very often results in absurd conclusions.
Pursuing a chain of logic too far very often results in absurd conclusions.
Bemidjiblade
Member
ehhh
45 Auto... You said that a man on the street HAS all of his rights back, but that is not in the best interest of the individual and society, and that is where the laws come from.
Rights can be surrendered. In order to gain one's freedom, we sign a paper that lists the conditions we're willing to abide by in order to gain our freedom. Everyone has to do it or they don't let you out the door. If the felon in question has signed a paper vowing to abide by the condition of not "using, owning, or possessing" a firearm, then why should we not hold them to their word?
Again... I think when that bit of paper expires, then they should regain their complete freedom.
45 Auto... You said that a man on the street HAS all of his rights back, but that is not in the best interest of the individual and society, and that is where the laws come from.
Rights can be surrendered. In order to gain one's freedom, we sign a paper that lists the conditions we're willing to abide by in order to gain our freedom. Everyone has to do it or they don't let you out the door. If the felon in question has signed a paper vowing to abide by the condition of not "using, owning, or possessing" a firearm, then why should we not hold them to their word?
Again... I think when that bit of paper expires, then they should regain their complete freedom.
jefnvk
Member
Nothing that hasn't been covered yet, but IMHO, there are two types of felons:
1) Non-violent. As already mentioned, this can cover a wide range of offenses. I was reading an article a while back, where a man in CA was being charged with a felony, simply because he ran over a seagull while doing donuts in a parking lot This can also include white-colar crime, computer hackers, failure to pay child support, theft, whatever. Basically, anyone that has comitted a crime, but didn't harm anyone in the process.
These types of people, for the most part, should never be in prison, or considered felons. IMHO, there needs to be another category for these types of crimes, esp. first offenses. They pay back their crimes and a little extra for the inconvienence, and go on in life with a black mnark on their record. All their rights are restored
2) Violent. These types of people are the rapists, murders, so on and so forth.
These people don't get out of prison, until they can be fully trusted. For the extreme cases, there is the death penalty. But, when these people are trustful enought to be released, they get ALL their rights back.
Anyway, since I know this isn't going to happen in the forseeable future, I guess I don't disagree with restricting felons rights to guns. What we need, though, is an ATTAINABLE way for them to get their rights back, where someone charged with a federal felony DOESN'T have to get a presidential pardon. Fill out some paperwork, go through a review, and the burden of proof is on them to prove you can;t be trusted with a gun.
1) Non-violent. As already mentioned, this can cover a wide range of offenses. I was reading an article a while back, where a man in CA was being charged with a felony, simply because he ran over a seagull while doing donuts in a parking lot
This can also include white-colar crime, computer hackers, failure to pay child support, theft, whatever. Basically, anyone that has comitted a crime, but didn't harm anyone in the process.These types of people, for the most part, should never be in prison, or considered felons. IMHO, there needs to be another category for these types of crimes, esp. first offenses. They pay back their crimes and a little extra for the inconvienence, and go on in life with a black mnark on their record. All their rights are restored
2) Violent. These types of people are the rapists, murders, so on and so forth.
These people don't get out of prison, until they can be fully trusted. For the extreme cases, there is the death penalty. But, when these people are trustful enought to be released, they get ALL their rights back.
Anyway, since I know this isn't going to happen in the forseeable future, I guess I don't disagree with restricting felons rights to guns. What we need, though, is an ATTAINABLE way for them to get their rights back, where someone charged with a federal felony DOESN'T have to get a presidential pardon. Fill out some paperwork, go through a review, and the burden of proof is on them to prove you can;t be trusted with a gun.
Ezekiel
Member
Not in the slightest. (And you know that.)
We merely disagree in some instances.
If you actually knew me, you'd find this to be an utterly laughable query.
Zeke
Ezekiel
Member
Then the subject matter is not a "chain of logic", it is a house of cards: the difficulty lies within the original assertion, based upon the conclusions that can be drawn.
More often, when a logical conclusion cannot be reached, it is because the premise is crap.
>wwhitby, it I'll say it again, it boils down to this, if you can't handle ALL
>the consequences, don't do the crime.
My friend never thought he'd get caught. I imagine quite a lot of folks think that way.
As I said in my earlier post, I used to think the way you do. But then something happened to make me take a good hard look at what I believed.
>the consequences, don't do the crime.
My friend never thought he'd get caught. I imagine quite a lot of folks think that way.
As I said in my earlier post, I used to think the way you do. But then something happened to make me take a good hard look at what I believed.
armoredman
Member
Bemidji, I wish you well. I had a kid get out a month ago I hope I never see again, because he was working very hard to straighten his life out after this one screwup. I certainly don't see anyone being less because they associate with you, if you are as you sound, a felon who made his screwup, did his time, and is not about to ever do it again. My next door neighbor is a felon - heck of a nice guy who has babysat my son! His offense was stupid, 25 years ago, and never repeated.
I will say your PO had it backwards - murderes to tend to reoffend at a high rate, but I can tell you sex offenders reoffend at an almost 100% rate. I work an SO yard now, and I see it all on that side.And no, I will not ask you your crime - I don't want to know the crimes of the inmates I supervise, so I will not treat them any differant from any other inmate. Firm, fair, and consistant is our motto, one the Feds should adopt....
Yes, the law states what felons can and cannot do, and that is the law. If you want it changed, work to do so - the legal way through your elected things, or BECOME one. Run for office, local, state, or national, and change things. At the very least, VOTE!
I will say your PO had it backwards - murderes to tend to reoffend at a high rate, but I can tell you sex offenders reoffend at an almost 100% rate. I work an SO yard now, and I see it all on that side.And no, I will not ask you your crime - I don't want to know the crimes of the inmates I supervise, so I will not treat them any differant from any other inmate. Firm, fair, and consistant is our motto, one the Feds should adopt....
Yes, the law states what felons can and cannot do, and that is the law. If you want it changed, work to do so - the legal way through your elected things, or BECOME one. Run for office, local, state, or national, and change things. At the very least, VOTE!
Last edited:
45-auto
Member
I'll regret this in the morning. . .
A released felon has no trouble obtaining a weapon (NOTE: I did NOT say at a licensed gunshop). Or getting a drink of whiskey. Or speaking his mind. Or attending the church of his choice. Or voting, if he moves to the right jurisdiction. Or avoiding a warrantless search during a random road stop, if he's not stupid about what's in plain sight.
We have this wonderful country because our forefathers sought to strictly limit the powers of government. In the intervening years, a lot of laws that reasonable people might regard as unconstitutional, illegitimate and not really enforceable have been passed, mostly by lawyers with no guts and fine suits. Anyone who chooses can obey them. Or not. There are potential consequences either way. A free man feels free to choose.
Arguments about the mechanisms of logical discourse almost always degenerate into dense thickets of incomprehensible prose. Wise men avoid them since they tend to waste a lot of time.
A released felon has no trouble obtaining a weapon (NOTE: I did NOT say at a licensed gunshop). Or getting a drink of whiskey. Or speaking his mind. Or attending the church of his choice. Or voting, if he moves to the right jurisdiction. Or avoiding a warrantless search during a random road stop, if he's not stupid about what's in plain sight.
We have this wonderful country because our forefathers sought to strictly limit the powers of government. In the intervening years, a lot of laws that reasonable people might regard as unconstitutional, illegitimate and not really enforceable have been passed, mostly by lawyers with no guts and fine suits. Anyone who chooses can obey them. Or not. There are potential consequences either way. A free man feels free to choose.
Arguments about the mechanisms of logical discourse almost always degenerate into dense thickets of incomprehensible prose. Wise men avoid them since they tend to waste a lot of time.
2nd Amendment
member
First off, I don't believe there should be any such thing as a "non-violent" felony. Now that's a bit simplistic and I am certain if we put our minds to it we could come up with something that could reasonably fill such a category, but I'll stick with that generalization.
Second, a violent felon should not be on the street if he or she can not be trusted. Screw the "debt to society" part, is this person a continuing danger? Yes? Then why are they out? No? Then why would we treat them any different than anyone else? And as far as the idea of "Don't do the crime if ya can't do the time", I would bet there's almost not a single person here who couldn't be busted and convicted by determined LEO for something from some point in their lives under current(and ever expanding) definitions of felonies.
But of course we're touching on the very foundation of government expansion: If everyone is a criminal then everyone is more easy to control.
Second, a violent felon should not be on the street if he or she can not be trusted. Screw the "debt to society" part, is this person a continuing danger? Yes? Then why are they out? No? Then why would we treat them any different than anyone else? And as far as the idea of "Don't do the crime if ya can't do the time", I would bet there's almost not a single person here who couldn't be busted and convicted by determined LEO for something from some point in their lives under current(and ever expanding) definitions of felonies.
But of course we're touching on the very foundation of government expansion: If everyone is a criminal then everyone is more easy to control.
Bemidjiblade
Member
Recidivism rates...
Armoredman,
I need to thank you for getting me off of my kiester to do some of my own research instead of taking other people's words for things. You were making the case that recidivism (re-offending) rates for murderers and sex offenders were the highest. It was worth digging up since the RKBA should be restored to persons on the basis of their likelihood of ever committing a new crime. So I'm doing some digging and throwing what I'm finding here since it seems germaine to the discussion and a good way to keep the debate centered in reality and not flights of fancy. Actually, it's been really easy since almost every time I check on a link to recidivism they're talking about sex offenders. Funny how little people are worried if someone's going to go back to selling 8 year olds crack.
The best summary I've come across so far is from Canada:
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections has an excellent breakdown of recividism of offenders released over a 15 year period between 1985 and 2000. I can't copy and paste it here although I wish I could. PLEASE if you're reading this post take the time and check out the chart at the bottom, it's a real eye-opener:
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/CHARTS/recidivi.htm#by crime type
To summarize for those just skimming through this post (you're missing out... check out this page! oh well... I tried....)
The overall recividism rates up to a 10 year period were around 40%. Recividism was divided up by crime, and the results are staggering.
Out of 27 felonies listed, sex offences other than rape had the second lowest recidivism rates overall at 16.9% in 15 years covered. Rape came in only 7th lowest out of 27th at 20.7%, nearly 50% lower than the general average. Murder II scored 3rd lowest out of 27 at 18.8%, followed by kidnapping (only 19.1%) and then manslaughter (19.7%).
I did run into some higher numbers, but also found interesting things linked with those numbers, such as what constitutes recidivism. The statistics I'm using are for new convictions. I don't have a link to a word for word quote, but the testimony of one of the ISR (Intensely Supervised Release) teams in nothern MN to Governor Pawlenty's commission on sex offending was summed up to me like this: "50% of the guys we get out of prison go back. Most of those are for violating no-drink orders, seeing their families, or doing drugs. Only 1% of them go back for committing a new sex offense."
To look at nationwide statistics, I found an interesting quote on the website of the American Psychological Association. Needless to say they probably have access to a lot of data on the topic.
I'm not saying this to undermine the validity of your personal experience. I can only imagine how much recidivism you see in the SO block. Then again, here in MN, the DOC reports that about 70% of sex offenders recieve jail sentences and probation, and are not imprisoned (amazing what one finds when he spends 3 hours digging through the internet for the sake of THR). So, you'd be dealing with the worst third of the lot! For my part, I want to thank you and all the other corrections officers willing to do such a low paying, dangerous, and often thankless job.
But... I've done my digging and the numbers I've found bear out what I've heard from my PO and others about murderers and sex offenders. How ironic is it that if we're talking about the felons most likely to be safer in the future, the people we here demonized all the time are the ones who are statistically far less likely to cause future problems.
Copernicus here I come....
Armoredman,
I need to thank you for getting me off of my kiester to do some of my own research instead of taking other people's words for things. You were making the case that recidivism (re-offending) rates for murderers and sex offenders were the highest. It was worth digging up since the RKBA should be restored to persons on the basis of their likelihood of ever committing a new crime. So I'm doing some digging and throwing what I'm finding here since it seems germaine to the discussion and a good way to keep the debate centered in reality and not flights of fancy. Actually, it's been really easy since almost every time I check on a link to recidivism they're talking about sex offenders. Funny how little people are worried if someone's going to go back to selling 8 year olds crack.
The best summary I've come across so far is from Canada:
(From the executive summary of a report on the recidivism rates of federal offenders given by the office of the soliciter general. http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/200302_e.asp )
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections has an excellent breakdown of recividism of offenders released over a 15 year period between 1985 and 2000. I can't copy and paste it here although I wish I could. PLEASE if you're reading this post take the time and check out the chart at the bottom, it's a real eye-opener:
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/CHARTS/recidivi.htm#by crime type
To summarize for those just skimming through this post (you're missing out... check out this page! oh well... I tried....)
The overall recividism rates up to a 10 year period were around 40%. Recividism was divided up by crime, and the results are staggering.
Out of 27 felonies listed, sex offences other than rape had the second lowest recidivism rates overall at 16.9% in 15 years covered. Rape came in only 7th lowest out of 27th at 20.7%, nearly 50% lower than the general average. Murder II scored 3rd lowest out of 27 at 18.8%, followed by kidnapping (only 19.1%) and then manslaughter (19.7%).
I did run into some higher numbers, but also found interesting things linked with those numbers, such as what constitutes recidivism. The statistics I'm using are for new convictions. I don't have a link to a word for word quote, but the testimony of one of the ISR (Intensely Supervised Release) teams in nothern MN to Governor Pawlenty's commission on sex offending was summed up to me like this: "50% of the guys we get out of prison go back. Most of those are for violating no-drink orders, seeing their families, or doing drugs. Only 1% of them go back for committing a new sex offense."
To look at nationwide statistics, I found an interesting quote on the website of the American Psychological Association. Needless to say they probably have access to a lot of data on the topic.
That's from their journal online. http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/newhope.html
I'm not saying this to undermine the validity of your personal experience. I can only imagine how much recidivism you see in the SO block. Then again, here in MN, the DOC reports that about 70% of sex offenders recieve jail sentences and probation, and are not imprisoned (amazing what one finds when he spends 3 hours digging through the internet for the sake of THR). So, you'd be dealing with the worst third of the lot! For my part, I want to thank you and all the other corrections officers willing to do such a low paying, dangerous, and often thankless job.
But... I've done my digging and the numbers I've found bear out what I've heard from my PO and others about murderers and sex offenders. How ironic is it that if we're talking about the felons most likely to be safer in the future, the people we here demonized all the time are the ones who are statistically far less likely to cause future problems.
Copernicus here I come....
captain obvious
Member
Absolutely not.
Once one has repayed their debt to society they should return to society with all the rights and priviliges that they enjoyed prior to the felony conviction. If a felon is not viewed to be responsible to exercise RKBA, then they have no business being out of jail. Felons deemed by the state necessary to have rights denied should be still in jail or executed. End of story.
This "Civil Death Penalty" is, in my view, both unconstitutional and immoral.
Once one has repayed their debt to society they should return to society with all the rights and priviliges that they enjoyed prior to the felony conviction. If a felon is not viewed to be responsible to exercise RKBA, then they have no business being out of jail. Felons deemed by the state necessary to have rights denied should be still in jail or executed. End of story.
This "Civil Death Penalty" is, in my view, both unconstitutional and immoral.
- Status
