Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/6/2006 3:42:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 4:01:37 PM EDT by Napoleon_Tanerite]
Say a guy is picked up for a felony in his early 20's. He does his time on good behavior and is released on probation. He does his probation without a hitch, and is now a 100% free man.

Does he deserve to be treated like someone who never got in trouble? Should he still recieve special consideration when applying for a job/loan/ect?

What about rights restoration? He served his time to society and has stayed out of trouble, so should he still be being punished? Or once a con, always a con?

ETA: This is for a serious, REAL crime, say armed robbery, but he didnt hurt anyone.

IBTP
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:44:21 PM EDT
depends on the offense.

Some felonies are just jokes (like people going to jail for violating federal wetlands laws by moving dirt around on their land).

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:44:35 PM EDT
My personal feeling is that, though he served his time/debt,
that's only one part of the punishment.

Felons renigged on thier societal dues, and, hence,
some of thier rights are now surrendered.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:45:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
Say a guy is picked up for a felony in his early 20's. He does his time on good behavior and is released on probation. He does his probation without a hitch, and is now a 100% free man.

Does he deserve to be treated like someone who never got in trouble? Should he still recieve special consideration when applying for a job/loan/ect?

What about rights restoration? He served his time to society and has stayed out of trouble, so should he still be being punished? Or once a con, always a con?

ETA: This is for a serious, REAL crime, say armed robbery, but he didnt hurt anyone.

IBTP


POST_WHORE!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:45:49 PM EDT
Since almost any violation of the law can be treated like a felony, it deserves a review.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:46:01 PM EDT
As long as they do their time, then stay out of trouble they should get ALL their rights back.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:46:10 PM EDT
I try to deal with people by taking the whole person into account. I have a friend who got in some trouble at 19 but now at near 60 he is a very different man. I think it is case by case in all truth. If god can forgive, so can I. Most I just trust no further than I can throw em.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:48:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NonConformist:
As long as they do their time, then stay out of trouble they should get ALL their rights back.



+1

I think recidivism would drop sharply if this happened.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:49:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 3:49:27 PM EDT by tesnevo]
Where is the "AW GEEZE NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN PIC" when you need it.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:52:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:
depends on the offense.

Some felonies are just jokes (like people going to jail for violating federal wetlands laws by moving dirt around on their land).




+1
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:52:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 4:00:01 PM EDT by goodmedicine]
The government is the biggest felon you will ever meet.

Do they deserve forgivness?

I'm in a mood

GM
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:54:37 PM EDT
Remember that it is one thing to forgive them, and entirely another to ever trust them again.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:57:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:
depends on the offense.

Some felonies are just jokes (like people going to jail for violating federal wetlands laws by moving dirt around on their land).




Don't mess with the Army....

<­BR>


Army Corps of Engineers that is!
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:57:47 PM EDT

Should cons be treated differently?

[ 5 ] YES! Once a con, always a con!
[ 17 ] NO! They served their time, let them get back on their feet


Gee... great poll.

First you ask if they should be forgiven, then your poll reverses the answers... and neither of the answers make sense. Neither answer answers the question.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:57:54 PM EDT
You screwed your poll up AGAIN.

"Do cons deserve forgiveness?" is the title of the thread.

First poll answer is "YES" but that is not the desired result.

This poll is meaningless, the thread is now mute.... and we are all dumber having read it.


I call a do-over.

(or edit you title to make it work with the poll, dumbass)
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:59:34 PM EDT
Forgiveness is between the crook and his victims. the role of the state should be punishment first, rehabilitation second, and simple warehousing as a last resort.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:59:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FALARAK:
You screwed your poll up AGAIN.

"Do cons deserve forgiveness?" is the title of the thread.

First poll answer is "YES" but that is not the desired result.

This poll is meaningless, the thread is now mute.... and we are all dumber having read it.


I call a do-over.

(or edit you title to make it work with the poll, dumbass)


I was thinking I might have been the retarded one, but I was pretty sure I wasn't.

I'm just glad someone sucks and it isn't me!
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:00:03 PM EDT
Case by case basis.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:00:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zack3g:
Case by case basis.




+1
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:02:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MlTCHELL:

Originally Posted By FALARAK:
You screwed your poll up AGAIN.

"Do cons deserve forgiveness?" is the title of the thread.

First poll answer is "YES" but that is not the desired result.

This poll is meaningless, the thread is now mute.... and we are all dumber having read it.


I call a do-over.

(or edit you title to make it work with the poll, dumbass)


I was thinking I might have been the retarded one, but I was pretty sure I wasn't.

I'm just glad someone sucks and it isn't me!



fixed it. sheeeeesh
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:08:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
depends on the offense.

Some felonies are just jokes (like people going to jail for violating federal wetlands laws by moving dirt around on their land).




+1



+2

I know a guy who got drunk when he was 18. Stole a bicycle. Yes it was dumb. Unbeknowst to him at the time, the bicycle was valued at a couple thousand bucks. Bang! Instant felony. Never really been in trouble before or since, yet he can't vote, or buy a gun. Total load of shit.

How about the fact that almost every unconstitutional gun law violation is a felony.

Felony is supposed to be reserved for really serious crimes, usually those that harm someone else. Chickenshit and/or victimless crimes are too often being made into felonies.

We seem to be getting to the point where the same people who say a child molester needs "rehabilitation" while some schmuck who's gun does not fit into some arbitrary dimension should be locked up.

Some wonder why respect for the law in general is going down the tubes...
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:39:33 PM EDT
Bottom line. If someone’s too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, to hunt, or to vote, then why the fuck did we let them out of prison in the first place?

If someone serves their time as far as I’m concerned they should have the same rights as anyone else. But there’s a whole lot of people who should stay locked up a very long time.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:42:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Thuban:
Bottom line. If someone’s too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, to hunt, or to vote, then why the fuck did we let them out of prison in the first place?

If someone serves their time as far as I’m concerned they should have the same rights as anyone else. But there’s a whole lot of people who should stay locked up a very long time.



+1, also it's way too easy to be a felon nowadays.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:43:39 PM EDT
If someone cannot be trusted with a gun, a job, to travel unincumbered and to vote then they should be in prison.

There USED to be such a thing as paying your debt to society.

Besides, everything is a felony these days. Most of you are already felons that just haven't been caught.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:46:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:55:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 4:55:56 PM EDT by WizardOfAhs]
I voted "I like pie" and, here's why...

The choices other than "I like pie" don't reflect my thoughts because.....

I've met a FEW (I can count on ONE hand) convicted felons that were truly worth something and made a good life for themselves through hard work and some old fashioned honesty and ceased stepping on their dicks.

And..

I've met LOTS of worthless cons that IMHO are STILL shitbird inmates, running games, etc. For MOST, IMHO, once a shitbird, always a shitbird. The latter however is NOT ALWAYS the case, occasionally, there are some "goodguys" that simply fucked up once or maybe even twice that straighten out and fly right, and for them, I have no problem in knowing them, befriending them and calling them "MEN".
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:57:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fourays2:

Originally Posted By Thuban:
Bottom line. If someone’s too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, to hunt, or to vote, then why the fuck did we let them out of prison in the first place?

If someone serves their time as far as I’m concerned they should have the same rights as anyone else. But there’s a whole lot of people who should stay locked up a very long time.



+1, also it's way too easy to be a felon nowadays.



True, there is THAT.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:59:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:
depends on the offense.

Some felonies are just jokes (like people going to jail for violating federal wetlands laws by moving dirt around on their land).




Yeah, I agree.

But rapists need a bullet in the head.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 8:25:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:
depends on the offense.



Yep . And when you kill some ones life with a BS felony they don't have many options left .
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 8:35:53 PM EDT
Should cons be treated differently?


I'm sure going to.

Only a fool wouldn't. What are you going to do, let them babysit your kids when you go away for the weekend?


Other than that it would depend somewhat on the situation.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 9:54:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 9:56:00 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Thuban:
Bottom line. If someone’s too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, to hunt, or to vote, then why the fuck did we let them out of prison in the first place?

If someone serves their time as far as I’m concerned they should have the same rights as anyone else. But there’s a whole lot of people who should stay locked up a very long time.



Like hell.

It should depend on the crime and what the felon actually does with his/her life. They should have to earn it back AFTER doing their time.

There is no such thing as paying your debt to society… at least where violent felons are concerned. That is a term used by criminal coddlers. We went down that road early last century and the reward was soaring crime rates. If you can show me how a rapist, child molester, or any other violet felon can undue their crime then they might be able to pay their debt to society.

There are ways for a criminal to get their rights back… problem is most of them never take the needed steps. Just how many of them do you actually think ever make or even try to make any meaningful compensation to their victims.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 10:01:53 PM EDT
personally, i think that if you've been released, the gov't is saying that you've paid your dues

i think they should be given a chance to start over
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 10:05:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 10:08:35 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
personally, i think that if you've been released, the gov't is saying that you've paid your dues

i think they should be given a chance to start over



That is absolutely NOT what the Government is saying or there would be no further restrictions.

No one has ever been able to explain exactly how a rapist, child molester, murder, or someone that has done violent harm to someone can paid their dues… it ain’t possible.

Link Posted: 3/7/2006 5:52:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
depends on the offense.

Some felonies are just jokes (like people going to jail for violating federal wetlands laws by moving dirt around on their land).




+1



+2

I know a guy who got drunk when he was 18. Stole a bicycle. Yes it was dumb. Unbeknowst to him at the time, the bicycle was valued at a couple thousand bucks. Bang! Instant felony. Never really been in trouble before or since, yet he can't vote, or buy a gun. Total load of shit.




So you want theives who have poor impulse control and drink to excess to vote and buy guns?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:34:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

So you want theives who have poor impulse control and drink to excess to vote and buy guns?



do you want to lump guys who move dirt around and make one bad decision after having too much to drink to be lumped in with murders and rapists?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:37:27 AM EDT
You mean, should we piss on them as soon as we find out about their criminal past?

Nope.

But should we allow them to possess weapons, vote, and act like nothing ever happened?

Nope.

Actions have consequences.

And sometimes, just sometimes, the consequences are for Eternity.

Eric The(LawAbiding,MoreOrLess)Hun
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:43:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 8:48:26 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
C'mon folks, get real!

The only reason this ever comes up is because the DemoCraps realize that the only way that they can increase their voting strength is through immigration and allowing their natural constituency, felons, to vote.

Check out this article from John Fund in the WSJ:

My Felon Americans

Why Hillary Clinton and John Kerry want to let criminals vote.

Monday, March 7, 2005 12:01 a.m.

The Constitution grants states the authority to determine "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections," but Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are pushing a Count Every Vote Act that would, among other things, force states to allow voters to register at the polls and declaring Election Day a federal holiday. And then they want to force every state to let felons vote--even though the 14th Amendment specifically permits states to disfranchise citizens convicted of "participation in rebellion, or other crime."

Forty-eight states deny the vote to at least some felons; only Vermont and Maine let jailbirds vote. Thirty-three states withhold the right to vote from those on parole. Eight deny felons the vote for life, unless they petition to have their rights restored, and the Clinton-Kerry proposal would force them to enfranchise felons (or "ex-felons," as Mrs. Clinton misleadingly calls them) once they've completed parole.

Mrs. Clinton says she is pushing her bill because she is opposed to "disenfranchisement of legitimate American voters." But it's hard not to suspect partisan motives. In a 2003 study, sociologists Chistopher Uggen and Jeff Manza found that roughly 4.2 million had been disfranchised nationwide, a third of whom had completed their prison time or parole. Taking into account the lower voter turnout of felons, they concluded that about one-third of them would vote in presidential races, and that would have overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidates. Participation by felons, Messrs. Uggen and Manza estimated, also would have allowed Democrats to win a series of key U.S. Senate elections, thus allowing the party to control the Senate continuously from 1986 until at least this January.

Liberals normally avoid partisan arguments in expressing their support for voting by felons. Instead, they point to the disproportionate racial impact. Sometimes they overstate that impact, as Mara Liasson of National Public Radio did last week when she said that "I would expect if you did a study, you would find that probably the vast majority of [felons] are African-American." In truth, a little more than a third of disfranchised felons are black.

But that hasn't stopped advocates from raising the specter of Jim Crow. In 2002, the Maryland Legislature restored voting rights to twice-convicted nonviolent felons. The Old Line State already allowed those convicted of one felony to vote after finishing parole. Sen. Joan Carter Conway of Baltimore, said any restriction was excessive: "We don't want to go back to Jim Crow. We don't want to go back to poll taxes. We don't want to go back to literacy tests."

Such arguments disturbed many moderate blacks. "By making a race issue of restoring voting rights to convicted felons, they've once again convinced many that liberal black Democrats--and probably blacks in general--are soft on, or sympathetic to, criminals," wrote Gregory Kane, a Baltimore Sun columnist. "That's why you would never see the NAACP of the Walter White or Roy Wilkins era advocating the restoration of voting rights to convicted felons."

The allegation that laws restricting felon voting are racially motivated is flawed. Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar, author of the classic book "The Right to Vote," points out that many states passed such laws before the Civil War. Later, the laws were passed in many Southern states by Reconstruction government run by Republicans who supported black voting rights. Mr. Keyssar says that "most laws that disenfranchised felons had complex and murky origins," often centering on the notion that "a voter ought to be a moral person." As one judge noted: "Felons are not disenfranchised based on any immutable characteristic, such as race, but on their conscious decision to commit an act for which they assume the risks of detection and punishment."

This is not to say that some states don't take laws against felon voting too far. Some have overly cumbersome procedures for restoring such rights. One could certainly distinguish between nonviolent felons and murderers and rapists. If I sat in a legislature in a state with a lifetime ban, I would probably support restoring the right to vote to those who had completed jail time and parole. I wonder if liberals would similarly back restoration of the right to own a gun to felons who had similarly done their time and finished parole.

In any case, it is the states that should make such decisions, based on local circumstances and debate. And the states are moving. Delaware and New Mexico recently liberalized their laws. In Connecticut, then-Gov. John Rowland, a Republican, signed a bill in 2002 that allows felons on parole to vote--a provision he can now take advantage of, since he was forced from office last year and later pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge.

Careful and considered deliberation at the state level isn't enough for Sens. Clinton and Kerry. They insist on a one-size-fits-all policy that Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, calls "nothing less than the wholesale restoration of voting rights to convicts--and that suggests an agenda that's more partisan than altruistic."

Republicans in Congress have their own partisan motivations for opposing any enfranchisement of felons. Leaving the matter to the states probably will mean more felons regaining the right to vote than Republicans would like but fewer than Democrats desire. And that's probably about the right solution.

Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006382

Eric The(CompletelyRational)Hun
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 12:15:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
C'mon folks, get real!

The only reason this ever comes up is because the DemoCraps realize that the only way that they can increase their voting strength is through immigration and allowing their natural constituency, felons, to vote.



BINGO
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 1:06:35 PM EDT
Nope, it also comes up whenever people realize that we'll never get people to give two craps about trying to conform to society's rules if we continue exclude them from the benefits of that same society. It's really not hard to see that things just aren't working out with our justice system as is.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:33:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 3:34:11 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By PBIR:
Nope, it also comes up whenever people realize that we'll never get people to give two craps about trying to conform to society's rules if we continue exclude them from the benefits of that same society. It's really not hard to see that things just aren't working out with our justice system as is.





You are so right it is not the criminal fault society made him.

So someone who has ALREADY proven they cannot obey the law will magically become a up right citizen because we give back the rights they had contempt for in the first place.

I got this email from a guy in Nigeria boy has he got a deal for you…
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:40:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Actions have consequences.



They should. But it seems to be increasingly unpopular opinion.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:44:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Actions have consequences.



They should. But it seems to be increasingly unpopular opinion.



Preach it...
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:45:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

So you want theives who have poor impulse control and drink to excess to vote and buy guns?



do you want to lump guys who move dirt around and make one bad decision after having too much to drink to be lumped in with murders and rapists?



Nobody gets caught the first time.

To get convicted of a felony you have to do it enough times and carelessly enough that you get caught. You have to do it in a manner so offensive that the DA decides to not only file charges, but files felony charges instead of letting you plead down to a misdemeanor. Then a jury of 12 has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that you did it. Its a long process with plenty of escape routes for the good guys.

Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:51:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

So you want theives who have poor impulse control and drink to excess to vote and buy guns?



do you want to lump guys who move dirt around and make one bad decision after having too much to drink to be lumped in with murders and rapists?



Nobody gets caught the first time.

To get convicted of a felony you have to do it enough times and carelessly enough that you get caught. You have to do it in a manner so offensive that the DA decides to not only file charges, but files felony charges instead of letting you plead down to a misdemeanor. Then a jury of 12 has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that you did it. Its a long process with plenty of escape routes for the good guys.




Amen

Has everything we learned during the 60s and 70s about coddling criminals been forgotten… the average felon has a rap sheet 10 feet long before he ever get convicted of the first felony.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:55:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PBIR:

Originally Posted By NonConformist:
As long as they do their time, then stay out of trouble they should get ALL their rights back.



+1

I think recidivism would drop sharply if this happened.



I doubt that highly. Do you really think there are felons out there who think to themselves "Gee, I can't vote, and I can't own a gun. I think I'm gonna go rob a liquor store!"

What "rights" do felons lose other than gun and voting rights?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:59:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
C'mon folks, get real!

The only reason this ever comes up is because the DemoCraps realize that the only way that they can increase their voting strength is through immigration and allowing their natural constituency, felons, to vote.



If this were true, then you would expect the Republican party to have done a whole lot more about immigration than they have, since there are more immigrants being generated than ex-felons...
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 4:02:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
C'mon folks, get real!

The only reason this ever comes up is because the DemoCraps realize that the only way that they can increase their voting strength is through immigration and allowing their natural constituency, felons, to vote.



If this were true, then you would expect the Republican party to have done a whole lot more about immigration than they have, since there are more immigrants being generated than ex-felons...



Not related.

Illegals don't vote and cannot buy guns.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 4:03:07 PM EDT
If you want to destroy gun rights in this country the go ahead and see what happens if violent felons get their gun rights back because a large proportion of them will repeat.

If you want guarantee even more restrictive gun laws go ahead.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 4:07:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:




You are so right it is not the criminal fault society made him.

So someone who has ALREADY proven they cannot obey the law will magically become a up right citizen because we give back the rights they had contempt for in the first place.

I got this email from a guy in Nigeria boy has he got a deal for you…



Not my idea, it's the idea of criminologists who actually study the issue. How much research have you done?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 4:09:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
If you want to destroy gun rights in this country the go ahead and see what happens if violent felons get their gun rights back because a large proportion of them will repeat.

If you want guarantee even more restrictive gun laws go ahead.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.






Ha! Right you are! Because we all know that it is soooooooo hard for a felon to get a gun the way things are now. That law isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 4:12:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PBIR:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:




You are so right it is not the criminal fault society made him.

So someone who has ALREADY proven they cannot obey the law will magically become a up right citizen because we give back the rights they had contempt for in the first place.

I got this email from a guy in Nigeria boy has he got a deal for you…



Not my idea, it's the idea of criminologists who actually study the issue. How much research have you done?



Plenty I lived through the consequences when criminologists screwed up before.

Uh... it was criminologists pushing exactly this kind of coddling horseshit that cause crime rates to skyrocket in the 1960s.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top