So Eric holder wants ex-cons to get their voting rights back.
Now, maybe they are focused on the "black men" too much, making me cringe at the subtle racism. But
then, it does have a noticeable effect, as they point out, in places like Florida.
How do you feel about ex-cons getting their voting rights back? Any other rights? 2nd Amendment? 4th Amendment?
Do you think they should have a "felony record" that follows them around like a bad smell?
For once I actually like this move. I've long been a supporter of giving people back all of their rights
after they do their time.
A) They did their time (theoretically anyways), so the punishments should end, and the loss of rights is a punishment.
B) If the con was someone I couldn't trust to have their rights, I wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I agree. Holder's argument is bad but his objective is good. If restoring cons' rights is a good idea, it's a good idea regardless of the race balance; if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea regardless of the race balance. I do think it's a little much to say that if we don't trust them we should leave them in prison. There's a huge difference between incarceration and merely lacking a few rights. But absent any particular reason why they should not have a right (like a violent offender losing their Second Amendment rights) they are citizens and should not be treated as second-class citizens.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I agree. Holder's argument is bad but his objective is good. If restoring cons' rights is a good idea, it's a good idea regardless of the race balance; if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea regardless of the race balance. I do think it's a little much to say that if we don't trust them we should leave them in prison. There's a huge difference between incarceration and merely lacking a few rights. But absent any particular reason why they should not have a right (like a violent offender losing their Second Amendment rights) they are citizens and should not be treated as second-class citizens.
I agree. Part of the problem with recidivism rates being the way they are is that there just isn't really anything for an ex-con out of prison. It's part of a much larger problem with reintegrating ex-cons into society. We can't keep pretending our penal system is rehabilitative when everything is punitive, even once an offender does their time. This isn't just a legal problem, it's a social one.
(My exception being Second Amendment rights for violent offenders)
What about other exceptions. Currently, sexual predators can't live within certain distances of schools (at least in most communities), and in fact, have to sign up on a registry so people know where they live. So, if you truly believe that ex-cons should receive all their rights back, you should have zero problem having your family live next door to sexual predators.
It's a red herring. Holder is off his rocker, and has been for quite some time. They threw all their might into trying to get George found guilty for Martin, but I haven't heard anything there. But black on white crime just gets swept under the rug.
The problem with ex-cons is, as you all said, they have this tag, this flag, and it makes them unfortunately undesirable to prospective employers. This causes them to not be able to work, and therefore living in part or in whole on government assistance, which, lets face it, is where the Democrat voters bread is buttered.
No, just giving the vote to ex-cons isn't suddenly going to make them see the light, nor make them suddenly more desirable as a prospective employee. It's going to give (for the most part), Democrats more votes.
However, I can't remember where (I think Pennsylvania, but I could be wrong), but I have seen at least one initiative where companies would receive a tax break for hiring an ex-con. This saves the company money, gets the ex-con employed so that he or she can prove themselves, and gets them off (or closer to off) government assistant. That isn't a perfect solution, but I think it is the right step, and the first step, in getting ex-cons re-integrated into society.
And I am not saying that they shouldn't get all their rights back at some point, but I think they should be able to prove they are back to being a boon to society. Integrate it slowly. A step down the line, but not the first step.
What about other exceptions. Currently, sexual predators can't live within certain distances of schools (at least in most communities), and in fact, have to sign up on a registry so people know where they live. So, if you truly believe that ex-cons should receive all their rights back, you should have zero problem having your family live next door to sexual predators.
The problem with this system as it is currently implemented is that a lot of people go on the sex offender registry who really don't deserve to have all these special restrictions. Nobody wants a mentally disturbed child molester anywhere near a school. But some people are only on the registry because they got too gropey with their secretaries, or even just urinated in public. (Really.) It does not make sense to put all these criminals in the same category. The law needs to make finer distinctions if it's going to limit rights so severely.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What about other exceptions. Currently, sexual predators can't live within certain distances of schools (at least in most communities), and in fact, have to sign up on a registry so people know where they live. So, if you truly believe that ex-cons should receive all their rights back, you should have zero problem having your family live next door to sexual predators.
The problem with this system as it is currently implemented is that a lot of people go on the sex offender registry who really don't deserve to have all these special restrictions. Nobody wants a mentally disturbed child molester anywhere near a school. But some people are only on the registry because they got too gropey with their secretaries, or even just urinated in public. (Really.) It does not make sense to put all these criminals in the same category. The law needs to make finer distinctions if it's going to limit rights so severely.
Doesn't really answer the question. Let's pretend, for a moment, that the sexual predator registry is perfect (and my mother-in-law is a social worker, and my wife is an attorney, so I know for certain that it isn't perfect), but let's just pretend it is...
The question remains, if they paid for the crime, why are they continuing to be punished by not being allowed to live in certain areas. What's really tough, is there are many communities/cities, where elementary schools are everywhere. So it "shoves" those people into certain neighborhoods only.
What about other exceptions. Currently, sexual predators can't live within certain distances of schools (at least in most communities), and in fact, have to sign up on a registry so people know where they live. So, if you truly believe that ex-cons should receive all their rights back, you should have zero problem having your family live next door to sexual predators.
The problem with this system as it is currently implemented is that a lot of people go on the sex offender registry who really don't deserve to have all these special restrictions. Nobody wants a mentally disturbed child molester anywhere near a school. But some people are only on the registry because they got too gropey with their secretaries, or even just urinated in public. (Really.) It does not make sense to put all these criminals in the same category. The law needs to make finer distinctions if it's going to limit rights so severely.
Doesn't really answer the question. Let's pretend, for a moment, that the sexual predator registry is perfect (and my mother-in-law is a social worker, and my wife is an attorney, so I know for certain that it isn't perfect), but let's just pretend it is...
The question remains, if they paid for the crime, why are they continuing to be punished by not being allowed to live in certain areas. What's really tough, is there are many communities/cities, where elementary schools are everywhere. So it "shoves" those people into certain neighborhoods only.
The Sex Offender registry is a joke.
The problem here is that you're assuming, wrongly, that incarceration is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with Sex Offenders. It really isn't, because sex offenders fall into two categories: the mentally ill and the criminals. A date rapist deserves to go to prison for the crime but isn't necessarily a risk for a repeat offense. A guy who peed a little too close to a school in the middle of the night while stumbling home drunk isn't a sex offender. A pedophile (who typically have developmental problems), a mentally ill molester, or a mentally challenged rapist need to be in treatment, not prison. Prison is inherently a punitive system with some lip service towards rehabilitation, neither of which will be effective on someone who feels a compulsive need to commit a crime or doesn't understand why what they did was wrong.
Most states have programs for the developmentally disabled with these problem. These people should be mental patients, and they definitely shouldn't be allowed onto the street unsupervised. If they're a serial rapist, I'm not really sure what putting them on a list is going to do to protect their next victim. I'd much rather 'sex offenders' get a psych screening and get diverted into programs that will make them useful to society and keep them supervised and possibly allow them freedom again if they're no longer a threat to the public.
It's more an issue of whether or not you think they paid for their crime.
I'd give child molesters and rapists for instance life sentences (or the death penalty)
I'd give violent murderers for instance a life sentence (or the death penalty)
Then, you don't have to worry about them being near a school, or buying a gun off the street, or reoffending.
If I wouldn't let them near a school, or a gun, or even just someone of the opposite sex (three things that are literally everyone you look), then I wouldn't let them out of prison.
Pot heads (the legalization debate is for another day), and as B_S said, dumb people who pee in public, or stupid kids who send selfies to each other, or 19 years olds who have sex with their 16 year old boy/girlfriend, or tax cheats, or other non-serious, non-violent criminals honestly should never see the inside of a cell.
There are thousands of different shades of the same "crime".
Fine them, put liens on them, pound that credit score, their punishments can be of the financial nature.
Or, decriminalize some of those things.
However, even if they did do something worthy of some jail time, afterwards, and after they complete their 3 or 5 year probation, I'd return to them their constitutional rights.
What about other exceptions. Currently, sexual predators can't live within certain distances of schools (at least in most communities), and in fact, have to sign up on a registry so people know where they live. So, if you truly believe that ex-cons should receive all their rights back, you should have zero problem having your family live next door to sexual predators.
The problem with this system as it is currently implemented is that a lot of people go on the sex offender registry who really don't deserve to have all these special restrictions. Nobody wants a mentally disturbed child molester anywhere near a school. But some people are only on the registry because they got too gropey with their secretaries, or even just urinated in public. (Really.) It does not make sense to put all these criminals in the same category. The law needs to make finer distinctions if it's going to limit rights so severely.
Doesn't really answer the question. Let's pretend, for a moment, that the sexual predator registry is perfect (and my mother-in-law is a social worker, and my wife is an attorney, so I know for certain that it isn't perfect), but let's just pretend it is...
The question remains, if they paid for the crime, why are they continuing to be punished by not being allowed to live in certain areas. What's really tough, is there are many communities/cities, where elementary schools are everywhere. So it "shoves" those people into certain neighborhoods only.
If someone is of a state that we do not feel comfortable letting them near a school... they shouldn't be unsupervised in public at all. Either they are a serial criminal or have mental issues... keeping them away from schools is thought to help them control their urges... If someone needs to stay away from children just to be able to control themselves... they shouldnt be in public. So to answer your question... ideally they would have never "paid" for the crime. They would either continue to receive treatment or they would stay incarcerated.
The great thing is if we allow people to truly re-join society and re-offense numbers drop, there might be room to keep these guys in jail, that we dont want on the streets.
I think all felony records except for theft, voilent acts, sex crimes should not be public record with exceptions of repeat offenders of a crime not mentioned. I do not believe a voilent fellon should have the right to bear arms but ultimately a law is not going to prevent that person from obtaining a firearm, its merely sets a rule to which he/she can be punished. Voting rights should be reinstated once sentence is carried out.
Let me play devil's advocate and go a step further: Why shouldn't people be allowed to vote while serving their sentence? Taking away voting rights isn't really a relevant punishment to any crime.
I might actually be inclined to agree with you Tiax, if not for other issues.
1) Where they are locked up is not always where they live (for the purposes of residence representation/gerrymandering).
2) Being locked up means they don't have property, and usually don't pay taxes, and usually don't have a dog in many political fights. What good is a ballot measure on building light-rail to a convict? Or would they only vote in presidential elections?
3) It's human nature to vote for your own interests. What then if prisoners vote for representatives that are soft on crime? Or vice-versa? What of a candidate, who is soft on crime, ensuring that they find a seat in a district with a large prison, easy win?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I might actually be inclined to agree with you Tiax, if not for other issues.
1) Where they are locked up is not always where they live (for the purposes of residence representation/gerrymandering).
2) Being locked up means they don't have property, and usually don't pay taxes, and usually don't have a dog in many political fights. What good is a ballot measure on building light-rail to a convict? Or would they only vote in presidential elections?
3) It's human nature to vote for your own interests. What then if prisoners vote for representatives that are soft on crime? Or vice-versa? What of a candidate, who is soft on crime, ensuring that they find a seat in a district with a large prison, easy win?
Well, we have to begin with a few things:
1. What is justice?
2. What does it mean to distribute a fair sentence?
3. What do we do with rehabilitation?
When you dig deeper, you find that access to a good attorney and intervention programs are distinctively race based localities. Not so much because it's racial, rather the nature of agglomeration and people like to live near their families and tend to date people within their race or relatively looks "like them" and so forth tends to lead towards a self fullfiling cycle. Now, conservatives have shown to be great on economic issues with regards to business in comprehending how the "system" works. However, they tend to have a pretty spotty record more modernly on criminal justice.
Libertarian legalization does work for drugs, and I say with gritting my teeth hating many drugs with the handle name of a popular brand of rum. The leftist luvy dovey lefty has much in common with their more communitarian, hardcore conservative Christian Quaker compatriots. Quaker and other forms of old Protestant justice were based on getting the person to work off a fine while being paid and trained to do a trade. Economically these places had fewer people, so forgiving past sins by working as a part of the community "made sense." Then we have to look at Jeremy Bentham and other progressive ideologies who looked at the unfair treatment of individuals and said "can we do better?" And asked some basic human questions.
For white gangsters, or even "wangsters" that pretend to be an "OG," they tend to live in affluent areas and go to places such as the Betty Ford clinic. Their compatriots who live in the city, white or black, tend to not have access to those intervention programs and are seen as a scourge. It is an "us vs. them," in a smaller community that has more resources a person will be more greatly valued than "one of many" who must be "made to pay" so "they" will "not harm" the "community" or "us."
The mechanism is called parochial altruism, you hurt my friend I hurt you. And people will go to great lengths to punish people even at a distinct disadvantage to themselves, which in part explains the 40% trend for civil wars to engage in civil war again.
And talking as someone who would have been on your evening news in an orange jacket had I made a different decision on how to approach revenge and anger against specific people who did legitimate harm. Vengeance made through justice and using the system to work for you is the only way, but it also means being actually diplomatic and political to make sure people understand what happened and what the results of their decisions made. Then that's where you have to understand they won't "always get it," but if the offender does understand "enough" that they did bad and make some work to do "better" and have a proven track record of improving from that dysfunction and daemonic influence. Then forgiveness gradually and tenuous can bring about healing over time, rather than a nebulous "get 'em" either through virtue or vice... the jail or the grave.
Yes you want to feel that sense of "they got what they deserved," but there's also this sense that you want to see the person succeed as well. That's being a humanist. They're in a horrible place, a hell that allows for daemonic influences to corrupt and divorce a person from reality. Sometimes, some people don't realize who they are until someone tells them and then they're humiliated and punished. Then it's up to that person to change, and those that legitimately say and do work hard. What's not to say we shouldn't be there for them?
Love and forgiveness come at a price for everyone, because one day we all will be there in a place we don't like and need those two mechanisms to get back on the road to a real life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I might actually be inclined to agree with you Tiax, if not for other issues.
1) Where they are locked up is not always where they live (for the purposes of residence representation/gerrymandering).
2) Being locked up means they don't have property, and usually don't pay taxes, and usually don't have a dog in many political fights. What good is a ballot measure on building light-rail to a convict? Or would they only vote in presidential elections?
3) It's human nature to vote for your own interests. What then if prisoners vote for representatives that are soft on crime? Or vice-versa? What of a candidate, who is soft on crime, ensuring that they find a seat in a district with a large prison, easy win?
1) They can vote based on their pre-incarceration residence.
2) Having property and paying taxes aren't a requirement for voting for anyone else, why should it be for inmates?
3) Is this always a bad thing? If an unjust law is locking people up, shouldn't those affected have a voice in changing it?
I might actually be inclined to agree with you Tiax, if not for other issues.
1) Where they are locked up is not always where they live (for the purposes of residence representation/gerrymandering).
2) Being locked up means they don't have property, and usually don't pay taxes, and usually don't have a dog in many political fights. What good is a ballot measure on building light-rail to a convict? Or would they only vote in presidential elections?
3) It's human nature to vote for your own interests. What then if prisoners vote for representatives that are soft on crime? Or vice-versa? What of a candidate, who is soft on crime, ensuring that they find a seat in a district with a large prison, easy win?
1) They can vote based on their pre-incarceration residence.
Fair enough, I'd hate to be the government clerk who sorts that out though yeesh!
2) Having property and paying taxes aren't a requirement for voting for anyone else, why should it be for inmates?
Did you miss the second part of that on purpose? Many ballot measures specifically have to do with annexing land, raising or lowering fees or fines for certain property related issues, alotting taxes for certian projects (light rail, bridges), funding schools, raises/freezes on various public expenditures, etc.
Voting is not just for presidents, it's for a ton of other things too. Things that prisoners could swing the vote on while not having anything at stake. Maybe I'm pushing to build a bridge so my construction buddy can get a nice no-bid contract worth millions, wouldn't it be nice if I can get the votes of convicts in a prison somewhere that will disenfranchise the votes of people who actually do have something at stake.
3) Is this always a bad thing? If an unjust law is locking people up, shouldn't those affected have a voice in changing it?
The reverse is also true. A law that is otherwise just, might be made "unjust" because those who would be effected by it will vote against it out of self-interest rather than the pursuit of justice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I think all felony records except for theft, voilent acts, sex crimes should not be public record with exceptions of repeat offenders of a crime not mentioned. I do not believe a voilent fellon should have the right to bear arms but ultimately a law is not going to prevent that person from obtaining a firearm, its merely sets a rule to which he/she can be punished. Voting rights should be reinstated once sentence is carried out.
Exactly what felonies are not included by your statement?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Did you miss the second part of that on purpose? Many ballot measures specifically have to do with annexing land, raising or lowering fees or fines for certain property related issues, alotting taxes for certian projects (light rail, bridges), funding schools, raises/freezes on various public expenditures, etc.
Voting is not just for presidents, it's for a ton of other things too. Things that prisoners could swing the vote on while not having anything at stake. Maybe I'm pushing to build a bridge so my construction buddy can get a nice no-bid contract worth millions, wouldn't it be nice if I can get the votes of convicts in a prison somewhere that will disenfranchise the votes of people who actually do have something at stake.
But this is true for lots of groups who may or may not have something at stake on a particular ballot issue. That doesn't prevent anyone else from voting, why should it apply here? Besides, decisions made now will affect the state of the world when prisoners are released, so I'd say they do have some stake, even if it's less than other voters.
The reverse is also true. A law that is otherwise just, might be made "unjust" because those who would be effected by it will vote against it out of self-interest rather than the pursuit of justice.
Sure, but is that a problem that is unique to prisoners? It seems like a general fact about democracy, regardless of whether you let felons vote.
Even misdemeanors can be cause for inquiry, which further promotes recidivism. And oh yeah, many employers will file 13 any candidate with a criminal record, even if it's something as minor as driving with an expired license.
Violent offenders and some-people-don't-call-them-rapists rapists (e.g., rohypnol, pedophiles) are another species entirely, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
When someone pays their debt the punishment is supposed to end in my opinion. If they are further punished by not being able to find work, housing, credit, etc. Of course it's going to lead to recidivism.
Which is why I'd have criminal records judicially sealed after the person does their time, and gets through probation.
If we let them back out into society, we should be sure they can operate in society.
The really bad people though would never see the outside of a pit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
When someone pays their debt the punishment is supposed to end in my opinion. If they are further punished by not being able to find work, housing, credit, etc. Of course it's going to lead to recidivism.
Which is why I'd have criminal records judicially sealed after the person does their time, and gets through probation.
If we let them back out into society, we should be sure they can operate in society.
The really bad people though would never see the outside of a pit.
Sounds good to me... Honestly if we as a society dont want a guy near a pre-school for fear of what he did once... he probably shouldnt be in public at all even if he's told he's supposed to stay away from schools.
I imagine that restoring people's rights and lowering their chance to re-offend would lower prison populations. If it did maybe we could put some of that money and space into halfway type houses for some of the less desirables that maybe serve their life sentence but still shouldn't be released to the general public.
Of course ex-cons should be allowed to vote. If a person has been convicted of something so terrible they need to be cut off from society forever then they shouldn't be let out of prison.
I'd be totally for ex-cons getting the right to vote. I'm not sure about people currently incarcerated - I would lean towards no voting rights for those serving life sentences, but someone in prison for a year who happens to have that year have an important election, I don't see why we'd want to deny them.
This is a surface read; I haven't thought deeply about it yet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/11/holder-calls-for-restoring-ex-cons-voting-rights/
So Eric holder wants ex-cons to get their voting rights back.
Now, maybe they are focused on the "black men" too much, making me cringe at the subtle racism. But
then, it does have a noticeable effect, as they point out, in places like Florida.
How do you feel about ex-cons getting their voting rights back? Any other rights? 2nd Amendment? 4th Amendment?
Do you think they should have a "felony record" that follows them around like a bad smell?
For once I actually like this move. I've long been a supporter of giving people back all of their rights
after they do their time.
A) They did their time (theoretically anyways), so the punishments should end, and the loss of rights is a punishment.
B) If the con was someone I couldn't trust to have their rights, I wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I agree. Part of the problem with recidivism rates being the way they are is that there just isn't really anything for an ex-con out of prison. It's part of a much larger problem with reintegrating ex-cons into society. We can't keep pretending our penal system is rehabilitative when everything is punitive, even once an offender does their time. This isn't just a legal problem, it's a social one.
(My exception being Second Amendment rights for violent offenders)
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
It's a red herring. Holder is off his rocker, and has been for quite some time. They threw all their might into trying to get George found guilty for Martin, but I haven't heard anything there. But black on white crime just gets swept under the rug.
The problem with ex-cons is, as you all said, they have this tag, this flag, and it makes them unfortunately undesirable to prospective employers. This causes them to not be able to work, and therefore living in part or in whole on government assistance, which, lets face it, is where the Democrat voters bread is buttered.
No, just giving the vote to ex-cons isn't suddenly going to make them see the light, nor make them suddenly more desirable as a prospective employee. It's going to give (for the most part), Democrats more votes.
However, I can't remember where (I think Pennsylvania, but I could be wrong), but I have seen at least one initiative where companies would receive a tax break for hiring an ex-con. This saves the company money, gets the ex-con employed so that he or she can prove themselves, and gets them off (or closer to off) government assistant. That isn't a perfect solution, but I think it is the right step, and the first step, in getting ex-cons re-integrated into society.
And I am not saying that they shouldn't get all their rights back at some point, but I think they should be able to prove they are back to being a boon to society. Integrate it slowly. A step down the line, but not the first step.
My $0.02.
The problem with this system as it is currently implemented is that a lot of people go on the sex offender registry who really don't deserve to have all these special restrictions. Nobody wants a mentally disturbed child molester anywhere near a school. But some people are only on the registry because they got too gropey with their secretaries, or even just urinated in public. (Really.) It does not make sense to put all these criminals in the same category. The law needs to make finer distinctions if it's going to limit rights so severely.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Doesn't really answer the question. Let's pretend, for a moment, that the sexual predator registry is perfect (and my mother-in-law is a social worker, and my wife is an attorney, so I know for certain that it isn't perfect), but let's just pretend it is...
The question remains, if they paid for the crime, why are they continuing to be punished by not being allowed to live in certain areas. What's really tough, is there are many communities/cities, where elementary schools are everywhere. So it "shoves" those people into certain neighborhoods only.
The Sex Offender registry is a joke.
The problem here is that you're assuming, wrongly, that incarceration is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with Sex Offenders. It really isn't, because sex offenders fall into two categories: the mentally ill and the criminals. A date rapist deserves to go to prison for the crime but isn't necessarily a risk for a repeat offense. A guy who peed a little too close to a school in the middle of the night while stumbling home drunk isn't a sex offender. A pedophile (who typically have developmental problems), a mentally ill molester, or a mentally challenged rapist need to be in treatment, not prison. Prison is inherently a punitive system with some lip service towards rehabilitation, neither of which will be effective on someone who feels a compulsive need to commit a crime or doesn't understand why what they did was wrong.
Most states have programs for the developmentally disabled with these problem. These people should be mental patients, and they definitely shouldn't be allowed onto the street unsupervised. If they're a serial rapist, I'm not really sure what putting them on a list is going to do to protect their next victim. I'd much rather 'sex offenders' get a psych screening and get diverted into programs that will make them useful to society and keep them supervised and possibly allow them freedom again if they're no longer a threat to the public.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'd give child molesters and rapists for instance life sentences (or the death penalty)
I'd give violent murderers for instance a life sentence (or the death penalty)
Then, you don't have to worry about them being near a school, or buying a gun off the street, or reoffending.
If I wouldn't let them near a school, or a gun, or even just someone of the opposite sex (three things that are literally everyone you look), then I wouldn't let them out of prison.
Pot heads (the legalization debate is for another day), and as B_S said, dumb people who pee in public, or stupid kids who send selfies to each other, or 19 years olds who have sex with their 16 year old boy/girlfriend, or tax cheats, or other non-serious, non-violent criminals honestly should never see the inside of a cell.
There are thousands of different shades of the same "crime".
Fine them, put liens on them, pound that credit score, their punishments can be of the financial nature.
Or, decriminalize some of those things.
However, even if they did do something worthy of some jail time, afterwards, and after they complete their 3 or 5 year probation, I'd return to them their constitutional rights.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If someone is of a state that we do not feel comfortable letting them near a school... they shouldn't be unsupervised in public at all. Either they are a serial criminal or have mental issues... keeping them away from schools is thought to help them control their urges... If someone needs to stay away from children just to be able to control themselves... they shouldnt be in public. So to answer your question... ideally they would have never "paid" for the crime. They would either continue to receive treatment or they would stay incarcerated.
The great thing is if we allow people to truly re-join society and re-offense numbers drop, there might be room to keep these guys in jail, that we dont want on the streets.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
1) Where they are locked up is not always where they live (for the purposes of residence representation/gerrymandering).
2) Being locked up means they don't have property, and usually don't pay taxes, and usually don't have a dog in many political fights. What good is a ballot measure on building light-rail to a convict? Or would they only vote in presidential elections?
3) It's human nature to vote for your own interests. What then if prisoners vote for representatives that are soft on crime? Or vice-versa? What of a candidate, who is soft on crime, ensuring that they find a seat in a district with a large prison, easy win?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Well, we have to begin with a few things:
1. What is justice?
2. What does it mean to distribute a fair sentence?
3. What do we do with rehabilitation?
When you dig deeper, you find that access to a good attorney and intervention programs are distinctively race based localities. Not so much because it's racial, rather the nature of agglomeration and people like to live near their families and tend to date people within their race or relatively looks "like them" and so forth tends to lead towards a self fullfiling cycle. Now, conservatives have shown to be great on economic issues with regards to business in comprehending how the "system" works. However, they tend to have a pretty spotty record more modernly on criminal justice.
Libertarian legalization does work for drugs, and I say with gritting my teeth hating many drugs with the handle name of a popular brand of rum. The leftist luvy dovey lefty has much in common with their more communitarian, hardcore conservative Christian Quaker compatriots. Quaker and other forms of old Protestant justice were based on getting the person to work off a fine while being paid and trained to do a trade. Economically these places had fewer people, so forgiving past sins by working as a part of the community "made sense." Then we have to look at Jeremy Bentham and other progressive ideologies who looked at the unfair treatment of individuals and said "can we do better?" And asked some basic human questions.
For white gangsters, or even "wangsters" that pretend to be an "OG," they tend to live in affluent areas and go to places such as the Betty Ford clinic. Their compatriots who live in the city, white or black, tend to not have access to those intervention programs and are seen as a scourge. It is an "us vs. them," in a smaller community that has more resources a person will be more greatly valued than "one of many" who must be "made to pay" so "they" will "not harm" the "community" or "us."
The mechanism is called parochial altruism, you hurt my friend I hurt you. And people will go to great lengths to punish people even at a distinct disadvantage to themselves, which in part explains the 40% trend for civil wars to engage in civil war again.
And talking as someone who would have been on your evening news in an orange jacket had I made a different decision on how to approach revenge and anger against specific people who did legitimate harm. Vengeance made through justice and using the system to work for you is the only way, but it also means being actually diplomatic and political to make sure people understand what happened and what the results of their decisions made. Then that's where you have to understand they won't "always get it," but if the offender does understand "enough" that they did bad and make some work to do "better" and have a proven track record of improving from that dysfunction and daemonic influence. Then forgiveness gradually and tenuous can bring about healing over time, rather than a nebulous "get 'em" either through virtue or vice... the jail or the grave.
Yes you want to feel that sense of "they got what they deserved," but there's also this sense that you want to see the person succeed as well. That's being a humanist. They're in a horrible place, a hell that allows for daemonic influences to corrupt and divorce a person from reality. Sometimes, some people don't realize who they are until someone tells them and then they're humiliated and punished. Then it's up to that person to change, and those that legitimately say and do work hard. What's not to say we shouldn't be there for them?
Love and forgiveness come at a price for everyone, because one day we all will be there in a place we don't like and need those two mechanisms to get back on the road to a real life.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
1) They can vote based on their pre-incarceration residence.
2) Having property and paying taxes aren't a requirement for voting for anyone else, why should it be for inmates?
3) Is this always a bad thing? If an unjust law is locking people up, shouldn't those affected have a voice in changing it?
You can hardly call voting a fundamental right otherwise
Fair enough, I'd hate to be the government clerk who sorts that out though yeesh!
Did you miss the second part of that on purpose? Many ballot measures specifically have to do with annexing land, raising or lowering fees or fines for certain property related issues, alotting taxes for certian projects (light rail, bridges), funding schools, raises/freezes on various public expenditures, etc.
Voting is not just for presidents, it's for a ton of other things too. Things that prisoners could swing the vote on while not having anything at stake. Maybe I'm pushing to build a bridge so my construction buddy can get a nice no-bid contract worth millions, wouldn't it be nice if I can get the votes of convicts in a prison somewhere that will disenfranchise the votes of people who actually do have something at stake.
The reverse is also true. A law that is otherwise just, might be made "unjust" because those who would be effected by it will vote against it out of self-interest rather than the pursuit of justice.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Exactly what felonies are not included by your statement?
But this is true for lots of groups who may or may not have something at stake on a particular ballot issue. That doesn't prevent anyone else from voting, why should it apply here? Besides, decisions made now will affect the state of the world when prisoners are released, so I'd say they do have some stake, even if it's less than other voters.
Sure, but is that a problem that is unique to prisoners? It seems like a general fact about democracy, regardless of whether you let felons vote.
I'll think about it some more, I was already on the side of giving ex-cons back their right to vote. Cons maybe, maybe.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
UBRThe MindrazerRBU
UUUSpymaster of TrestGGG
GGGThe South TreeGGG
RRRHuman AscendantRRR
Violent offenders and some-people-don't-call-them-rapists rapists (e.g., rohypnol, pedophiles) are another species entirely, though.
On phasing:
Which is why I'd have criminal records judicially sealed after the person does their time, and gets through probation.
If we let them back out into society, we should be sure they can operate in society.
The really bad people though would never see the outside of a pit.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Sounds good to me... Honestly if we as a society dont want a guy near a pre-school for fear of what he did once... he probably shouldnt be in public at all even if he's told he's supposed to stay away from schools.
I imagine that restoring people's rights and lowering their chance to re-offend would lower prison populations. If it did maybe we could put some of that money and space into halfway type houses for some of the less desirables that maybe serve their life sentence but still shouldn't be released to the general public.
This is a surface read; I haven't thought deeply about it yet.