Giving criminals thier rights back.

[horst]

Read something yesterday in the Des Moines register I thought was pretty crazy.Apparently Monday, on the 4th of July, Our governer here in Iowa signed a bill that allows criminals the right to vote as soon as they are released from prison.Untill now theyve had to write an appeal to the governer to have that right re instated and he had the right to approve or deny that request.Now its an automatic right again as soon as theyre released.This means an estimated 50,000 iowan child molestors, rapists, drug dealers, and other violent criminals will be eligible to vote, even if they havent paid off thier legal fees, cout costs, fines etc... before being released.

Whats next?Maybe they should automatically be eligible to buy guns again, after all, theyve paid thier debt to society.Wonder how thier victims feel about this

[ParrotHead]

Ok I’ll bite on this one and you’re not going to like what I have to say.

I believe totally in my heart that if a man or woman commits a crime that warrants prison time then once that sentence has been carried out, that person should be given back those rights that they lost while in prison.

If a person has served their full sentence, then they have paid their debt to society and should be square with the house.

Oh my God – did he just say what I think he said? Yes I said it and I believe it and will argue to no end that it’s right but I want you to note one thing I said. “If a person has served their “FULL SENTENCE”

The problem isn’t with people’s rights folks, no it’s with the judicial system not doing it’s job in sentencing criminals, making them spend the full allotted time behind bars and yes, not putting them to death when a crime has been committed that warrants death.

You have criminals that are sentenced to 20 years that serve 5. That’s the problem I have, only a portion of the dent is paid back, This criminal still owes society 15 years and for that I’ll agree that no rights what-so-ever should be given back. Not the right to vote, not the right to bear arms, not even the right to take a piss in the woods should be given.

Today you have people that have been convicted of MURDER that will get paroled. If the thought of some felon having the right to vote makes you sick, what does the thought of having a convicted murderer moving in beside you do?

You shouldn’t have any problem with someone voting – what you should take issue with is a judicial system that lacks the back-bone to stand up for citizens whom rights have been violated by the criminal element. Where is the rant about the hundreds of criminals that will be set free this year in Idaho or any state by a parole board that has more concern about those criminals and their rights than societies rights?

IF a man has paid his debt to society, he should be given all rights back. IF a man hasn’t paid his debt to society he should be behind bars until he has. And that’s the real problem in all of this.

[horst]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I’ll bite on this one and you’re not going to like what I have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough I agree with a lotta what you have to say there PH.But like I said, most of these guys besides being let out early still have outstanding debts to the state in terms of cash.Thats where the governers discretion used to come into play.I cant remember the exact numbers in the artical but outta somewhere over 3000 applications last year to have thier voting rights restored, only 850 or so got them back, the rest still outstanding debts of some sort.

A lady here in town got busted for manufacturng meth 7 yrs ago.They let her out on bail and she didnt show up for court.When they raided her house again to arrest her on the outstanding warrant she was cooking meth again already.For these charges she was sentenced to 25 yrs in prison.She served 7 total.Thats not even 1/3 of her total sentence.Is that the kind of thing your talking about?Because she is eligible to vote again now as of yesterday, even though shes still on parole and wearing an ankle bracelet.

I dont feel that criminals rights should be lost permanantly, the one good point in the artical I could agree with concerning this was if we make it impossible for them to rejoin society they run a lot higher risk of re-offending.But Im not convinced taking away the only system of checking them out before restoring thier rights is the way to go either, theres gotta be some sort of system in place for these things and apparently with Iowa now thats not the case in 46 states.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

People get sent to prison because they do not respect or believe in the rule of law. I certainly don't want those same people voting on laws. Very, very bad idea.

[oldksnarc]

I know I've said this before, but: The concept of the "Criminal Justice" system has become just that - justice for the criminal. Little thought is given to justice for the victim or justice for society. The criminal justice system does not protect us from the criminal - it protects the criminal.

I believe that every person has the right to make the government prove their case and to insure the rights of the criminal were protected, but there should be a better balance between the rights of the criminal and the rights of victims and society.

For the most part, I agree with PH, if they have paid their "debt" to society then let them back in. To a point. If they are a second or third time offender, especially on sex, violent or serious drug crimes they should lose those rights - especially the right to bear arms.

[ParrotHead]

Oldsnarc - do you remember the infamous "3 strikes and your out" rule? 3 Felonies and the governments going to put you away for life.....yeah, that lasted a long time didn't it?

You are correct - repeat offenders are a problem but if you rape someone and spend 25 years in prison you're not as apt to rape someone else when you get out. Now if you only spend a year or two....the probability of it happening again goes up signifcantly.

[johnf]

PH, do you really think it's ok to give back all a criminals rights? There are some instances that this would be dangerous. Privacy for instance, would you like a child molester living next to you without you knowing who they are. What do you think about an armed robber being able to pick up a gun at a local shop without a problem. Or what about having a convicted rapist sitting on a jury of a rape suspect. You realize that if they can vote, then they can sit on a jury. That just doesn't make sence to me.

Sometimes good people do stupid things that puts them in prison. Sometimes people completely change in prison or after years out of prison. These people can appeal to the governor to get a pardon and get thier rights back. I don't have a problem with this.

Blindly giving back rights to convicted felons is a dangerous idea.

[buckee]

[ QUOTE ]
PH, do you really think it's ok to give back all a criminals rights?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you quite understood John's (Parrothead's) post. Yes he believes that every free man deserves the same rights as the next, but he also pointed out that these guys shouldn't be getting out of prison in the first place and that there is something seriously wrong with our judicial system. Time served these days is a joke in many and most cases, especially in reference to violent crimes. There is something wrong with our system, as John was trying to point out. Taking away peoples rights, doesn't fix the system, is what he was trying to say.



PH more or less said that he doesn't believe these people should be out of prison in the first place, so the whole Rights issue shouldn't even have to come into play.
At least that's how I read his post .... Sometimes you have to read between the lines.

[slugshooter]

I'm kinda torn on this one. If you are convicted of a felony, basically, your rights are stripped, you can't vote, you can't buy a gun, what happens if the felony you are convicted of was not a gun related violent crime.(Is there such a thing?) much the same as getting a dishonorable dicharge from the military, correct me if I am wrong, but if this happens you can't vote or buy a gun either, which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I agree with the no gun buying if convicted of a felony where there was a gun used or was a violent crime, but prison is supposed to rehabilitate, and yes, believe it or not, some people do come out of prison rehabilitated and reformed, although this number is very marginal. I think you should be able to vote again, but no guns, but I think an evaluation process should be set up for those convicted, but, we all know how those work.

[wtnhunt]

[ QUOTE ]
People get sent to prison because they do not respect or believe in the rule of law. I certainly don't want those same people voting on laws. Very, very bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldnt have said it any better than that right there.

[TreeStandBowHunter]

Yeah, that is sorta a tough one there. I guess it depends on the situation. Some of them shouldn't get anything back. Some of them souldn't even get out. The major crimes like Murder, Rape, Drugs, Arson, DUI's...etc...shouldn't get anything back let alone out of jail. I think DUI's are just as bad as muderers

[ParrotHead]

[ QUOTE ]
PH, do you really think it's ok to give back all a criminals rights? There are some instances that this would be dangerous. Privacy for instance, would you like a child molester living next to you without you knowing who they are. What do you think about an armed robber being able to pick up a gun at a local shop without a problem. Or what about having a convicted rapist sitting on a jury of a rape suspect. You realize that if they can vote, then they can sit on a jury. That just doesn't make sence to me.

Sometimes good people do stupid things that puts them in prison. Sometimes people completely change in prison or after years out of prison. These people can appeal to the governor to get a pardon and get thier rights back. I don't have a problem with this.

Blindly giving back rights to convicted felons is a dangerous idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
PH, do you really think it's ok to give back all a criminals rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely NOT – a criminal is someone who should be locked away in prison serving their respective sentences. Someone that has served that sentence has paid his debt to society and should be considered a citizen of which should be afforded every right that any other citizen has.

Lets put this into perspective with a little exercise.

Say someone commits murder – a murder conviction should hold a life sentence or a death penalty. If the criminal judicial system worked the way it is designed, we don’t have to worry about that person trotting down to the local gun shop and buying a gun – they are in prison where they belong for the rest of their lives.

Armed robbery should hold a mandatory 50 year sentence so if someone commits this crime at say, age 25 then we don’t have to worry about their sorry **** until they are 75. I know some spunky 75 year olds but the majority of them at this age are not concerned with committing armed robbery anymore but rather or not they piss their pants in public.

Child molestation should carry a mandatory life sentence. I’m being just a little liberal here in my statement as I really thing that anyone committing crimes against children should die within 1 month of conviction but to appease the rehabilition crowd we’ll settle for life in prison. There you go, if they are behind bars, you don’t have to worry about them moving in beside you.

I think you get my drift now, or at least I hope you do. Rights are very fragile thing and can be abused very easily, especially at the hands of a government as we’ve seen in recent months. It’s not a wise idea to try and punish certain eliments (ie. Criminals) by taking away rights. It’s equally a bad idea to allow a government to dictate who has rights and who doesn’t simply because they don’t want to address a criminal judicial system that just does not work!

Convict and sentence appropriately and you won’t have a need to worry about someone that’s committed a crime. You’ll only have to worry about the criminal that hasn’t committed one yet.

In my scenerio we have allowed a criminal to earn his rights back. In the case of the governor that’s signed a bill allowing criminals to vote – he has given them rights back that they haven’t earned which is a hugh SLAP IN THE FACE to every law abiding citizen of that state and that governor should be taken out of office and put on trial for crimes against the people he serves.

[oldksnarc]

I agree with PH.

And I'll go out on the limb here and presume the governor's probably a liberal -- and they look for votes wherever they can find them, i.e. criminals, licensing illegal aliens, increasing social benefits, etc.

[johnf]

[ QUOTE ]


I think you get my drift now, or at least I hope you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok we're on the same page now.

I do think that there should be a system in place where a governer and some sort of board has the ability to pardon individuals and give them back all of thier rights. Some people do genuanly changed and are completely reformed. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Of course one could argue that if a person were truely reformed then they would understand the repercussions of their actions and accept their loss of rights as the obvious and just consiquence.

[stevebeilgard]

so, if i take ph's thinking a step further....

a qualified teacher is caught and sentenced as a child molester. he did the whole class. goes to jail, does his time and is "rehabilitated". he now should be able to teach kids again? right is right.

bet old narc is right. but letting them vote is not. it's called "deterret".