Yeah, we know. But there are lots of ways to punish someone. And the mere fact of imprisonment takes away most of a person’s civil rights anyway. Why this particular punishment? You sound like Zoot’s identical twin sister Dingo here.
To me, the most problematic aspect of this particular punishment, considered as punishment, is that it is operative during the time after release from prison, when the primary goal shouldn’t be punishment per se, but reintegration. One can see how community service might serve both goals, but denying the vote to felons who have served their prison time punishes by explicitly denying them part of their reintegration.
When a felon is released from prison, the objective should be to minimize the likelihood of his committing acts that would lead to his return. Who has more reason to avoid committing hostile acts against society - someone who is both present and involved in that society, or someone who is physically present but still outcast?
I get the point of Bricker’s attempted hijack; we’re supposed to knee-jerkedly respond “Oh, no! Felons shouldn’t have guns!” at which point he could say “Gotcha! You don’t have a problem with felons losing their 2nd Amendment civil rights, so why are you hypocritically saying they should keep their voting civil rights?”
The problem is that if it’s too dangerous, as he suggests, for felons to be able to influence the body politic by voting, surely it follows that they’re too dangerous to be able to influence the body of… somebody… by shooting. Influence them into a hospital or morgue, as it were.
I’ll be happy to discuss this in a thread specific to felon gun rights.
It’s amazing the degree to which this simple and basic objective of the justice and corrections systems is just forgotten or dismissed. It seems like sometimes folks just go out of their way to alienate the previously convicted who have served their time. And then they wonder why the recidivism rate is so high.
It’s a concern. He might poke you in the eye with it!
I like the permanent voter ID number plan, but would strike “…like the franchise itself,” from your approach, since I don’t agree that the felon disenfranchisement arguments are tenuous at all.
Please note that I don’t favor a scheme that simply forecloses the possibility of ever regaining voting rights. I disfavor an automatic restoration, but am in agreement with requiring the felon to apply, proactively:
So explain why this approach is so evil. It allows the felon to express, tangibly, his desire to reintegrate.
I get that you disagree, I just don’t see your basis for doing so as much more than a petty “scorn the sinner” vindictiveness with a side of “sit up and beg, that’s a good dog.”
More than just voting rights, but civil rights in general are taken away from the felon. Even after jail, parole and probation, they are still labeled for life. There are many places where you cannot rent an apartment with a felony on your record, student loans for college are a non-starter, and it is much more difficult to get a job. (This is also, though to a somewhat lesser extent, true for misdemeanors as well.)
I understand the reason for this. As an employer, I would not hire a felon. This is not because I do not believe that people can reform, but that I am not in a position to judge such. If I were to hire a felon that I believed had reformed, but then he assulted another employee, I could be liable for creating an unsafe situation. I should have known that the felon would be at a higher risk than the general population for such acts.
We need to have some sort of program or institution than can make that determination. Once someone has repaid their debt to society, and shown that they are as unlikely to re-offend than the general population, the felon label should drop off and all rights restored. Then they don’t have to put that they are a felon on their applications for employment and shelter, and have a much higher chance of reintegrating successfully into society.
Instead, they are shunned and pretty much exiled from meaningful participation, so with no legal alternatives to poverty, they have little choice but to commit further crimes, for which we choose to punish them further.
I can’t help but note your shift from something specific (punitive fines) to something general (loss of civil liberties). I don’t see a problem with deprivation of civil liberties (I suppose one could argue a fine IS the loss of a civil liberty, or at least the 8th amendment recognizes and prohibits fines that are “excessive”) that are plausibly relevant. I can even picture loss of franchise during incarceration. After release, though? The value eludes me.
Seriously, you don’t see the difference? One, is mandatory, the other isn’t. Felons generally take what they want, screw the rules. If they don’t get it one way, they get it another. I honestly doubt they give a rat’s ass about voting anyway as they want as little contact with the “man” as possible.
No, I’m good with that. In order to regain his voting rights, the felon should be required to proactively apply to regain those rights.
We already have such a mechanism in place, I’m sure you’ll be glad to know. It’s called “registering to vote.” I have taken that proactive step myself, several times along the way, as I’ve moved from state to state.
Speaking of the passage of time, Others have replied very well while I missed the conversation. Sitting a cell is all about the passage of time.
But, being a felon should be temporary. It isn’t that hard to become a felon and not all felons are violent so why having a gun is an issue for all of them is not fair. One mistake (generally speaking) should not be the definition of who you are for the rest of your life.
As for guns in general I’m all for re-writing the 2nd amendment to make it a bit harder to have one, especially hand guns.
Now for the personal, my son is a felon and has never spent time in jail. I believe he was not guilty but we lacked the resources to have a prolonged battle to prove it. He spent 12 months probation and 200 hours community service, but the label still follows him even though in 10 years he has not had so much as a speeding ticket. I don’t believe he is all that special and his circumstances are most likely repeated by others.
It may be hard to be a felon when you never need to make hard choices in your life. When you have no perceptible legal alternatives to poverty, it can be easier. When you can be accused of a crime, and do not have the resources to provide an adequate defense, it can be very easy.
I do not see how society is served by punishing a felon after they have completed their required duties to repay society and demonstrate their willingness to reintegrate into legal society. If you feel the crime is great enough to punish them further than current law, then lock them up longer, add to their fine, or increase their community service.
Letting them back into society, but requiring them to carry a label to hold them apart from society is continuing the punishment past any useful point. Unless you believe that justice should be focused primarily on punishment, and ensuring that anyone who has done wrong can never again enjoy the benefits that the “law abiding” do.
Heck, being black and/or poor is a factor, not because of any predilection toward crime, but because it increases the chances of being charged and convicted, rightly or otherwise.
