User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 57

  1. #21
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacuss View Post
    I thought so.
    Restating this...


    If, a convict in prison loses, among other things, the right to bear arms, the right to free movement, and the right to vote, yet, having served his time regains the right to free movement (liberty), etc. what is the basis for continuing to deprive him of a vote? One deprivation is lifted, so what makes voting one of those deprivations that "should" not be lifted?
    The right to free movement is NOT regained, the deprivation of free movement is merely lessoned. If a convicted felon violates his parole by engaging in actual free movement, then more onerous deprivation of his free movement is reinstated.

    Edit: oops, I think I did it again. After re-reading what you posted, it seems like you are saying that after a sentence is served (a sentence is not limited to prison), a person regains the constitutional right to free movement, so why not regain all other constitutional rights as well? In other words, why take away the right to vote OR the right to bear arms if physical liberty is reinstated?

    Good point. I have no explanation why, in practice, physical liberty is given greater protection than other constitutional rights. Still, my original point that there is no constitutional justification for giving the right to vote greater protection than other rights remains valid.

  2. #22
    The Black Knight Domino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    eNFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3 sx/so
    Socionics
    eNFJ Ni
    Posts
    11,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Law is sketchy. When you impose one law which affects a variety of people, it's my opinion the entire group should be given the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to "harsh treatment across the board." Further, I think that if ex-cons are allowed to be considered normal (as long as they're deemed fit to leave prison), they're more likely to be normal.

    If we had an omniscent arbiter to judge every man in every case, we wouldn't need Law at all.
    Can you support this theory?
    eNFJ 4w3 sx/so 468 tritype
    Neutral Good
    EII-Fi subtype, Ethical/Empath, Delta/Beta
    RLUEI, Choleric/Melancholic
    Inquistive/Limbic
    AIS Holland code
    Researcher: VDI-P
    Dramatic>Sensitive>Serious

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PinkPiranha View Post
    Can you support this theory?
    Not with evidence; nor do I require you trust me: I'm not ENTP. I simply think it is most likely true, more often than not.

  4. #24
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    I do agree with Jack on the citizen-rights thing. If they have no rights anyways, what's the point in getting out of prison in the first place? I'd be more likely to committ crimes instead of working through all that hardship to try and get the simple things citizens can get.

    If they're deemed fit to free, they're deemed fit enough to function in society. We can't judge every person that comes through the system, so I suppose a clear ruling is more comforting to me. It's like in my head with the whole illegal immigrant job thing.
    In my opinion, if they do the work, they get the pay. Don't like that they have the job? Be stricter on the employers. If they HAVE to pay illegals the same wage, there's no incentive to hire them, now is there? If they're still willing to risk the law for the illegal, then the illegal has the right to get the money they earned in work.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PinkPiranha View Post
    Are not some felonious acts - the most heinous imaginable - so horrible that the felon is rightly no longer considered a full citizen? Not all who violate and destroy remain in prison. That much is certain.
    If the act was that bad, why are we releasing the felon back into society? And what's so dangerous about them voting? I think it would be more dangerous to keep them ostracized once they're out. It seems to me that the more they feel left out, the more dangerous they would be.

    My opinion also applies to sex offender lists.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #26
    Senior Member Enyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    xNTJ
    Posts
    443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacuss View Post
    Why should the two be tied? Are the rationales for each deprivation the same?
    Yes, because if you don't have the right to bare arms in defense of our nation, then you don't have the right to cast a vote in decision of how it should be run. You can't legally defend the country, nor can you legally attempt to overthrow it. You have forfeited these powers due to criminal acts.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    The right to free movement is NOT regained, the deprivation of free movement is merely lessoned. If a convicted felon violates his parole by engaging in actual free movement, then more onerous deprivation of his free movement is reinstated.

    Edit: oops, I think I did it again. After re-reading what you posted, it seems like you are saying that after a sentence is served (a sentence is not limited to prison), a person regains the constitutional right to free movement, so why not regain all other constitutional rights as well? In other words, why take away the right to vote OR the right to bear arms if physical liberty is reinstated?

    Good point. I have no explanation why, in practice, physical liberty is given greater protection than other constitutional rights. Still, my original point that there is no constitutional justification for giving the right to vote greater protection than other rights remains valid.
    But sometimes that freedom of movement is never regained, even after prison and parole are over. Megan's Law, anybody?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    If the act was that bad, why are we releasing the felon back into society? And what's so dangerous about them voting? I think it would be more dangerous to keep them ostracized once they're out. It seems to me that the more they feel left out, the more dangerous they would be.

    My opinion also applies to sex offender lists.
    Why? Do you feel that sex offender lists shouldn't exist, or do you feel that we should never let them out?
    Last edited by nottaprettygal; 09-15-2008 at 11:11 AM.
    "If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning." Catherine Aird

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
    Why? Do you feel that sex offender lists shouldn't exist, or do you feel that we should never let them out?
    That's a whole other bag of mess. Legislation of that nature imo is entirely feel-good-please-elect-me in motive. Why a sex-offender registry and not an armed robbery or home invasion registry? It makes no sense whatsoever.

  8. #28
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    That's a whole other bag of mess. Legislation of that nature imo is entirely feel-good-please-elect-me in motive. Why a sex-offender registry and not an armed robbery or home invasion registry? It makes no sense whatsoever.
    Ah but I DO feel those should exist. I wanna know who's a klepto in my neighborhood just as much as I want to know who likes grubby little touches on little boys.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Ah but I DO feel those should exist. I wanna know who's a klepto in my neighborhood just as much as I want to know who likes grubby little touches on little boys.
    I feel the stress of a serious debate coming on. Oh, I do love it so.

    That would mean, fundamentally, that there is a one-strike-you're-out policy in leading a sane, normal life. In that reality, people get drunk and fuck up, and they're ruined socially, economically, and therefore probably emotionally--This may make them more of a criminal. I say serve your sentence, and have another go (unless you're an obvious psychotic).

  10. #30
    Senior Member Enyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    xNTJ
    Posts
    443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    That's a whole other bag of mess. Legislation of that nature imo is entirely feel-good-please-elect-me in motive. Why a sex-offender registry and not an armed robbery or home invasion registry? It makes no sense whatsoever.
    Sex offenders have a higher rate of recidivism than other violent criminals.
    "If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning." Catherine Aird

Similar Threads

  1. Children Should Not Be Allowed To Have Best Friends
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 05-17-2015, 11:36 AM
  2. Should women be allowed to be topless in public?
    By Lady_X in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 245
    Last Post: 07-20-2014, 09:09 PM
  3. Should discriminatory groups be allowed to exist?
    By Such Irony in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-18-2012, 03:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO