Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
kwikrnu said:
If he is not in jail/prison he should have all the rights granted to other persons.
I disagree. I think once you commit a crime that is heinous enough to be a felony, the judicidial system should have the right to restore those rights in whatever manner they see fit. It's ridiculous to for us to be forced to keep someone in jail if we don't want it to be legal for someone who has been convicted of kidnapping from owning a gun.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
kwikrnu said:
If a crime is heinous enough to be a felony the person should be incarcerated for the remainder of their life. Rights of men are granted by God, and judges have no place to restore them.
Man has given themselves the ability to take away rights through the rule of law. Since we have given ourselves the authority to take away a thief's freedom for some period of time, a person who physicially injures another for some length of time, why does this authority not extend to rescind such judgement? It seems rather lopsided and nonsensical that a judge should only have power to take away god given rights. It doesn't make sense to make punishment be all or nothing.

What your advocating is either anarchy or the death penalty for every serious offense. Reality lies in the middle.

And I understand that there are certain crimes that are felonies that perhaps are not that bad, but there are many shades of grey between receiving stolen property and murder. Where would you like the line to be drawn?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
rmodel65 said:
Government is only spposed to protect rights and rights are UNALIENABLE they can not be taken by govt. because it can not take what it didnt give....
So, you don't support prisons then, because they take away rights of the people incarcerated? And you don't support the death penalty, because they deprive the person of a right to live?

Those god given rights are only unalienable so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others, it is not absolute. Otherwise what you describe is an anarchy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
phantoms said:
The way I see it, if they are unwilling to restore your rights upon release, then they haven't held you long enough. Your punishment was determined at sentencing. Why should you continue to be punished for life after you have served the time they set forth for you? Being on probation or parole is no different than still being in prison and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about once your entire sentence is served, you have paid your debt to society and your rights should be restored. If they feel that restoring your rights at that time is not good, then they should have sentenced you to a longer prison term.
Your punishment was determined at sentencing. The judge who sentenced you knows full well that when you get released from prison certain rights would not be restored. If he wanted you to get your rights restored when you are released, there are plenty of first offender, pre-trial diversion, and other ways that restore your rights when your punishment is complete. I really don't understand why punishment has to be all or nothing. I would prefer the punishment fit the crime.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
EJR914 said:
ookoshi said:
kwikrnu said:
If he is not in jail/prison he should have all the rights granted to other persons.
I disagree. I think once you commit a crime that is heinous enough to be a felony, the judicidial system should have the right to restore those rights in whatever manner they see fit. It's ridiculous to for us to be forced to keep someone in jail if we don't want it to be legal for someone who has been convicted of kidnapping from owning a gun.
Do you really think that a violent criminal cares about the law? If they want to commit a violent crime and use a gun to do it, a law is not going to stop them from carrying a gun.

On the other hand, a non-violent person isn't likely to use a gun in a violent crime, so why ban them for life for protecting themselves against a violent criminal?

Should their life now be worth less than that of a person who has never commited a non-violent felony?

If you steal music off the internet (which is a felony) you believe that they should be banned the right to protect themselves from a violent criminal? Really?
No, I believe that those things shouldn't be felonies.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
MrMorden said:
If they can simply declare that a class of person does not have a constitutional right, they can declare that for *anyone*. Just food for thought...
Then we should get rid of prisons, because no one in a prison has many of our god-given/constitutional/whatever-semantics-you-want-to-use rights. We can't just kill them either, because killing them denies them their rights too.

No, the point at which you commit a crime that infringes on the rights of others, society absolutely has a right to deny you your rights. To hold everyone's right as absolute is to promote anarchy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
MrMorden said:
We're not talking about punishment for a crime here. We're talking about loss of a constitutional right permanently AFTER the punishment (incarceration, etc) is over. If that's okay, then why do we only do that for the 2nd Amendment? Why don't they lose their rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc?
They also lose the right to vote, which is fundamental to keeping all those other rights you mentioned, so the actual effect runs much deeper. But why is jail the only acceptable punishment for a crime? The loss of that right after JAIL is PART of the punishment when you were sentenced. Jail and Punishment cannot be used interchangeably. There are other punishments outside of jail.

If we can deny a person ALL of their rights by throwing them in jail, or even killing them, why can we not instead choose to deny them part of their rights as punishment for a crime? Why does it have to be all or nothing? No one has put forth any reason why jail or the death penalty are the only acceptable punishments, that other punishments, like loss of only your 2A rights, cannot be prescribed in addition to or instead of jail.

I'm not asking whether it's an effective punishment, only rather whether a society has a right to institute that punishment. In my view, if we're allowed to take away all of a criminal's rights, we have the right to take away less than all of them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
MrMorden said:
You're talking about taking away rights during punishment for a crime and permanently as the same thing.
We put people in jail for life for some crimes, we've already established that society has a right to take away rights "permanently."

Would it be reasonable to throw every felon in jail for life? If not, then why is any other permanent loss of rights, after serving their sentence, reasonable?
Your logic is sort of backwards here. What does a harsher punishment (taking away all of someone's rights) have to do with whether a less harsh punishment (taking away some of someone's rights) is reasonable or not? They're not the same.

There are definitely offenses, that may not deserve life in prison, but I would be OK with suspending their 2nd amendment rights for life as part of their punishment. Not all things currently felonies, but certainly some of them.

You are setting up a permanent underclass of people who, no matte how they turn their lives around, can NEVER have the same rights as other citizens.
And no matter how a murderer or rapist turns their life around, those convicted of life sentences without parole can NEVER have the same rights as other citizens either, what's your point? If people who knowing commit felonies, especially violent ones, lose their 2nd amendment rights for life, they knew what the stakes were before they undertook their illegal behavior.

Your voting example is BS, there is no right to vote in federal elections in the US Constitution. Sorry, this is simply not the way our system was originally designed, and it's a perversion of justice. How about we punish people for what they HAVE done, not what they MIGHT do?
We are, those people HAVE committed crimes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
GAGunOwner said:
At the very least non-violent felons that have completed their sentence, probation/parole, and reimbursement to the victims should have their 2nd amendment rights fully restored.
I don't have a problem with revamping the system so that certain non-violent offenses do not cause a permanent loss of 2nd amendment rights. All I'm suggesting is that the judicial system be able to punish people properly for their crimes, that means being more harsh in certain areas and being less harsh in others. Certainly the penalties for certain crimes are wildly out of whack compared to others, and we should fix those issues.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top