|
Post by pete1 on Aug 20, 2009 0:21:15 GMT -4
I hear this all the time."The criminal has too many rights". If the criminal loses his rights, so do you. Which right do you want to lose, and why?.......Pete Richter for Sheriff 2010
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 20, 2009 6:40:18 GMT -4
Really good question! (I don't have an answer)
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Aug 20, 2009 6:48:47 GMT -4
Are you talking about after conviction, like how they lose the right to vote or own a firearm if they are felons?
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Aug 20, 2009 12:10:25 GMT -4
How about prisoners rights while incarcerated? I've read Florida's courts are backed up two years because of frivolous lawsuits filed by prisoners. These are guys (and gals) who have cable TV, workout rooms, three hot meals, no responsibilities, and all the time they need to get their degree, and sue the justice system. On top of that, the taxpayers foot the bill. What a crock!
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Aug 20, 2009 12:43:13 GMT -4
Honestly!!
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Aug 20, 2009 12:50:01 GMT -4
My college major was in Criminal Justice - at the time I wondered why it was called that - I'm still wondering. Maybe it should be changed to Justice for the Innocent There should be no rights, as the law abiding citizens receive (I know, there will comments as to what they really are) for those convicted and incarcerated for major felony crimes. Once they're released, well...... maybe they get 'em back, maybe they don't. I agree with Frank!
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Aug 20, 2009 12:57:54 GMT -4
First of all, I think our justice system is broken. Jailing people and then releasing them with little to no job prospects or money isn't helping anybody. If you've just gotten out of jail, have the cash you had on you when you were brought in, have nowhere to go, and are just dumped on a street corner, what are you going to do? Chances are you'll just go back to doing whatever you were doing that got you put in jail the first time.
I'm much more in favor of real rehabilitation, where the criminals are helped to start a new way of life and given the skills and training and opportunities they need to become law-abiding citizens.
I know a lot of people assume that criminals are just lazy or bad people with no respect for the law, but I think a lot of the time people resort to crime when they're out of other options. If you're in a situation where you have no legal job prospects and government aid, if you qualify, isn't enough to pay for basic necessities for your family (food, rent, medical care), what do you do?
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Aug 20, 2009 14:43:26 GMT -4
If you are serving time behind bars, the only right you should have is your own cot to sleep on. No priviliedges and during the day you should be out on a chain gang doing the work of the illegal immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by Kryo on Aug 20, 2009 15:03:38 GMT -4
I like the Maricopa County, AZ approach.
-2 meals a day -live in tents -chain gangs -and pink undies, just because.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Aug 20, 2009 15:29:34 GMT -4
There USED to be a saying..."If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" - cuz prision used to be a horrid thing to go to....
I think a more modern modified version might read, "If you want to complete high school, be fed three meals a day, have cable television, go to college and receive a degree, have every bleeding heart in the country champion you and do it all for free....do the crime"
I don't want to hear about the crowded living conditions, gang rapes, beatings, corruption, blah blah blah...it's PRISON. If you don't want to go there...don't be a freaking criminal. If you are in there...guess you might have wanted to look into getting an honest job and earning minimum wage and working hard to make more....rather than breaking the law and harming people to make a faster buck...how's that workin out for you now? Oh, the guy that works at his minimum wage job, pays his taxes and doesn't break the law says "hi".
And I think the Maricopia, AZ way ROCKS. Of course, I also am a big supporter of the Death Penalty. If you kill someone...(to paraphrase Ron White) we should get to kill you right back. Seems fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Aug 20, 2009 17:24:30 GMT -4
speedergurl68 - Good video..........My Friends, Seems that no one wants to give up their rights. ( to remain silent - to face your accuser - Innocent until proven guilty - jury of your peers - speedy trial- cruel and unusual punishment etc.).....Several hundred Innocent people have been released due to DNA testing from our prison system. Someone had to lie under oath for this to happen, and to the best of my knowledge these liars are never prosecuted......Frank - If you watch the video you will agree that some people in government need a night in the box with screw loose Judge John Sause. Not to mention the Innocent people this tyrant sent to jail. The problems in the Fla. system were caused by those in authority....A nation is judged by the treatment received by their poor, crippled, weak, and their prisoners......Frank - If you got a night in the box with Blaze Star would you consider it cruel, and unusual punishment?
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Aug 20, 2009 17:35:52 GMT -4
robmoore.......Cheating at the Casinos in Vegas is a felony. Losing your right to vote for this crime, is a crime....Annapolis politician Mike Bush in violation of our State Constitution holds a job with the A.A.Co. parks division paying over $1000,000.00. This man votes for us.......If we loose the right to bear arms, we loose our freedom.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Aug 20, 2009 17:46:08 GMT -4
funnel101......I agree with you. However, the harden violent criminal needs to be lockup tight. These hard cases are only a very small percentage of those incarcerated. Our jails are filled with people that need a little extra help from the system in order to blend into society. Pot smokers to mention one.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Aug 20, 2009 19:40:38 GMT -4
I think a conviction of a felony should carry the weight its given, and only that weight. I think once you have served the limit of your sentence, you should regain the full rights of a citizen.
Now, I'd be up for debate about limiting their rights while they are on parole, because they technically haven't served the limit of their sentence. They got out early to start the "conforming to society" process.
The question of how to treat them while they are in prison is a tough one. I don't think simply housing the way we currently do and setting them loose one day is working. I also don't think we should keep things basically the same, yet add education.
Prison is supposed to be a deterrent and a punishment for crime. It should be as miserable as is humanely possible. Perhaps a two staged system, where the offender serves a difficult, uncomfortable, isolated sentence for a duration of time, where interaction with other inmates is severely limited (no gang influence)...thereby breaking them down, with the latter half of the sentence rebuilding them as potentially productive members of society.
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Aug 20, 2009 23:01:50 GMT -4
Like falgar25, I also think this is a great question, one that I don't really have an answer for. I can say that my family's recent intimate involvement with "the system" has greatly changed my perspective on many things, and the rights of "criminals" is one of them. Lately I have been doing an extensive amount of research on individuals who it was proven were wrongly convicted, of which there are far more than I ever imagined. It is difficult for me to answer a question like this without taking into consideration those individuals too. I guess the only real answer I have is that if the conviction is for any type of vicious crime against children and the individual freely admits their guilt, then I feel life imprisonment or the death penalty (obviously resulting in a loss of all rights) is appropriate. www.exonerate.org/www.americaswrongfullyconvicted.com/www.innocenceproject.org/witchhuntmovie.com/www.thejusticeproject.org/national/problem/www.imdb.com/title/tt0174856/plotsummary
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Aug 20, 2009 23:18:26 GMT -4
Should not the real question be:
What Rights Should The Criminal Have?
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Aug 20, 2009 23:22:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Aug 21, 2009 1:12:32 GMT -4
Water Lady........With liberty = Freedom, And Justice = Equal & Fair Treatment, For All = Includes Criminals.......Do you know the true story of Iowa Jima flag raiser hero Ira Hayes?.......Johnny Cash "He died drunk early one morning in the land that he fought to save, two inches of water in a lonely ditch was a grave for Ira Hayes. Call him drunken Ira Hayes, but his land is just as dry, and his ghost is lying thirsty in the ditch where Ira died". This second class citizen at the time fought for all of our rights, including the criminal.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 21, 2009 4:34:00 GMT -4
The above seems to be somewhat common sentiment and I don't mean to criticize anyone in particular. As a non-child and as the husband of a non-child, I wish me and mine were considered to be as valuable and worthy of protection as children are.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 21, 2009 4:58:49 GMT -4
I think a conviction of a felony should carry the weight its given, and only that weight. I think once you have served the limit of your sentence, you should regain the full rights of a citizen. I believe conviction of a felony should carry some lifetime consequences. A felony is supposed to be a very serious or violent crime. Committing a felony requires some serious intent and shows a significant inability to make good decisions. In those cases, I could understand losing the right to possess certain weapons or losing the right to vote. HOWEVER, this country is too quick to become outraged and make something a felony. For example, driving 80mph in VA can get you a felony conviction and gluing pictures of Obama on mail boxes could result in a felony conviction. The lawmakers are too quick to escalate charges and penalties to the point that "felony" becomes less about serious, violent crime and more about posturing. I am for long-term restrictions on those convicted of serious and violent crimes. But, the way the felony charge is used today it encompasses too many non-violent indiscretions.
|
|
|
Post by brians on Aug 21, 2009 20:32:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Aug 22, 2009 0:49:45 GMT -4
Water Lady........With liberty = Freedom, And Justice = Equal & Fair Treatment, For All = Includes Criminals.......Do you know the true story of Iowa Jima flag raiser hero Ira Hayes?.......Johnny Cash "He died drunk early one morning in the land that he fought to save, two inches of water in a lonely ditch was a grave for Ira Hayes. Call him drunken Ira Hayes, but his land is just as dry, and his ghost is lying thirsty in the ditch where Ira died". This second class citizen at the time fought for all of our rights, including the criminal. OK Pete...I'll bite! First of all, yes I do know the "true" story of Iwo Jima. And I might add it is "Iwo" Jima, not "Iowa" Jima! Secondly - you know Pete, every now and again you need to be knocked down a peg or two...How you ever came to be of the opinion that you are a silently appointed "expert" on every single topic of discussion, is a mystery to most of us! Who do you think you are? I am a former United States Marine. I served my time Honorably and am proud to have done so. I don't need you to bloviate or lecture me on the history of Iwo Jima (or anything else for that matter.) You seem to think that if someone on this forum dares to comment, in any way at all, in opposition to your "opinions," that you have some God given right to tell all of us what the facts are - what the truth is - and how we should think and behave... As for Ira Hayes...he was one of six men pictured in the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. A hero? Yes he was! As were the other five depicted in the famous photo. The fact that he drank himself to death was no one's fault but his own. In my "opinion" this is a sad but true statement of fact. And by the way, a better informed individual might site something other than song lyrics by Johnny Cash to support such a weak position as well. You are free to comment on any post I make in the future, but I will not be responding to any posts submitted by you. Me thinks he doth protest too much...I am finished with the likes of you!
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Aug 22, 2009 7:29:02 GMT -4
I believe conviction of a felony should carry some lifetime consequences. I would only agree here if the crime you committed had a lifelong effect, such as you killed someone, or permanently disabled someone, ect. So this should be part of a sentence, not a mandatory effect. I don't believe the loss of rights forever should be automatic. If Zsa Zsa Gabor had been in D.C. when she slapped that cop, she could have been charged with a felony. I don't think that is an offense worthy of forever losing your right to vote or own firearms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 7:44:49 GMT -4
I agree with RobMoore; adding that if it was a violent or heinous type of felony.....you lose rights.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 22, 2009 7:45:28 GMT -4
I believe conviction of a felony should carry some lifetime consequences. I would only agree here if the crime you committed had a lifelong effect, such as you killed someone, or permanently disabled someone, ect. So this should be part of a sentence, not a mandatory effect. I don't believe the loss of rights forever should be automatic. If Zsa Zsa Gabor had been in D.C. when she slapped that cop, she could have been charged with a felony. I don't think that is an offense worthy of forever losing your right to vote or own firearms. I completely agree. "Felony" should be reserved for the particularly violent or serious crimes. I believe today the lawmakers (and many of us at times) are too focused on being "tough on crime" and don't think about what they are really doing. To put Zsa Zsa's slap, the Obama pictures on the mailboxes, 80mph in VA, and the serial murderer in the same group is ridiculous.
|
|