Gun ruling prompts convicts to challenge gun laws.

[pex]

Originally Posted by noofus

Unless they can fix the penal system in this country, felons cannot be allowed to have guns...

So your premise is that we deserve whatever the government can't handle? (It could be felons not getting rights restored because of the mishandling of the prison system, or it could be the people not having liberty because no one will follow rule of law.)

[RandomTask]

Funny thing is that if a convicted felon is bent on going back to his criminal ways, he WILL find a way to get a gun.

[ReefBlue]

Originally Posted by Elmar

They are still crimes so his point stands.

So jaywalking is just as serious as rape?

[pex]

Originally Posted by ReefBlue

So jaywalking is just as serious as rape?

Did you intend to say the following just so you could prove yourself wrong? If so, please explain the purpose of your exercise.

Originally Posted by ReefBlue

They are second class citizens if they can't function within the confines of the law to begin with.

You don't seem to provide the distinction between jaywalking and rape, so why are you asking US whether there is a difference without providing something to connect the dots?

[Bruce]

Why does society call someone who was convicted of a felony, successfully served their "time" - meaning that they have 'fully paid their debt' to 'society' - a "felon"??

From the time of conviction until the final day that the sentence allows, sure - call them "con" or "convict" or "convicted felon" or "felon". But, once the sentence is satisfied and their 'debt is paid' then 'ex-con' should be the worst they are called.

The root of the problem, in my opinion, is that the punishment doesn't actually fit the crime. Since the beginning of this whole "prison" and "rehabilitation" nonsense, we've been reducing the severity of actual 'punishment' in favor of more 'humane' criminal treatment. Many criminals actually enjoy a 'step up' in comfort and style while visiting the 'Gray Bar Hotel'.

Free meals, clean water, working plumbing, heat that works in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, a free gym membership, free first-class dental and medical care, and all the same dangers that (maybe even fewer than) they live with on the 'outside' anyway.

There was a time in society when we actually punished criminals; and the punishment usually fit the crime. Just like after a parent punishes a child, all is forgiven and there is the expectation that they will not do it again.

The way our system is right now, of course I don't want someone who was a convicted kidnapper-rapist-murderer to ever have a gun. Will they get a gun? Probably. Did they 'learn their lesson' in prison? Probably not.

Me? I'd be terrified of going to prison. To me, the idea of prison is the same as a living hell. That isn't why I am law-abiding. I don't obey the law because of my fear of prison. Like most people, I don't obey the law out of fear of punishment, I obey the law because it is the right thing to do.

Serious criminals, especially violent criminals, don't think like we do. They don't see the law the same way we do. And they don't see prison = hell like we do. These people need more than just the prospect of the "Gray Bar Hotel" to keep them honest - but society (you) doesn't seem to get this.

Do some people get convicted of felonies, serve their 'time', and then become honest, law-abiding, respectable, peaceful citizens? Of course - but we're talking about a minority here. Hopefully, these people figure out how to get their record expunged. Hopefully these people have sympathetic judges who are willing to expunge their record; or, at least, get a official government 'pardon'. Chances are, they won't get any such break.

The system is horribly broken and it desperately needs to be fixed. Criminal-minded people need to fear punishment to 'keep them honest'. If we are going to keep the prison system, then it should never be a 'step up' in lifestyle and living conditions for any convicted criminal.

Personally, for any crime above a simple 'offense', I say we just go back to public canning or flogging for minor crimes, extreme labor and harsh living conditions for moderate offenders, and branding or hanging for severe offenses. But that's just me.
.

[noofus]

Originally Posted by pex

So your premise is that we deserve whatever the government can't handle? (It could be felons not getting rights restored because of the mishandling of the prison system, or it could be the people not having liberty because no one will follow rule of law.)

I am not sure I understand what you mean.

What I am trying to say is that in the current state of the penal system - many people let out of prison go on to do something that will land them back in prison. We use imprisonment as a punishment - yet we call the place we imprison them in a "penitentiary". The root of that word being penitent, meaning "feeling or expressing sorrow for sin or wrongdoing and disposed to atonement and amendment; repentant; contrite. "

In other words - a prison is intended to make someone feel sorry for what they had done, and thus become rehabilitated. Instead all it does is make people angry with the system, not at themselves for ending up there. They then are let out, but are no better (sometimes far worse) than when they went in.

Until we can fix that problem with our penal system, allowing ex-convicts to have firearms is a bad idea.

Some of you guys on this forum say that once you have done your time, technically your debt is repaid. To those who say that, I ask this: Is the purpose of imprisonment to "pay back" society for the wrong you have done or is it to rehabilitate the wrong-doer such that they wont do it again? If its the latter, and it works, then yes all rights should be restored. But if its the former, how is imprisonment going to change the person such that they arent going to do it again? You guys seem to argue both sides and it doesnt work.

Perhaps everyone who as been in prison and let out should go through a hearing at the end of their parole period to determine if he/she should continue parole, and thus have "restricted rights" or can be trusted once again.