TexasCHLforum.com

theHunter wrote:Several people advocating for someone who commits a crime to not serve their punishment, to me, that means that you are ok with that crime if you don't want them to be punished.

So you know and trust that a government can't become tyrannical? Does it never abuse powers such as targeting conservative groups with the IRS?

Please quote where someone advocated to not have crimes punished? The debate/discussion here is at what point has the State stepped beyond the scope of its power?

I am personally surprised at the number of people ok with the government being able to permanently strip you of a God-given right. That's not to say they shouldn't have the ability to suspend or suppress a right for a limited amount of time for severe enough crimes. I mean, while we're at it, lets strip felon's right to freedom of speech/first amendment rights. Do they need 4th and 5th amendment, nah they're felons, they don't deserve those either. Why not brand them or tattoo them with a bar code and make them second-class citizens? Am I being ridiculous, yes - but its to prove a point. At what point does this slippery slope end?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. -Martin Niemöller

It's easy to say that it's part and parcel for the punishment because we aren't the ones being affected by it, but just like the story linked, it could just as easily be someone following the law. If you have to petition the court and pay money to restore a right, then it isn't a right, its a privilege at that point IMO. But we've already started to slide down this slippery slope I guess, and too many are willing to potentially give up freedoms for safety. And we all know what our founding fathers said about that(or at least one of them did).

Rights can be lost by one's own actions. There is no right that is greater than the right to live, but one's life can be taken by the state if they commit a capital offense. My suggestion is for an administrative procedure to have civil rights restored after the commission of a violent felony. If the request for restoration of civil rights were rejected by the administrative board, the applicant would have the opportunity to seek relief in state court with the option to request a jury trial.

I presume from your comments that you think violent felons should retain all civil rights, including Second Amendment rights, the moment they walk out of prison.

Chas.

Mr Cotton - no, I do not believe their rights should be restored the moment they walk out of jail. My argument isn't about the ability to temporarily remove rights due to action, my argument is against that allowing the State to remove them permanently. As I stated previously, I believe the length of 'cooling period' of their rights should not be indefinite and length should be equal to the crime. But I don't believe that they should be 'cooled' or removed permanently. The ability to reinstate them sooner via a trial or administrative hearing at that point would be fair, because then the State cannot deny them permanently but can restore them in case of injustice.

Our court system is one of the best in the world, but it is still far from perfect. Given that fact, innocent people are sometimes convicted wrongly. And with states like NJ that have "may issue" gun permits, can we trust them to fairly restore rights?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. -Martin Niemöller

It's easy to say that it's part and parcel for the punishment because we aren't the ones being affected by it, but just like the story linked, it could just as easily be someone following the law. If you have to petition the court and pay money to restore a right, then it isn't a right, its a privilege at that point IMO. But we've already started to slide down this slippery slope I guess, and too many are willing to potentially give up freedoms for safety. And we all know what our founding fathers said about that(or at least one of them did).

MechAg94 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:As I believe that bill of rights dictates natural rights that were imbued by God - I don't think man/the courts have the right to take away those rights permanently. There should be a cooling period, X number of years per the crime but after enough time they should be restored. Violet crimes should have a longer cooling period, and I could even see an argument given for those who repeatedly offend having extra time added to their sentence of removing their rights - this could be something like they are suspended during the parole period or work similarly to parole.

Remember the Bill or rights were put in place to prevent government abuse, if we allow the government to dictate how those rights to be stripped, it gives the government an avenue for abuse. Just my .02 cents.

This is kind of where I started to rethink this. If the person is so bad they should never be given rights back, why are they not still in prison? I am undecided on where I would draw that line.

I think what Mr. Cotton mentioned about an administrative procedure to restore rights later is a good idea. If someone has completed their prison sentence as well as parole then they should be able to get basic rights restored after some time period. At some point assuming no further criminal conduct, I think we can say they are good members of society.

My only problem with an administrative procedure to restore rights, is we are still giving the government the ultimate power to revoke someone's natural rights indefinitely - I've always felt like that was at odds with what our founding fathers intended. Mr Cotton's argument is well thought out, I'm just not sure that I trust the government or an administrative body to be the deciding factor. What happens when the code of law gets so bloated and obtuse that you can be charged with felonies you didn't even know exist... oh wait - we are already there. There are laws on the books that 'aren't being enforced' but still are binding law, so what happens is they use these outdated/non-enforced laws to go after people they disagree with, etc.

If we believe that Criminals have repaid their debt to society, then why are we stripping them of natural rights? What happens when the majority of the country has been stripped of rights because they are 'criminals'?

As I believe that bill of rights dictates natural rights that were imbued by God - I don't think man/the courts have the right to take away those rights permanently. There should be a cooling period, X number of years per the crime but after enough time they should be restored. Violet crimes should have a longer cooling period, and I could even see an argument given for those who repeatedly offend having extra time added to their sentence of removing their rights - this could be something like they are suspended during the parole period or work similarly to parole.

Remember the Bill or rights were put in place to prevent government abuse, if we allow the government to dictate how those rights to be stripped, it gives the government an avenue for abuse. Just my .02 cents.