They Don’t Pay Their Fair Share

[sjt18]

Take it up with the judge. Not the person who used to be a criminal.

You want to punish a citizen because the system doesnt punish them enough based on the laws at hand.

If the crime deserves worse punish, up the laws, and let the judges dish it out. But once time/punishment is served they are full citizens again.

So to you the rights of the victim do not matter.. only the rights of the perpetrator? And how many judges would dare give a rapist a life sentence like the rapist gave say a 14 year old girl?

The system we have is inherently unjust so either we tax people who cannot vote or we grant the right to vote to someone who may cancel out the vote of their victim.... or even vote themselves money from that person's bank account. I don't know the answer... only that the one you propose is not "just".

 

[sjt18]

If the criminal needs to be punished for life, punish them for life.

What we have is they are sentenced to a 25 year sentence. But then go on to continue being punished once the 25 are up. That's wrong. If the judge doesnt think 25 is enough make it 50 or life. At the end of whatever sentence the criminal gets, they should be equal to any other citizen.

The system you are pushing just creates more victims as it forces criminals into recidivism once they are out, so they go back to the only thing they know, wronging others.

So why is 25 years with no freedom and no right to vote afterwards less respectful of the rights of the criminal than a life sentence with no freedom and no right to vote? Is the restriction on voting not just an extension of the punishment after the prison part comes to an end?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So to you the rights of the victim do not matter.. only the rights of the perpetrator? And how many judges would dare give a rapist a life sentence like the rapist gave say a 14 year old girl?

The system we have is inherently unjust so either we tax people who cannot vote or we grant the right to vote to someone who may cancel out the vote of their victim.... or even vote themselves money from that person's bank account. I don't know the answer... only that the one you propose is not "just".

I don't think anyone here is denying the victim has rights. Why do you keep barking up this tree?

What reasonable people are simply saying is that if the person that does the crime serves their full sentence, they have paid their debt to society and they should have their rights fully restored. If the crime is so heinous that they feel the need to deny these people their full rights, then maybe the sentence given to the person was not harsh enough for the crime committed.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So why is 25 years with no freedom and no right to vote afterwards less respectful of the rights of the criminal than a life sentence with no freedom and no right to vote? Is the restriction on voting not just an extension of the punishment after the prison part comes to an end?

If the crime is so awful that you have to extend penalties past the time that they served in jail, then you have a sentencing problem.

 

[sjt18]

Yep - societal evolution.
The history of man is nothing but a tale of societal evolution....as is religion nothing more than that same reflection.
Sometimes revolution is used to speed the evolution.

LOL... nope. Man and his societies aren't "evolving"... just cycling. Over and over. You think we have "evolved" and have arrived at a more "sophisticated" set of social mores... and history says that societies like ours across the world have sank to this level of moral decadence... followed by collapse.

Your "religion" is definitely showing.

 

[sjt18]

If the crime is so awful that you have to extend penalties past the time that they served in jail, then you have a sentencing problem.

Why? Judges sentence people to combination penalties all the time. They combine different measures of fines, probations, imprisonment, etc.

In MO, a certain number of DUI's gets you prison. I can't remember the number of offences but I believe the mandatory sentence is 7 years at some point. I knew a young lady whose husband got locked up for DUI. When released, they don't automatically get the right to get a driver's license again. Again operating on memory, I believe they have to get a court's approval to get a license and then it might be limited to work travel only.

So what rule says that different measures of different punishments cannot be combined to create the correct penalty?

 

[sjt18]

I don't think anyone here is denying the victim has rights. Why do you keep barking up this tree?

What reasonable people are simply saying is that if the person that does the crime serves their full sentence, they have paid their debt to society and they should have their rights fully restored. If the crime is so heinous that they feel the need to deny these people their full rights, then maybe the sentence given to the person was not harsh enough for the crime committed.

Your "reasoning" however does not address the crime's impact on the victim.

Hate to even admit this but my wife's sister was married to a thug. After pretty much spending his life in trouble for one thing or another he stabbed a guy to death in a fight. Ostensibly he could be granted parole or complete his sentence. And because the only consistent money he's ever made "legally" has been some form of social welfare... the family of the victims would support him while he voted for people to keep his handouts coming. In what world is that justice?

 

[hog88]

Why? Judges sentence people to combination penalties all the time. They combine different measures of fines, probations, imprisonment, etc.

In MO, a certain number of DUI's gets you prison. I can't remember the number of offences but I believe the mandatory sentence is 7 years at some point. I knew a young lady whose husband got locked up for DUI. When released, they don't automatically get the right to get a driver's license again. Again operating on memory, I believe they have to get a court's approval to get a license and then it might be limited to work travel only.

So what rule says that different measures of different punishments cannot be combined to create the correct penalty?

The only time your rights as a citizen should be taken from anyone is when they are incarcerated be that physically locked up or on probation/parole. So it goes back to sentencing if the sentence is 1 year or 25 years followed by 1 year or 25 years of probation the basic rights of citizenship can be stripped. But once the sentence is complete all rights should be restored. The judge should specifically spell out just how long the sentence is.

 

[McDad]

So to you the rights of the victim do not matter.. only the rights of the perpetrator? And how many judges would dare give a rapist a life sentence like the rapist gave say a 14 year old girl?

The system we have is inherently unjust so either we tax people who cannot vote or we grant the right to vote to someone who may cancel out the vote of their victim.... or even vote themselves money from that person's bank account. I don't know the answer... only that the one you propose is not "just".

You won't like this observation, but you are straw-manning your replies. Louder has not addressed the rights of victims.

 

[McDad]

Why? Judges sentence people to combination penalties all the time. They combine different measures of fines, probations, imprisonment, etc.

In MO, a certain number of DUI's gets you prison. I can't remember the number of offences but I believe the mandatory sentence is 7 years at some point. I knew a young lady whose husband got locked up for DUI. When released, they don't automatically get the right to get a driver's license again. Again operating on memory, I believe they have to get a court's approval to get a license and then it might be limited to work travel only.

So what rule says that different measures of different punishments cannot be combined to create the correct penalty?

Driver's licenses are privileges.

 

[hog88]

Driver's licenses are privileges.

They're actually restrictions. Free movement shouldn't be a privilege.

 

[McDad]

They're actually restrictions. Free movement shouldn't be a privilege.

At a loss to comprehend. What do you mean by 'free movement'?

 

[McDad]

By the way, there has been some excellent discussion on the board. I guess when the president is 'in abstentia' we turn our attention to other things. I've enjoyed it.

 

[hog88]

At a loss to comprehend. What do you mean by 'free movement'?

The .gov shouldn't restrict my use of property and my movement. If I can afford an automobile and pay the highway taxes (fuel taxes) I should be free to use it without asking for permission.

 

[McDad]

The .gov shouldn't restrict my use of property and my movement. If I can afford an automobile and pay the highway taxes (fuel taxes) I should be free to use it without asking for permission.

Understood. Agree federally. Disagree on the state level.

 

[hog88]

Understood. Agree federally. Disagree on the state level.

Pinko commie liberal statist!

 

[whodeycin85]

Felons should get all of their rights back once they complete their sentence.

Most felons that carry the title for life are multiple offenders....i believe better then 50% of 1st timers, get diversion offered and of they pay the fines and finish probation and without more charges then the case is dropped and record cleaned..issue is many are repeat and multiple offenders.

 

[LouderVol]

So why is 25 years with no freedom and no right to vote afterwards less respectful of the rights of the criminal than a life sentence with no freedom and no right to vote? Is the restriction on voting not just an extension of the punishment after the prison part comes to an end?

It's an extension, but that doesnt make it right.

You post the extreme that aligns with your happenstance, but what about the other extreme?

What about the guys with rape charges, because the girl woke up in the morning and regretted it? You are taking away their rights too.

My friend who got a DUI conviction and never even entered their car. There are some serious consequences that have extended far beyond their sentence.

We are innocent until proven guilty. But you want these people to be punished for forever. The only logical conclusion to your stance is that all sentences for all crimes are life sentences.

We have a system designed to keep people in prison. A system designed to reward itself for having people in prison. That has to change.

The best first step is to limit punishment to the sentence. As I said if the judge thinks they shouldnt vote and the law supports that, then take it away. But make that a stated part of the sentencing.

As it is our criminal justice system comes with a butt load of "oh yeah, and...." and we call it justice to back door people with punishments. That's not what our FF would have wanted.

 

[luthervol]

LOL... nope. Man and his societies aren't "evolving"... just cycling. Over and over. You think we have "evolved" and have arrived at a more "sophisticated" set of social mores... and history says that societies like ours across the world have sank to this level of moral decadence... followed by collapse.

Your "religion" is definitely showing.

LOL-yep.
Just go back through the timeline of mankind - you'll see it.

 

[sjt18]

Driver's licenses are privileges.

Is voting a "right" in the sense that free speech is? Is there something in natural law that establishes a transcendent or inalienable right to "vote"? I'm asking honest questions... not being a smart aleck. I thought about that objection but I don't have a good answer. I'm not even saying that people should not be able to vote after serving their sentence.... just that our current system does not really offer a solution that provides justice for everyone.

If voting is a right then what kinds of qualifications can legitimately apply? Age? Citizenship status? Felon?

 

[sjt18]

LOL-yep.
Just go back through the timeline of mankind - you'll see it.

Have done so. Throughout recorded history... we see the same societal patterns. They rise. They fall. And for the same basic reasons.

 

[McDad]

Pinko commie liberal statist!

I am the worst.

Should I change my name to MarxDad?

 

[luthervol]

Have done so. Throughout recorded history... we see the same societal patterns. They rise. They fall. And for the same basic reasons.

The fact that we continually go through the same cycle was established at the beginning of this debate.
The point is that with each iteration of the cycle, societal evolution brings us closer to where we ultimately wish to be.

 

[McDad]

Is voting a "right" in the sense that free speech is? Is there something in natural law that establishes a transcendent or inalienable right to "vote"? I'm asking honest questions... not being a smart aleck. I thought about that objection but I don't have a good answer. I'm not even saying that people should not be able to vote after serving their sentence.... just that our current system does not really offer a solution that provides justice for everyone.

If voting is a right then what kinds of qualifications can legitimately apply? Age? Citizenship status? Felon?

Really good questions, imo. Voting is a privilege established by the government. After all, the government established restrictions and criteria for voting. As a privilege granted by the government, it can (and should) be discretionary.
The principle of no taxation without representation exists, at least to me, on a higher plane. It is an ideal which we should strive to preserve. The principle is stronger and more important than the vote. Our tool which allows us to be represented is the privilege of voting.

I don't have time to articulate it more fully right now.

Similarly, Justice is an ideal. A principle. The way the government administrates justice is via our court system. Justice is more important than a court.

I hope I can come back to this later.

 

[sjt18]

It's an extension, but that doesnt make it right.

Why? You said that if the sentences were not severe enough then they should be made harsher. So you are saying that it would be OK if he couldn't vote in prison for the rest of his life but not OK if his freedom came at the cost of some extended punishment. That doesn't sound consistent on your part.

You post the extreme that aligns with your happenstance, but what about the other extreme?

Not at all. You are saying that either a criminal must be in jail or other punishments cannot apply.

What about the guys with rape charges, because the girl woke up in the morning and regretted it? You are taking away their rights too.

I think that takes the conversation off course but I believe those cases should be handled under different labels and standards than someone who violently forces sex on someone.

My friend who got a DUI conviction and never even entered their car. There are some serious consequences that have extended far beyond their sentence.

Just from that brief description it sounds like your friend was hosed. But someone with a legitimate DUI conviction will definitely face obstacles. Insurance will be on big one... backed by legal regulations.

We are innocent until proven guilty. But you want these people to be punished for forever. The only logical conclusion to your stance is that all sentences for all crimes are life sentences.

We aren't talking about the innocent. We are talking about those proven guilty. I didn't say nor imply that "logical" conclusion. And we DO punish people "forever" in some cases. We lock them up until they die or we execute them. I don't see a 15 year sentence for rape followed by the extended punishment of not being able to vote as equivalent to life in prison. Do you? Or maybe a 5 year sentence for robbery followed by a 10 year suspension of voting contingent on not committing more crime?

We have a system designed to keep people in prison. A system designed to reward itself for having people in prison. That has to change.

Do what? Reward itself for having people in prison? So what would you propose as an alternative for rape, theft, battery, manslaughter, murder, embezzlement, etc?

The best first step is to limit punishment to the sentence. As I said if the judge thinks they shouldnt vote and the law supports that, then take it away. But make that a stated part of the sentencing.

I could buy that with legislating sentencing guidance.

As it is our criminal justice system comes with a butt load of "oh yeah, and...." and we call it justice to back door people with punishments. That's not what our FF would have wanted.

I think we have testimony from the founders in the way they handled criminals. They punished them severely. Whipping for theft was permitted. Their standard for "cruel and unusual" was significantly different from that of the ACLU over the last 100 years.

Honest question. Do you know when permanent denial of voting rights for past felons began?