Punishing felons for the rest of their lives
- Thread starter diana
- Start date
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
TheBluesMan said:
MRex21 said:
Then I guess we're back to my original statement on the matter.
WillBrayjr
Moderator
Bad parents don't always make bad kids though most of the time it's true. Both of my biological parents are scumbags. My biological mother is a trouble maker, child abuser, a cronic liar, and rips people off. My biological father is a child abuser, down right evil in the fact that he'll beat up anyone for no reason, an overall career criminal. Maybe someday we'll cross paths and justice will finally be served.
I simply went and found myself a new mother and I have the Lord for my father now.
I simply went and found myself a new mother and I have the Lord for my father now.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Will Bray- Redefining the realities of the growing "it's Black and White, I'm to comfortable too care...or think" crowd in America.
You do us proud, Will.
Rich
You do us proud, Will.
Rich
BluesMan - DonR101395 - MRex21
I think it refreshing to read direct and to the point remarks like those made by MRex21.
It is encouraging to know that there's someone else "supportive" of that, like DonR101395
And it is especially good to know that TheBluesMan advocates mercy.
I tend to be more like DonR101395 and MRex21 in my attitudes but...
I am acutely aware of the lack of justice in the justice system and acutely aware of the molasses, syrupy, bleeding-heart, spineless application of appeasement which the liberals spread liberally all over the law...
Regardless... Justice cannot be fairly applied without mercy, and mercy cannot be fairly offered without justice...
The difference between us is that one side leans too heavily to Justice and the other does not apply justice firmly enough.
One solution is to be as merciful as possible before conviction, and as hard as is reasonable, after conviction.
I'm inclined to believe the Prosecutors and the Judge had good reason for cooking this guy's butt. Like maybe the guy had been dancing on the edge for years and the police had been hoping to catch him red-handed all along.
Maybe he and his buddies were raising grass out there in the forest???
I think it refreshing to read direct and to the point remarks like those made by MRex21.
It is encouraging to know that there's someone else "supportive" of that, like DonR101395
And it is especially good to know that TheBluesMan advocates mercy.
I tend to be more like DonR101395 and MRex21 in my attitudes but...
I am acutely aware of the lack of justice in the justice system and acutely aware of the molasses, syrupy, bleeding-heart, spineless application of appeasement which the liberals spread liberally all over the law...
Regardless... Justice cannot be fairly applied without mercy, and mercy cannot be fairly offered without justice...
The difference between us is that one side leans too heavily to Justice and the other does not apply justice firmly enough.
One solution is to be as merciful as possible before conviction, and as hard as is reasonable, after conviction.
I'm inclined to believe the Prosecutors and the Judge had good reason for cooking this guy's butt. Like maybe the guy had been dancing on the edge for years and the police had been hoping to catch him red-handed all along.
Maybe he and his buddies were raising grass out there in the forest???
Last edited:
WillBrayjr
Moderator
Thanks Rich
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Pointer-
I agree with all of what you propose except your view of how it's implemented.
See, it works this way:
Federal Prosecutors are generally NOT Elected Officials. In a shorter word, they're Bureaucrats and Potential Politicians. Potential Politicians realize where the votes come from....votes come from promises to reduce Fear Levels or promises to redistribute Wealth. Since the Prosecutor can not redistribute wealth (except, of course, to the State), it is generally in his best interests to be "Tough on Crime". His bosses like it. You like the "sound" of it. The future voters, when he runs for Congress, eat it up.
"Tough on Crime" simply means a high percent of convictions. The "who" and "what" matters not at all....just the numbers. Not all Prosecutors trip to this strategy, but the drive for convictions, with or without Justice, never goes away.
So we move to the Judges. Oh, sure, we hear about the lunatic fringe, giving baby rapers six months prison. But the fact of the matter is that in Federalized Crimes, like the War on Some Drugs, the War on Terror, Firearms Violations, "Hate Crimes", and the list grows...in these "crimes", the Judge has very little wiggle room on the sentence. The non-elected Federal Prosecutor determines the number of "points" and the sentence is pretty much set. In other words, there's only one person in the court room who can determine the sentence...and it ain't the Judge. It's the Bureaucrat looking to advance his career, make headlines or, perhaps, go into politics.
Add to that that we've increased the number of Felony Crimes in the past thirty years by what? Five Fold?
Think it's Black and White, huh? "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? You've already done the crime in that type of system. Only difference is nobody has tapped you on the shoulder for the payback....yet. Would that it never happens to you.
Rich
I agree with all of what you propose except your view of how it's implemented.
See, it works this way:
Federal Prosecutors are generally NOT Elected Officials. In a shorter word, they're Bureaucrats and Potential Politicians. Potential Politicians realize where the votes come from....votes come from promises to reduce Fear Levels or promises to redistribute Wealth. Since the Prosecutor can not redistribute wealth (except, of course, to the State), it is generally in his best interests to be "Tough on Crime". His bosses like it. You like the "sound" of it. The future voters, when he runs for Congress, eat it up.
"Tough on Crime" simply means a high percent of convictions. The "who" and "what" matters not at all....just the numbers. Not all Prosecutors trip to this strategy, but the drive for convictions, with or without Justice, never goes away.
So we move to the Judges. Oh, sure, we hear about the lunatic fringe, giving baby rapers six months prison. But the fact of the matter is that in Federalized Crimes, like the War on Some Drugs, the War on Terror, Firearms Violations, "Hate Crimes", and the list grows...in these "crimes", the Judge has very little wiggle room on the sentence. The non-elected Federal Prosecutor determines the number of "points" and the sentence is pretty much set. In other words, there's only one person in the court room who can determine the sentence...and it ain't the Judge. It's the Bureaucrat looking to advance his career, make headlines or, perhaps, go into politics.
Add to that that we've increased the number of Felony Crimes in the past thirty years by what? Five Fold?
Think it's Black and White, huh? "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? You've already done the crime in that type of system. Only difference is nobody has tapped you on the shoulder for the payback....yet. Would that it never happens to you.
Rich
Will, your a stand up guy - good for you.
Some here live within their own version of a little Utopian society, wallowing in their comfort zones. Viewing the world through rose color glasses - getting only the myoptic view that suits them vs. those with a sixth grade civics education.
Taking total responsibility for ones actions is something very few people accomplish, the path of least resistance is the easy way - responsibility is not a destination - its a road.
12-34hom
Some here live within their own version of a little Utopian society, wallowing in their comfort zones. Viewing the world through rose color glasses - getting only the myoptic view that suits them vs. those with a sixth grade civics education.
Taking total responsibility for ones actions is something very few people accomplish, the path of least resistance is the easy way - responsibility is not a destination - its a road.
12-34hom
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Yup...and many know that a Free and Responsible society pretty much takes care of the Big Bad Guys...without much help from .gov. We did it for nearly 200 years; the next century should be no problem. Unless, of course, we all become tomorrow's "Big Bad Guys".
Some of us live in constant fear; some of us refuse the KoolAid. Will Bray refused. Me, too. How 'bout you, Charlie? Has this nation's citizenry become so much more untrustworthy and dangerous in a couple decades? Or is the notion that People [And Governments] haven't changed much from their Heroism and Relative Savagery in 10,000 years, "rose colored"?
Rich
Rich,
Let me just say that I agree with you on the overall point, that a convicted felon should not necessarily lose his right to vote. Frankly, I think incarcerated felons should be able to vote. Seriously, what are we afraid of, that people will vote themselves out of jail? A society that jails so many that incarcerated citizens can change the law needs to reexamine its laws anyway.
That said, I don't quite understand you logic here...
I'm not sure if you are being serious about your definition of felon or just mocking others for being so merciless and judgmental. If you meant the former, in what sense are you a felon merely by committing a felony? While, "convicted felon" is a common phrase, there is no such thing as a an "unconvicted felon", to my knowledge. In essence, I am saying that saying a person is a "convicted felon" is redundant (actually, a lot of legal terms have this redundancy built in because of our system's Anglo-Saxon heritage).
I only bring this up because I argued this point before with someone who agreed with you, but was unable to explain why.
So am I wrong, can you be an "unconvicted felon?"
Let me just say that I agree with you on the overall point, that a convicted felon should not necessarily lose his right to vote. Frankly, I think incarcerated felons should be able to vote. Seriously, what are we afraid of, that people will vote themselves out of jail? A society that jails so many that incarcerated citizens can change the law needs to reexamine its laws anyway.
That said, I don't quite understand you logic here...
I'm not sure if you are being serious about your definition of felon or just mocking others for being so merciless and judgmental. If you meant the former, in what sense are you a felon merely by committing a felony? While, "convicted felon" is a common phrase, there is no such thing as a an "unconvicted felon", to my knowledge. In essence, I am saying that saying a person is a "convicted felon" is redundant (actually, a lot of legal terms have this redundancy built in because of our system's Anglo-Saxon heritage).
I only bring this up because I argued this point before with someone who agreed with you, but was unable to explain why.
So am I wrong, can you be an "unconvicted felon?"
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Greg-
Great point. Let me ask you:
- Was Al Capone a Murderer? He was only convicted of Income Tax Evasion.
- Is the Baby Raper who gets off because he was not properly Mirandized no longer a Baby Raper?
- Is a friend of yours who makes more than the alloted amount of home-made wine in his basement a "Felon"...or only if he gets caught and convicted for same?
No, a Felon is a Felon. A Convicted Felon is a Legal Term of Art that's been with us since the time that we understood these crimes. We would like to drop the "convicted" part today for a simple reason: If we don't, we'd have to ask ourselves whether we are, individually, "Felons".....and that honest answer would make it very difficult to dehumanize all the "convicted" felons that abound around us.
Rich
fel·on 1 Pronunciation (fln)
n.
1. Law One who has committed a felony.
2. Archaic An evil person.
adj. Archaic
Evil; cruel.
Main Entry: 1fel·on
Pronunciation: 'fe-l&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French felon, fel evildoer, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German fillen to beat, whip, fel skin -- more at FELL
1 : one who has committed a felony
2 archaic : VILLAIN
n.
1. Law One who has committed a felony.
2. Archaic An evil person.
adj. Archaic
Evil; cruel.
Main Entry: 1fel·on
Pronunciation: 'fe-l&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French felon, fel evildoer, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German fillen to beat, whip, fel skin -- more at FELL
1 : one who has committed a felony
2 archaic : VILLAIN
Rich,
Obviously, a murder is an a certain category of unlawful killing. For example, you can kill a person unlawfully and not be a murderer (manslaughter, etc). I presume, at some point, Al Capone killed someone in such a way that, if convicted, he would legally be a murderer. But "murderer" has never been exclusively a legal term, it has always been used to describe a certain type of immoral killing. So, in essence, murder has a legal and a moral sense.
The word felon, to my knowledge, is not commonly used to denote immoral conduct in any strict sense. For example, you could be a murderer in the legal sense, yet still have committed a moral act (in certain jurisdictions where self-defense is disallowed, for example). On the other hand, you might be in a moral sense a murderer, yet not be one legally (euthanasia, abortion, etc).
In other words, I thought that the term "felon" was used in the same fashion as the legal sense of murder, but not the moral sense. There are decent reasons not to use it the way that you, I now think correctly, suggest. As you pointed out, depending on how stupid your state legislature is, everything could be classified a felony. When this becomes true the moral sense of felony (if there is one) becomes meaningless. The same thing could not be done with the word murder. Redefining murder to be something else would not change the concept itself.
I would have thought he was a felon only if caught, but apparently the word has a potentially all-encompassing sense that allows for him to be a felon. OTOH, if I said, hey "Tom is a Felon" I don't think many people would ask if he was a convicted felon--they would assume it.
Damn the English language!
Obviously, a murder is an a certain category of unlawful killing. For example, you can kill a person unlawfully and not be a murderer (manslaughter, etc). I presume, at some point, Al Capone killed someone in such a way that, if convicted, he would legally be a murderer. But "murderer" has never been exclusively a legal term, it has always been used to describe a certain type of immoral killing. So, in essence, murder has a legal and a moral sense.
The word felon, to my knowledge, is not commonly used to denote immoral conduct in any strict sense. For example, you could be a murderer in the legal sense, yet still have committed a moral act (in certain jurisdictions where self-defense is disallowed, for example). On the other hand, you might be in a moral sense a murderer, yet not be one legally (euthanasia, abortion, etc).
In other words, I thought that the term "felon" was used in the same fashion as the legal sense of murder, but not the moral sense. There are decent reasons not to use it the way that you, I now think correctly, suggest. As you pointed out, depending on how stupid your state legislature is, everything could be classified a felony. When this becomes true the moral sense of felony (if there is one) becomes meaningless. The same thing could not be done with the word murder. Redefining murder to be something else would not change the concept itself.
I would have thought he was a felon only if caught, but apparently the word has a potentially all-encompassing sense that allows for him to be a felon. OTOH, if I said, hey "Tom is a Felon" I don't think many people would ask if he was a convicted felon--they would assume it.
Damn the English language!
It is very hard to be precise
Joab.
That is why I hate dictionaries...
(Mac built-n)
felon 1 |?fel?n| noun a person who has been convicted of a felony. adjective [ attrib. ] archaic cruel; wicked : the felon undermining hand of dark corruption. ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French, literally ‘wicked, a wicked person’ (oblique case of fel ‘evil’ ), from medieval Latin fello, fellon-. Compare with felon 2 .felon 2 noun archaic term for whitlow . ORIGIN Middle English : perhaps a specific use of felon 1 ; medieval Latin fello, fellon- had the same sense.
another (Cambridge)
felon Show phonetics
noun [C] LEGAL
a person who is guilty of a serious crime
Joab.
That is why I hate dictionaries...
(Mac built-n)
felon 1 |?fel?n| noun a person who has been convicted of a felony. adjective [ attrib. ] archaic cruel; wicked : the felon undermining hand of dark corruption. ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French, literally ‘wicked, a wicked person’ (oblique case of fel ‘evil’ ), from medieval Latin fello, fellon-. Compare with felon 2 .felon 2 noun archaic term for whitlow . ORIGIN Middle English : perhaps a specific use of felon 1 ; medieval Latin fello, fellon- had the same sense.
another (Cambridge)
felon Show phonetics
noun [C] LEGAL
a person who is guilty of a serious crime
Rich Lucibella
Staff
[Sigh]
OK.
- You are not a Felon unless The State says you are.
- You are not a Murderer unless The State decrees you such.
- You are certainly not a Hero unless The State bestows on you the ribbon. (We used to call those "Decorated" Heroes...no need anymore? "Hero" will do?)
- And you are most certainly Free only when The State declares you Free.
So, if you rely on The State for your definitions, then you can never do anything illegal unless caught, tried and convicted? You can never be Free until The State defines Freedom? In fact, you can never understand the meaning of a 500 year old word without The State's translation. This is all patently absurd, Greg.
What's worse, if you DO rely on The State's ever-changing definitions, then Joe McCarthy was on the right track. He just didn't have the juice to change the definitions of words you once thought you understood...words like "Communist", "Subversive" and "Traitor".
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Works for me.
Rich
OK.
- You are not a Felon unless The State says you are.
- You are not a Murderer unless The State decrees you such.
- You are certainly not a Hero unless The State bestows on you the ribbon. (We used to call those "Decorated" Heroes...no need anymore? "Hero" will do?)
- And you are most certainly Free only when The State declares you Free.
So, if you rely on The State for your definitions, then you can never do anything illegal unless caught, tried and convicted? You can never be Free until The State defines Freedom? In fact, you can never understand the meaning of a 500 year old word without The State's translation. This is all patently absurd, Greg.
What's worse, if you DO rely on The State's ever-changing definitions, then Joe McCarthy was on the right track. He just didn't have the juice to change the definitions of words you once thought you understood...words like "Communist", "Subversive" and "Traitor".
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Works for me.
Rich
Rich,
In the legal sense, of course you are not a felon until convicted. However, as you have pointed out, there is another sense in which anyone who commits an act deemed a felony is a felon, notwithstanding their legal status.
I agree that is absurd, but it is also a straw man. I said that I (before you explained it to me) thought the term felon denoted only a person's status in relation to the legal system. I believed a person could not be a "unconvicted felon." Obviously the term felon is meaningless in a legal sense unless the person is convicted. For example, in Georgia a person who elects "first offender" status, although they committed a felony (and are therefore "felons" according to your usage), is not a "felon." When they fill out a job application they are allowed to indicate that they are not a felon--because they are not. However, this is where the term "convicted felon" comes to the rescue.
Greg
In the legal sense, of course you are not a felon until convicted. However, as you have pointed out, there is another sense in which anyone who commits an act deemed a felony is a felon, notwithstanding their legal status.
I agree that is absurd, but it is also a straw man. I said that I (before you explained it to me) thought the term felon denoted only a person's status in relation to the legal system. I believed a person could not be a "unconvicted felon." Obviously the term felon is meaningless in a legal sense unless the person is convicted. For example, in Georgia a person who elects "first offender" status, although they committed a felony (and are therefore "felons" according to your usage), is not a "felon." When they fill out a job application they are allowed to indicate that they are not a felon--because they are not. However, this is where the term "convicted felon" comes to the rescue.
Greg
DonR101395
New member
I believe we've gotten off track with convicted felon vs committing a felony. In truth it really doesn't matter unless you've been convicted of a felony. You don't lose any freedoms/rights for committing a felony only for being convicted of a felony. Let's face it people commit felonies everyday for which they pay nothing because they are never convicted of their crimes. No, it doesn't make them less of an evil person if they raped or murdered, but we have a legal system and if they use the legal system to their advantage they are entitled. We don't have to like the fact that they used the system to their advantage, but it's a fact of life. If we don't like the system there are procedures in place to change the system. You just have to find enough people who agree with you to make the changes you would like to see. It's a difficult process and is that way by design.
If you murder your neighbor, but don't get convicted for it, does that mean you actually murdered him?
I understand and condone the implications of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law," but fact is fact, even if it is never uncovered. The institution that Americans are innocent until proven guilty is there to protect the innocent, for it is far worse for an innocent man to be convicted for a criminal to go free.
If a tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it, does it still make a sound?
I understand and condone the implications of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law," but fact is fact, even if it is never uncovered. The institution that Americans are innocent until proven guilty is there to protect the innocent, for it is far worse for an innocent man to be convicted for a criminal to go free.
If a tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it, does it still make a sound?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
OK, great semantic sidetrack. My apologies for creating it, though that really wasn't where I was headed.
Back on topic:
The issues at hand are whether or not we've trivialized the traditional connotation of "Felon" by adding so many former Misdemeanors to the class as to render the term meaningless.
Rich
Back on topic:
The issues at hand are whether or not we've trivialized the traditional connotation of "Felon" by adding so many former Misdemeanors to the class as to render the term meaningless.
Rich