Punishing felons for the rest of their lives

a person who is guilty of a serious crime
Click to expand...
I would look up guilty for you but you don't like to use dictionaries to get the definitions of words,:confused:
but being guilty of something has nothing to do with whether 12 people decide that the state has proved that you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Guilty simply means that you did it regardless of who knows.

And I would hardly take the word of a Mac built in over Cambridge or Webster
 
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.
Click to expand...

Now that I agree with 100%. Legislatures are creating new felony classifications like they are going out of style. Again, a person should be punished for breaking the law, but taking away his right to vote makes no sense. Frankly, most prisoners won't vote anyway--they are too busy watching sports and cartoons. But, if a person who is paying his debt chooses to vote I don't have any interest in stopping him. I agree, most prisoners would vote Democrat, but that isn't an intellectually honest reason to oppose it.
 
Joab,

Guilty simply means that you did it regardless of who knows.
Click to expand...

guilty
adj. having been convicted of a crime or having admitted the commission of a crime by pleading "guilty" (saying you did it). A defendant may also be found guilty by a judge after a plea of "no contest," or in Latin nolo contendere. The term "guilty" is also sometimes applied to persons against whom a judgment has been found in a lawsuit for a civil wrong, such as negligence or some intentional act like assault or fraud, but that is a confusing misuse of the word since it should only apply to a criminal charge.
 
No mess

You just shop around for a dictionary that will give the definition you want

You use Cambridge to give you a definition you think supports your case for felon and then go to Law.Com to get a definition of guilty when the first definition doesn't prove your point.

there are probably doctors on the board wondering why there is even a discussion of felons having guns or votes in the first place.

What's next you go to a rap dictionary to get a definition of Felonious
 
I have been absolutely polite and courteous throughout this discussion. I have sent you a message where I explain myself further.
 
And I have explained my position in open forum.
If you don't wish to discuss it here further that's OK
I think we both have made our points as well as we are going to
 
"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?"

More semantics, but the fact is if you commit a felony that is never discovered you are not a felon because you have not been convicted of a felony. A felon's rights are stripped from him by the court system and the only way for that to be done is to be convicted.

A tree falling in the forest and making a sound is alot like a felony being committed that is never discovered. Does the tree make a sound? It doesn't matter because no one is there to hear it. Does an undiscovered felony make you a felon? It doesn't matter because no one has discovered it and you can't be convicted of a crime not known to have been committed. If you kill your neighbor and the body is found, it is not an undiscovered felony.
Murder is the legal term for the crime they will charge you with committing. The act itself is killing.
Click to expand...
 
The plight of ex-felons
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/Viewpoints/WeThePeopleCountsForEx-Felons,Too.shtml

Let's not even go into how you could be an Ex-felon!:D :D

Arguments that Felons should not be able to vote

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_felons.html

High school student gets charged with a felony for crashing his high school computer...

http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=261925&Category=15&fromSearch=yes


Kid charged with felony for carrying sugar!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-sugardrug11.html


We really need to get a handle on the legal system. Traditionally, common law felonies were things that anyone with a more or less common sense of morality would recognize as serious crimes. These days, as Rich pointed out, even speeding can be a felony in certain jurisdictions.


I have a proposal. We need a hell of a lot fewer felonies but a hell of a lot more misdemeanors punished by caning!


Remember this punk?
 
Rich, yea I've been afraid - but i don't live in constant fear - big difference.

Does that make me a kool aid drinker or sheeple or whatever current phrase is in vogue, if so - i can live with it.

Most people are good - law abiding citizens that share common goals and want to live their life's out in a peaceful manner.

Then there are those that act in felonious ways - praying upon society - having no regard for others - they seek only to gratify their own needs - at whatever cost. For those, the full extent of the law should be applied.

I have zero tolerance and or sympathy for those who's actions fit the description above.

12-34hom.
 
The definition of a Felon:
www.michigan.gov/corrections Click on offender search, MDOC #444058

This guy is no different from William Bray Sr. I hope this guy does every minute of his sentence. This guy will continue to prey on innocent people when he does get released.
 
Rich
Federal Prosecutors are generally NOT Elected Officials. In a shorter word, they're Bureaucrats and Potential Politicians.
Click to expand...

Alas, you are right... and politicians are more likely to apply their work dishonestly... :(

I do, however, believe that they cannot get away with intentionally false convictions that are too blatant because the Judges don't want to be over-turned by the appellate courts...

Forgive me, but I also want to believe that most people want to be fair and honest... maybe there's too much "Pollyanna" in my upbringing... ya think?
 
Charlie-
Once again, I agree with your imagery. But it relates to the classic concept of "Felon": that is a violent Felon. For the murderer, rapist, home invader or stick-up man a lifetime loss of rights can be argued to serve as a real deterrent.

But the problem is that we have this growing class of Felons who's only crimes are things like joking about drugs, lying to an Agent of FedGov (Martha Stewart), speed of 25 MPH over the limit, possession of high cap magazine (CA), possession of hollow point ammunition (NJ).

We dumb ourselves down when we speak of (and treat) the latter group in exactly the same manner as the former. I don't like being dumbed down. Personally, I think the real answer is to roll back the number of "offenses" that constitute a felony...previous example here was an 18 year old who publicly asked help in crashing his school's server. Stupid prank? Yes. Worthy of becoming a disenfranchised non-citizen for the next 70 years? I simply think not.
Rich
 
TheBluesMan said:
Then I guess we're back to my original statement on the matter.
Click to expand...

TheBluesMan said:
I'm not saying that one should not be held responsible for one's actions. I'm saying that people shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of others - an assertion to which your statements above run contrary.
Click to expand...

TheBluesMan, I was referring to that single quote in reference to the examples you gave. Your 'guilt by association' is actualy poor decision making. You are trying to argue that people who choose to engage in bad behavior should not have any consequences to their actions. That is detestible.
 
Oh God.:rolleyes:
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
Click to expand...

Yay Libertarians. Go team. Free Koolaid. :barf:

180px-Fonziejumping.jpg

Jumped the shark
 
MRex-
You're kind of a noob around these parts so we try to make exceptions. But at TFL, we generally prefer reasoned debate over drive-bys. Did you have a point? A point would be nice.
Rich
 
Gentlemen!!

Semantics? :cool:

Remember the thread? :rolleyes:

BTW it isn't "guilt by association" if they have complicity in the crime.

Like the robber who is convicted of murder because his partner shoots the victim, the parent gets punished for their complicity in the crimes of their minor children.

Hard, but true... they made the choices, or failed to make the choices, that brought the kid to a disrespect for laws, mores, and social authorities...

All too many parents, these days, are content to blame this on anything but themselves... the "bad seed syndrome"...
We have bad seeds raising bad seeds... let the parents pay!!!

Or let them "choose" to NOT BE PARENTS!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top