Punishing felons for the rest of their lives

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... let the parents pay!!!
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And the logical conclusion is.....

A State in which entire families are imprisoned, tortured or put to death due to the "sins" of one. What is it we call that type of State? In any case, Fidel and a few others still maintain that type of "Zero Tolerance"....good to know where we're headed.

Pointer, may your father, children or wife never cross the legal line in your presence...you may just be in a world of hurt. I hereby dub you spokesman for the "New America". ;)

Rules is Rules.
Thinking is Dangerous.

Rich
 
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
Click to expand...

Thank you, Yoda. Don't you worry your green little ears. Reasoned debate? Sure, ok. Oh, you mean the constant diarrhea of anti-law enforcement bigotry that you wise 'moderators' allow and promote.

You are a lousy moderator.
 
Absolutely. And the logical conclusion is.....

A State in which entire families are imprisoned, tortured or put to death due to the "sins" of one. What is it we call that type of State? In any case, Fidel and a few others still maintain that type of "Zero Tolerance"....good to know where we're headed.

Pointer, may your father, children or wife never cross the legal line in your presence...you may just be in a world of hurt. I hereby dub you spokesman for the "New America".

Rules is Rules.
Thinking is Dangerous.

Rich
Click to expand...

Personal responsibility is a bitch, isn't it? Nothing like a little name-calling to back up your arguement, eh Rich?
 
MRex-
I called no one "names", though some here are apparently challenged by the distinction between attack on an argument and attack on a Member. For a clear example of the latter, I give you this little gem:
MRex21 said:
Thank you, Yoda. Don't you worry your green little ears. Reasoned debate? Sure, ok. Oh, you mean the constant diarrhea of anti-law enforcement bigotry that you wise 'moderators' allow and promote.

You are a lousy moderator.
Click to expand...
See this here, now? :D For a gent who claims he never crosses over the line, you seem to have transgressed pretty readily when it comes to keeping your word; that is, in terms of agreeing to the Policies of this Board.

Shall we overlook or take MRex's very own advice and enforce Zero Tolerance. That would make us a "good moderator" according to his standards. What to do...what to do? We must ponder this.

Back to your regularly scheduled program, folks. Nothing to see here. ;)
Rich
 
Shall we overlook or take MRex's very own advice and enforce Zero Tolerance. That would make us a "good moderator" according to his standards. What to do...what to do? We must ponder this.
Click to expand...

Frankly, ignoring his taunts would probably be the best policy. And as far as "anti-law enforcement bigotry." That is B.S.. Allowing discussions of police abuse is not bigotry. There are plenty of cops on this forum, a few who are friends of mine, and they can defend themselves without MRex's childish call to censorship.
 
Oh, you mean the constant diarrhea of anti-law enforcement bigotry that you wise 'moderators' allow and promote.
Click to expand...

A good percentage of TFL Staff (moderators) are current or retired law enforcement, thank you very much, so near as I can tell, you've got us confused with someone else.

LawDog
 
"Absolutely. And the logical conclusion is.....

A State in which entire families are imprisoned, tortured or put to death due to the "sins" of one. What is it we call that type of State? In any case, Fidel and a few others still maintain that type of "Zero Tolerance"....good to know where we're headed.

Pointer, may your father, children or wife never cross the legal line in your presence...you may just be in a world of hurt. I hereby dub you spokesman for the "New America".

Rules is Rules.
Thinking is Dangerous."


Rich,
Can you show a single case where parents who were "taking care" of their kids were charged with their kids crimes? All of the cases I've seen have been cases where the parents are habitual offenders of some type (drugs, child neglect, child abuse, prositution, etc). They were not taking care of themselves or their kids so the legal system stepped in and took care of both the juvenile offender and the parent who was unwilling to take care of their kid. I would like to see one case presented where a child committed a felony, the parent had absolutely nothing to do with the felony, the parent cooperated with the police in the investigation and then the police charged the parent with the same felony. I don't think you can do it. Committing the crime in front of you is only half of the equation. You have to have knowledge or reasonable knowledge that a crime was being committed or going to be committed and then take no action. If you try to prevent the crime by calling the police you have done what is required by the law. If you do nothing even though you have reasonable knowledge of a crime you are a party to the crime.

To quote you again "Thinking is dangerous."
Click to expand...
 
Can you show a single case where parents who were "taking care" of their kids were charged with their kids crimes?
Click to expand...
No, Don, I can't. Nor did anyone here claim such events happen. Some argued, however, that the parent should be held criminally liable for the child's crime; that this was right and just.

But Reading can also be dangerous...especially when you fail to do so. ;)

Where this started was my statement of fact that families have lost property....homes, cars, farms and ranches due to modern "forfeiture" laws which allows The State to take that property simply because a member or minor in the family committed a crime on or in that property. There's no test as to whether they were "taking care" of their kids...there's simply property to be had. And some of us condone that.

Others here expanded that to the concept that Parents must be held criminally liable for the crimes of the child, not I. I simply took it to the logical conclusion: Why not hold the Father, Mother, Sons, Daughters, Brothers, Sisters and Cousins liable?

It's a very small leap of logic to argue the Proactive Firearms Control corollary to that:
If Don has anyone in his family, either visitor or resident at his home, who is precluded from owning firearms, Don should be required to surrender his firearms under penalty of Felony charges. After all, it matters not who "owns" the weapon on paper; the point is to control access by all those "bad" felons out there.

Back to the Topic of this Thread:
You don't get it both ways in the context of the Bill of Rights, Don. Either they apply to everyone living without restraint in society or they are merely "privileges" to be controlled and meted out by The State, based on your currently defined "class", history and family ties. It's one thing to accuse a Parent of bad parenting....something completely different to argue they should be held criminally liable for the actions of a separate, hopefully sentient, human organism.

Personally, I can't even see how that can be a subject for debate in a Civil Liberties Forum.


Rich
 
A State in which entire families are imprisoned, tortured or put to death due to the "sins" of one.
Click to expand...
Good heaven's people... Must you go to extremes??

Read what I said... and respond accordingly... don't make it up as you go along...

I SAID, "COMPLICITY"

criminally liable for the child's crime
Click to expand...
Who said that? I must have missed it... what post number is it in, please?

IF the parents are NOT guilty of SH***Y PARENTING, THEN LEAVE THEM ALONE...

I have said earlier that we should temper justice with mercy and we should apply mercy in judgment... What part of that confuses you?

Do what we demand of the legal system... apply some common sense judgment!

I am talking about fining the parents and making them pay restitution, for allowing their minor children to get out of hand... Like when the kid starts a fire... it's the parents who pay the damages...

If they helped start the fire they should pay according to their COMPLICITY

Torture? Indeed.
 
+1 Pointer

Rich,
I was making light of the torture and locking up whole families comment from you. You know as well as I do that it just doesn't happen like that.
 
Pointer said:
Who said that? I must have missed it... what post number is it in, please?
Click to expand...
Post #28, Pointer:
MRex21 said:
This is good.
Today:
You can lose your home because your 15 year old sold a couple lids of pot from it...it happens.
Click to expand...
Tough. Be a better parent and control your animal kids.
Today:
You can lose your boat or plane because a friend's guest has a gram of cocaine in her duffel....it happens.
Click to expand...
Tough. Stop hanging around with losers.
Today:
Your single mother, working, ex-wife can lose her automobile because you got oral sex from a hooker in it...and it HAS happened.
Click to expand...
Tough. Don't shack up with an idiot who can't keep his penis in his pants.
Click to expand...
Then look at Post #37.
Then look at Post #77.

Don-
Yes, I know you were kidding and I know it doesn't happen like that....here.....today. But judging from some of the posts here and the spiraling increase in Felony Offenses, we're a lot closer to condoning acts that we would call Human Rights Abuses 30 years ago.

That's sad. America is frightened...and some of us will give up anything to The State to reduce that fear. Come to think of it, that's how the Brady Center got its start. :eek:
Rich
 
I'm surprised this thread has made it this far. Parents should be held responsible for their children up to a certain age. Most children under the age of 11 usually don't have real understanding.

I grew up in a broken home. As a child I was allowed to watch horror movies and idolized Leatherface. When I was 7 years old I did beat up and chase neighborhood kids around with anything including a Redrider bb gun and believe it or not a small gas powered chainsaw even though I never managed to get the thing started. Truth be told I probably would have seriously injured any of the kids if I ever caught up to them, Thank the Lord that chainsaws are hard to run with. I never did understand why the cops showed up all the time, at that age. I started watching Cops when I was 9 years old and common sense started kicking in. The more I watched Cops the more I realized the trouble I was causing. My point is that small children don't have the ability to form intent.

Yes, everything I said here is true. None of it is fiction;)
 
Rich
criminally liable for the child's crime
Click to expand...

I carefully read the three posts... 28, 37, 77 and...
I'm sorry but I didn't see where this was even implied...

I did see some hard facts being espoused but I just don't see where it was stated that a parent should be held criminally responsible for anything in which they had no complicity...

You are correct in defending personal freedoms and closely watching the application of the law... The liberal socialists could in fact bring us to that awful day... but that day is not yet.

In the meantime... if we hold bad parents "feet to the fire" (Not torture :p ) it won't have an immediate threat to society... :D

MRex

I do agree... you should not attack your opponent... attack his arguments and his beliefs and be merciless if you must... but avoid attacking him with names and titles or insinuations about his birth mother... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Back to the original topic...

I don't know how accurate it is, but an article in Wikipedia claims the following about voting rights of convicted felons:
  • 4 states permanently bar convicted felons from voting.
  • 9 other states bar convicted felons from voting for a certain period of time.
  • the other 37 states restore the voting rights of convicted felons after their term of incarceration and/or supervision.
Unfortunately, federal firearms restrictions are for life.

Much of the problem I see in the area of "punishing felons" is that the definition of a felony has been trivialized. Historically, a felony was an "infamous" crime. In the headlong rush by politicians to show that they are serious about crime, far to many criminal acts have been made felonies. It may be appropriate to have some type of lifetime restriction on someone who commits a premeditated murder, but it is simply ludicrous in conjunction with a speeding ticket.
 
Damn Rich we've agreed on something twice in less than 12 months. You better ban me.
Click to expand...
Twice as much agreement as I have with many; half as much as I've had with some who have been shown the door. Nah, Don. You're a keeper....when you're not setting someone's hair on fire! :D

Much of the problem I see in the area of "punishing felons" is that the definition of a felony has been trivialized. Historically, a felony was an "infamous" crime. In the headlong rush by politicians to show that they are serious about crime, far to many criminal acts have been made felonies. It may be appropriate to have some type of lifetime restriction on someone who commits a premeditated murder, but it is simply ludicrous in conjunction with a speeding ticket.
Click to expand...
Wish I'd have said that. Well, I did; just not as succinctly.
Rich
 
So, Pointer, MRex21:

Is it your opinion that if one was to assemble a complete list of all the possible "felonies" that have been politically defined into existence that
the commission of any of these "felony" crimes should thereafter deprive one of rights specifically thought of as so important as to be listed in the Bill of Rights? Are all "felonies" the same? Or is there a moral difference between some of them and others?

Should citizens feel that they have a moral right to disagree with the idea that crimes that everyone "knows" are bad, such as murder, should be ethically confused with acts that are crimes because someone passed a law saying thus-and-such was a prohibited substance? [Thereby confusing acts-that-are-bad-in-themselves (malum-in-se) with acts-that-are-bad-because-they-are-prohibited-by-legislation (malum-prohibitum).]

If they aren't capable of such moral judgements, how can they be competent to vote to elect representatives who make such decisions?

And just for my amusement, would someone mind pointing out the clause in the Constitution that positively empowers the federal government to permanently remove constitutional rights from anyone?

Dex
firedevil_smiley.gif
 
Felons

If you are convicted by the state, you may get your rights back. If you are convicted by the Federal Government you WILL NOT get them back.

ATF has the authority to give felons their rights back if they were convicted by the Feds, but they have never set up a program to do so.

Not even a Judge can give you your rights back if you were convicted by the Feds.
:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top