Should non violent felons have self defense?

G

George Hill

Staff Alumnus
Well, I have stired up enough trouble with my War on Drugs thread... I might as well stir it again with another goodie.
Convicted Felons who have paid there debt to society...
Should they really be denied the right to self defense?
There are many crimes that would get you a Felony conviction that do not require you to have used violence against other people.
In a perfect world - once a felon is released, having paid his debt... is able to return to the world and contribute to the community. However we dont live in a perfect world and quite often felons are repeat felons.
But not all of them. Some actually do repent. Some - being mostly those incarcerated for crimes of material nature and not violent/drug related/sexual. Like the felon who cheated taxes... stole some money... lied on a legal document (Utterance - 6th degree felony in Virginia) in the DMV... maybe boosted a car for a joy ride.
These are guys that could have made a mistake... and while in jail realized the error and truely repented.
If we espouse the idea that Self Defense is a Basic Human Right... should it be denied to only those who have infringed on that right in commision of a crime... Lets incude sexual and child abuse, rape, and any other violent act... Those guys dont deserve that basic human right.
But the non violent ones... the ones that were jailed for other reasons... Why not let them enjoy the same rights as we say is a human right?
 
Great subject!!

I believe some (if not all) non-violent, victimless felonies should be handled differently than the violent types.

Two examples

1) My son gets a case of felony "stupid" at age 19 and is convicted of possession of a small quantity of methamphetamine - an automatic Class E felony. Now he's 28 with a wife and family, struggling to get by, and he can't even qualify for certain types of public assistance because of his felony record. Neither can he vote or own a firearm or ammunition.

2) My brother-in-law was an off-duty cop, a little drunk and watching "Cool Hand Luke" with a buddy, when they decide that using a pipe cutter to de-capitate parking meters is something they just had to try. You guessed it - guilty of felony stupid! That was probably more than 25 years ago. He lost his job and his rights and has never been in any trouble since. At one time he tried to petition the Governor for re-instatement of rights but I'm not sure if it was successful.

Mikey
 
If they ain't locked up they should be allowed self defence. I read no restrictions in the second.

Also believe that if a parolee does it again, the parole board that cut him loose should be held as accessory to the new crime.
 
Does a time-served felon have his 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights automatically restored?

Is the right to vote, forever denied to felons, in the same category as the items in the Bill of Rights?

There are alienable and inalienable rights. What's the difference, and is the RKBA in the first or second category?

I may not like the conclusions to these questions when it comes to felons, but do my feelings on the matter trump laws and rights?
 
Food for thought. A large part of what some call "gun violence" is commited by those with a prior violent record. But, for them, gun ownership is already illegal. What evidence is there that gun laws work on them? So why even draw a seemingly useless line between non-violent and violent felons?
 
To answer a question with a question:
When convicted of a crime, does that mean that we can now inflict cruel and unusual punishments on them? That is the standpoint of your arguements, that once convicted, a felon loses all his rights. The right to vote is NOT a civil RIGHT, it is a CIVIL LIBERTY. There is a huge difference. Civil liberties ARE granted by governments. Governments can choose who votes and who does not. Similarly, citizenship is a civil liberty. The government may pick the criteria by which aliens are granted citizenship.
Self defense is a RIGHT. It predates the constitution. Not even a "compelling interest" or "clear and present danger" can absolve a man of his rights. Liberties- sure. Rights- never.
If a felon is released from prison, aparently the parole board deems him fit to join society. If he is unfit to enter the social contract again, then why IS HE RELEASED?!?
If prison weren't so nice, we wouldn't have the repeat offenders. We don't have to be cruel, but for Christ's sake, we don't have to be so nice either.

My opinion: A felony should only consist of major crimes against life, liberty, or property. All the rest can be misdemeanors. Why is it a civil crime not to pay my debts, but it is a criminal offense not to pay my debts to government (taxes)? Why has government placed itself above the needs of the citizens? We have made too many things a felony if you ask me.
My favorite quote: "Once we suffered from crimes, we now suffer from laws."-- Cornielius Tacitus, Histories, 115-116 AD.
Study the Romans, we're looking awfully close to them when they were on their decline.
 
HI! Someone...I cannot remember who(or search for them at the moment:)), wrote a very nice point on this subject a few months ago(I kick myself for not archiving it, it was very, very well said). It went along the line that prisons are either a warehouses for people that should never be let out, if they are that bad or, if they pay their debt and got out they should be restored fully for all rights(vote, self-defense, etc). I want to say it was Rich or Dennis that posted it but I may be wrong. I am sure it didn't say member or senior member after their name and I think it was general or legal it was posted in.

Anybody know or remember who it was?

It really was the best word(s) on the subject I have ever read. It made a light shine over my head it was so well written.

Anyone claim it or can reprint it?
 
Good topic!

I think felons should get all their pre-felony rights restored (voting, 2nd Amendment, etc.). If they commit a second felony, then they should be executed. Simple as that.

On a related rant, it makes no sense to lock someone up for more than 10 years; for crimes where the punishment is more than 10 years, the should just execute them instead.

Prison is for punishment (ie, having one's sphincter resized), and for keeping BG's off the street. No one gets "rehabilitated" in prison.

The 10 year boundary is somewhat arbitrary..., but it seems that at _some_ point the whole concept of prison doesn't make sense. And we're just costing society big $$$ by keeping people locked up. Prison is a deterrent, but can anyone honestly argue that there are BG's who say, "Well, if was only 10 years, I'd go for it. But man, I could get 15 years if I get caught!"

The taxes that it will take to fund the unprecedented rate of prisoner maintenance in the US will soon be so overwhelming that it will make the Social Security/Baby Boomer crisis seem trivial.

Once someone comes out of prison, they're basically screwed as far as society goes. It's extremely difficult for an ex-con to get a decent job, because legally, the _one_ thing that US law permits people to _discriminate_ against is... criminal record.

Ie, if someone has a criminal record, it is perfectly legal refuse to hire them, or rent them an apartment.

The jobs that they do get are usually so heinous that many of them would rather go back to a life of crime.
----

The History Channel had an interesting show about the history of criminal justice in the US. Originally there was no "prison", only jail. Jail is where you stayed until your trial. After the trial, they either freed you, or killed you, or something in between (fined you, horsewhiped you, etc.). They did not send anyone to "prison".

Later, as society became more "refined" (wimpy?), people thought that there should be more intermediate punishments.

So they created prisions.

BUT unlike today's prisions, back then there was one person per cell, there was _no talking_ allowed, and the only reading material allowed was the bible.

Seems "harsh", but it also seemed to work.

Later, some people thought that "children" should get a second chance, and so the bizarre 18-year-old boundary was introduced. Kill someone when you're 17.999, and you get a slap on the wrist. Kill someone when you're 18, and you're going down. That 18th birthday could be a real bummer..., but it could be argued that the concept had merit for much younger kids.

But now we have prisons where 90% of the population are non-violent drug users (ha! you thought that the 'War On Drugs' topic was dead, eh?), and inmates are subjected to cruel and inhuman punishment (ie, sphincter resizing), and the BG's are furnished with weight-lifting equipement so that they can be even more dangerous than when they went in.

Swell.
 
What Sam said.

Interesting case in point happened here In Akron Ohio 2 years ago. A cab driver, who had a prior record for a violent felony (armed robbery), shot someone in self defense. He was aquitted in the shooting, since the jury determined he has a right to self defense. He was convicted of having a firearm under a disablitity, and tampering with evidence, also felonies but not given the mandatory gun specification time, since he wasn't convicted of using a gun to commit a crime. This would make him a triple dipper in some States, and earn him life in prison. He served 3 months of a 5 year sentance and was released. Sometimes "the system" works in spite of itself.
 
I feel everyone has a right to self defense, regardless of what they have done in the past. Restricting a felon's rights to have a firearm is no different then restricing anyone else's. The repeat offenders know where to get guns, and will get them whether it is legal or not, and should be dealt with at the hands of the would-be victim.
 
I agree with KJM.... if a person is so bad that we can't trust them with their natural right of self defense then they need to be executed. Three strikes and your out. All the way out? Navaho, Thanks for that bit on the History Channel, very interesting. Ya know, maybe our founders had something there that may be more effective. A nice public whipping for drug users might be a more effective deterrent.
 
Actually, prior to the Quakers, public torture, humiliation, and execution was the norm. The distinction between jail and prison still exists today (jail being the place were people are detained and prison the place where time is served). The prison, is a modern invention that people seem to think is a norm (how many scifi stories take place on far future penal colonies and the like?). It was created out of an ethical delimma the Quakers faced but there is no real strong evidence to prove that they have a rehabilitative or deterrent effect in the US. In other countries with draconian laws and punishments, the deterrent effect is palpable, but the society as a whole is repressed as well.

Our system is quite muddled due to our focus on the protection of individual rights... it is easy to have an ordered society if you ignore those rights.

[Edited by PaladinX13 on 12-07-2000 at 06:15 PM]
 
Lots of people in agreement...
Anyone in disagreement?


Do you guys have any idea of how easy it is to comit a felony?
You could be getting carjacked - you fire your weapon in defense. The attacker's family charges you... the DA charges you - because the poor fellow who shot you who was on probation for assault or something wonderful like that - just wanted to ask you a question or ask for money...
Your attorney was less than clever and the prosecuter painted you to look like a gun-nut wacko just waiting for a chance to kill.
Boom.
Your now a felon.
You no longer vote.
You no longer own guns.
Your Done.

If you look - I mean really look at all the laws and statutes... Commiting ANY crime probably happens 2 or 3 times a DAY and you dont even realize it!
Seriously...
Anyone of us could just make a mistake. Bye bye boom stick.

I think there IS a difference in the Felons. Some of them really do not care about human life... some really are monsters inside - who look at people like they are food.
These people do not deserve to return to the public...
Prisons are just Bad Guy Boot Camps for these people - and they get returned to society all the time.

Lots of problems in the system with no easy answers...
 
Whipping

Bookie: "A nice public whipping for drug users might be a more effective deterrent."


I agree but we need to take it a step further. Most of the goblins would consider it a rite of passage to get whipped on the public square at high noon (to see who could take it without making a sound, who had the best line when they were done, etc.). So here's my refinement - have a grandmotherly type do it. It might not hurt as much but nobody would want to get their butt whipped by a grandmother out in public. Talk about a deterrent.

Greg
 
The time for whoopin's is when the kids are being raised. Discipline fails when applied at later dates. This is why I don't believe in rehabilitation. Raise your kids correctly, and we wouldn't have the problems we do. Public whoopin's are great in the fact that they so humiliate a criminal that he might be tempted to get out of town.
I don't object to punishments such as this. The quakers were whacked when they thought that warehousing human beings will get them to change their ways. If I were imprisoned for more than a few months, I would come out so completely consumed with vengeance, that society would hate the day they attempted to lock me away. I often wonder how many folks go to jail for relatively minor things and come out a true menace to society?
If sitting on a jury, my 3 criteria is: Did this person harm anybody's life? Liberty? Property? If not I'm acquitting the poor bastard no matter how much dope he smoked, or how many restricted normal-cap mags he was found with. Either you believe in justice, or you do not believe in justice. Any of the 3 crimes I would convict for would be enough to make me convict for the rest of their functional adult lives. I don't want them out of prison until they're old and gray.
 
Actually, prior to the Quakers, public torture, humiliation, and execution was the norm. The distinction between jail and prision still exists today (jail being the place were people are detained and prision the place where time is served). The prision, is a modern invention that people seem to think is a norm (how many scifi stories take place on far future penal colonies and the like?). It was created out of an ethical delimma the Quakers faced but there is no real strong evidence to prove that they have a rehabilitative or deterrent effect in the US. In other countries with draconian laws and punishments, the deterrent effect is palpable, but the society as a whole is repressed as well.

I don't think this is completely true. Certainly, in England, prisons pre-dated Quakerism. Debtors' prisons were quite common at the time. Many early Quakers were held in various prisons, including Newbury Prison in London. These were used to punish people, force them to pay back a debt through work, keep them away from society, _or_ await trial/punishment. Several early Quakers _were_ involved in prison reform. Some of the ideas seem outdated to us today--the reason given for teaching women to read was so they could read the bible--but that's better than not teaching them to read at all. <drift>Come to think of it, Quakers are _still_ involved in prison reformation and teaching inmates to read. :)</drift> In America, the protestant idea of "penitentiaries" took hold, with the idea that inmates, if left to themselves with a bible, would reform. That wasn't a Quaker idea. Quakers generally had a more practical sense of how to reform people--prostitutes were taught skills so they would have an alternative method of supporting their families.

For the record, rehabilitation doesn't fail in American prisons. It isn't tried.
 
Second Chance.....

George Hill,
"Lots of problems in the system with no easy answers..."

I can't believe I found a subject that you and I can agree on, but I'm with you on this one George.
And NO, I've never been charged with a felony. :)
 
I may be talking out my clymer, but I thought convicts could appeal for restoration of civil rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top