Why Not?

This issue has always rubbed me the wrong way. The entire purpose of our judicial system is rehabilitation, not punishment.

So if a person completes his/her sentence,with or with out parole, then they should be deemed rehabilitated and released. Or, if they are not deemed rehabilitated, they should be held.

If they are rehabilitated, then I feel their rights should be restored.

Maybe re-define the judicial system so when a person is sentenced to prison, it must be stated the person is being sent to prison for either rehabilitation or punishment? Punishment, they loose their rights. Rehabilitation, they regain their rights upon successful completion of their sentence.

The poor guy who has to register as a sex offender because he was urinating in public?

The guy who was illiterate and could not figure out his taxes, but was to ashamed, or proud to ask for help for help, so he did not file them?

The guy who used a handgun in self-defense, where a handgun is (was?) illegal?

The kid who was dating the same girl for three years, but once he turned 18, it was considered statutory rape?

There really is no easy answer to fix this. Maybe it should be changed to were the judge has to specifically prohibit the defendant from ever owning a gun again?
 
I've always wondered about question g.
Does a disonorable military discharge disqualify a person or is it just a question with no ramifications?
 
Uncl Buck You said: "There really is no easy answer to fix this. Maybe it should be changed to were the judge has to specifically prohibit the defendant from ever owning a gun again?"

I have to agree for a lot of cases that are now considered felony's. A lot of felonys are no brainers such as armed robbery, murder and a hunderd others. But a lot of non violent crimes should not apply.

I also have to agree that the politics makes this very tough and probably will not change much even though I would probably vote for it if given the chance and it was the right law (like politicians want the voters to have that kind of power).

I think most judges would be against this, again due to the politics they have to deal with even if it meant justice was better served.

My thoughts,
James
 
I believe, that a Dishonorable Discharge is a deal breaker. TO get one, you get tried by a Federal Court (Court Martial). This is a Fed conviction, and I believe any offense that carries a Dishonorable also can include a prison term, even if not applied.

Remember the prohibited person category definition says "of a crime for which a sentence of...may be imposed..."

So, even if "all" that the Court Martial gives you is a bad discharge, you are still a prohibited person, even if you do no time in Leavenworth club fed.

There could be exceptions, and probably are, for some specific circumstances, but as a general rule, I believe a Dishonorable makes you a prohibited person.

Otherwise, why would they ask the question?
 
I didn't know if there are different types of dishonorable discharge that would be checked outside normal background check methods(military records I assumed) per applicant, or if it was a general disqualification that covered everything with no military record inquiry required.
 
A DD is given out only if you have received a General Courts Martial. Anything and everything that could be considered a felony in the civilian world (and many more in the military world), are tried in a GCM.

There are severe civilian consequences in receiving a DD. It generally won't matter if you served time or not. Most Banking institutions will not make a loan to you, for any reason. You lose any and all veteran benefits. You lose the right to vote, to sit on a jury, to hold public office, as well as being prohibited from gun possession.

Some States may modify a few of these, but most are even harder than the Fed.gov.
 
thallub said:
I could care less that a felon cannot legally own a gun.
Click to expand...

Is that because you have a perception that felonies are horrible crimes?

From Defining Felony in the Early American Republic.
The traditional common law felonies were nine: murder, manslaughter, arson, burglary, robbery, rape, sodomy, mayhem, and larceny.
Francis Bacon, writing around 1620, listed some thirty-four felonies, including witchcraft and harboring a priest.
Blackstone lamented that, in his day, “no less than a hundred and sixty [offenses] have been declared by act of parliament to be felonies . . . or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death.”
Click to expand...

The list of felonies has continued to expand, to include acts like this gem from North Carolina:

§ 163‑226.3. Certain acts declared felonies.

(a) Any person who shall, in connection with absentee voting in any election held in this State, do any of the acts or things declared in this section to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a Class I felony. It shall be unlawful:

(7) Except as provided in subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this section, G.S. 163‑231(a), G.S. 163‑250(a), and G.S. 163‑227.2(e), for any voter to permit another person to assist the voter in marking that voter's absentee ballot, to be in the voter's presence when a voter votes an absentee ballot, or to observe the voter mark that voter's absentee ballot.
Click to expand...

So, don't let anyone see your absentee ballot, or you might also become a felon.
 
I didn't know if there are different types of dishonorable discharge that would be checked outside normal background check methods(military records I assumed) per applicant, or if it was a general disqualification that covered everything with no military record inquiry required.
Click to expand...

There are 5 types of discharge that one may receive from the military.

The first three Honorable, General, and Other Than Honorable are administrative. The last two are generally given out in cases of administrative separation for misconduct. An Other Than Honorable discharge may only be given out after a hearing before an adminsitrative board unless the right to a board is waived.

The last two Bad Conduct and Dishonorable are punitive discharges that may only be issued upon conviction at a court martial. A bad conduct discharge may be issued by either a General Court Martial or a Special Court MArtial specifically empowered by the convening authority to adjudge such a discharge. A dishonorable discharge(or dismissal in the case of commissioned officers) may only be adjudged after conviction by a General Court Martial.

Only the dishonorable (or dismissal) is the firearm disability. However any court martial conviction, not including summary courts martial, is a federal conviction and if the crime was punishable by more than 1 year it is a disqualifier.

There are very few crimes under the UCMJ which are punishable by 1 year or less that carry a DD. Trials on such charges would be rare and I just don't see any panel handing out a DD for a misdemeanor.
 
Paying your so-called debt to society should include paying back the victims for their losses if a dollar value can reasonably be assigned.

How much work does it take to complete a jail sentence? Sit on your butt and eat the free food? That's not rehab in anyone's book.

John
 
Is that because you have a perception that felonies are horrible crimes?
Click to expand...

Nope, it an observation that I made many years ago as a corrections officer. The rehabilition of felons, especially violent felons, is a myth. The felon has to rehabilitate himself and very few do that.

The long term recidivism rate is about 70 percent. Folks on this board are complaining that those felons are not allowed to legally own guns. Go figure.

Go and work as a corrections officer for awhile and watch the flotsam and jetsum of our society in action.
 
Last edited:
then you got the state laws which differ- as an example:

massachusetts where I was a teen- DUI's, marijuana, etc were misdemeanors(marijuana is now only a $100 fine). at the same time in the 90's ONE marijuana seed was a felony in nevada.

my uncle is retired ATF. after serving 4yrs active army and now living in virginia I understand what he taught me growing up:

the south has a notorious record for punishing people more harshly than the north for the same offenses(chaingangs,etc,etc)

we were all young and dumb once so I can understand that as an argument.
however, many lesser felonies(some posts above listing definitions of crimes which can be felonies) usually become misdemeanors if your not a true convict, so I have less sympathy for adults who become convicted felons
 
What is the point?

As long as we are intolerant, intolerance is the rule and it will get us sooner or later..

Besides , who in their right mind will admit to anything just because is the right thing to do? The lowest common denominator is the law of the land and it will never make a person decent, and neither will religion, or a political conviction.

We get what we give, that is the rule, merciless merchants of power will always have the advantage and will keep us all in the dark fighting in vain against shadows, questioning ourselves in our mind but vomiting exactly what is nauseous to us, as long as it falls on someone else's lap , just like spit or old coffee thrown over the window while we drive away.

There is most injustice o'er the land and the law is the law we say.

But we are divided against each other and still we wonder about the root of the problem, our brother suffers and we still wonder, closing our eyes to the truth because in comparison is more intolerable than all the words we use to justify our opinions, after all talk is cheap...

A form of cult, a color of skin, a different opinion, just like this one are enough to create dissent, while at the same time we forget: It is what we have in common what makes us strong, not our differences.
 
Last edited:
I'm kind of on the fence here, but I may have an idea for a fair compromise. On one hand, I don't lose much sleep over the lost rights of felons. Even if it's not a violent or sexual crime, felonies are serious. Nobody does 2 years for singing too loud in church. Madoff wasn't a sex offender or a violent criminal. Thieves and other sorts should lose some rights in my opinion. Even if non-violent, committing a crime says something about a person's character. They don't respect the law. Are theses the kinds of people should sympathize for because they can't vote or own a gun? I don't. On the other hand, what about a person who committed a felony 10 years ago and has never been in trouble since? Should they carry that burden for the rest of their life? I think it should be that after a person has been clean for a certain period of time, they should be able to appeal to have their rights reinstated. The period of time should vary depending on the class of the felony. Let a judge decided.

Also, Uncle Buck the entire purpose of the criminal justice system is not just to rehabilitate, although that is one of it's purposes. Punishment is in fact another of the points of it. The others are incapacitation and deterrence. And I don't know where public urination is considered a sex crime, but I don't want to go there!
 
And I don't know where public urination is considered a sex crime, but I don't want to go there!
Click to expand...

You could already be there.

Urinating in public is gegnerally not a sex crime, but exposing yourself, is. So, the only safe thing to do, legally, if you have to go, is go in your pants. Otherwise, you might find yourself having to register as a sex offender, for the rest of your life.

The law is too broad, and too much enforced for things that aren't that important. I know of a guy, who is (after fighting is an losing in court) a sex offender, because he took a leak off the back of his boat, and was in public view when he did it. Didn't matter to the court that he was dozens of yards from shore, or any other people, he was seen, and ticketed. And that ticket turned into a nightmare for him.

Sure, its an extreme case, but the point is that it does happen, to lots of people, not just sex crimes, but all kinds of things that once upon a time were just improper or bad behavior are now crimes, some of them felonies.
 
It's definitely a tricky situation. One one side, you have the fact that many convicted felons end up being convicted of one or more felonies during the remainder of their lives. On the other side, there is the notion that once you serve your jail term and everything else (restitution to victim(s), probation, etc.), you have repaid your debt to society and you should not be continued to be punished for the rest of your life.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that in many areas, a convicted felon loses their right to vote for life. Sure, while in prison, your rights are severely limited, and you should not be able to vote. But for someone convicted of possessing a single marijuana seed when they were in their twenties, to not even be able to vote 40 years later is absurd.

As for gun rights, I would like to see a system where a judge or panel of judges, upon a felons' release from prison, determine whether that persons' rights are restored immediately, denied permanently, or restorable after a certain duration of lawful living. A blanket restriction on all convicted felons to possess a firearm is not right. Every case is different, and the facts for each case need to be reviewed if we are to permanently curtail the rights of any person.
 
That's a tough one. Consenting is consenting, but come on, Bro's. Alot of that is plain sick. Let her grow up, then marry her.
Click to expand...
What about high school students? Maybe one is 19 and the other is 17 ... or 15. It happens, every day. It was happening when I went to high school back in the late 50s/early 60s. I'm sure it hasn't declined since then. But when I was in high school it wasn't a felony offense for a senior to do the deed with a sophomore.
 
I'm pretty sure the idea of sending someone to prison is punishment but not all punishment is time in prison. I don't know if there are any felonies that are punishable by a fine alone, probably not. Putting people in prison is a relatively modern form of punishment, too. Hardly everything was punished by execution in the past, though it was probably more than it is today. Apparently the threat of capital punishment did not eliminate crime, however.

I recall sitting in a college criminology class probably around 1970 when someone suggested simply locking more people up longer. Surely the crime rate would go down then. Looks like he got his way. Also had a class in juvenile deliquency. When did you last hear that expression?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top