Opinion: Who Should be Prohibited for Life?

If as Americans we actually believed in rehabilitation and forgiveness then it wouldn't be an issue at all. If a person has paid what society asks of them then why should they have to bear any sort of stigma for the rest of their lives?

It may be instructive to look at it in another light. Lets say someone is discovered, charged and convicted of first degree forgery and embezzlement. They're incarcerated in prison, behave well, earn release and successfully complete their probation. They are now deemed rehabilitated, all their civil rights lost as a result of crime are restored.

Would you find reason to deny this person his unalienable second amendment right for the rest of his life?

If the answer is no, then ask yourself this:

Would you hire this person as the Chief Financial Officer of your business?

Person A is incarcerated upon his conviction of a crime, and later released having served his time. That release is supposedly based on Person A's debt being paid and his having been rehabilitated. We claim he is safe to walk about in society.

Is Person A still being punished? Is that why his gun rights are still void? Or is it because we actually see him as unsafe?

If Person A is deemed still unsafe to own a firearm based on whatever he did to be incarcerated, then why is Person A out of prison?

After all, if he still has that "use a gun for some nefarious purpose" thought in his mind, he will be able to acquire a gun illegally and use it. So he should still be in prison.

If he no longer ponders such thoughts, he's safe to own a gun.

^Exactly what I mean. If you believe the person was all ready punished why continue with the loss of rights? And yes, if someone had been convicted of embezzlement and released would I hire them? Yes. I believe in second chances, we only have one life to live and it should be a good one.

It might behoove folks to read Rory Miller's Meditations on Violence before solidifying their opinions on this.

While the focus of the book is not on his observations of prisoner recidivism, as a career Corrections Officer, there are some passages which speak to the different sorts of folks that become involved with the working end of our "Correctional" system. The facts are a bit scary and depressing, but they do largely fly in the face of the concept of rehabilitation as a function of the prison system.

Now, we can't run too far down the rabbit hole of rehabilitation/corrections -vs.- punishment -vs.- keeping predators off the street, or we'll get too far from our RKBA focus.

But the take-home message for me was that the vast, VAST majority of criminals are never really "out" of the system, though they may be released to exist in society again. Not "rehabilitated" -- simply "not currently incarcerated."

In light of that, I think a fairly involved process of rights restoration make sense.

Now, which crimes should require the loss of FIREARMS rights? That's trickier. Does the commission of a non-violent felony really indicate a societal risk of later violent behavior, necessitating that this person cannot (legally anyway ) possess a firearm? Does tax evasion (for example) somehow indicate that if this person has a firearm they represent a greater risk of willfully harming or killing someone than the next guy ... who's accountants may just be better at their jobs? ()

OK, lets up the ante.

I agree totally that everyone deserves a second chance. How about a third chance? Fourth?

Do we draw the line somewhere once a pattern of criminal behavior is evident?

Looks to me that this was addressed a couple of centuries ago. There is a discussion about firearms and the 2A in the Anti-Federalist papers. The right to keep and bear arms would not be allowed to those who were insane or who were "persons of ill repute". By context, those persons were what we would today refer to as violent felons.

Just to drift off into opinion: IMO, it's the history of violence which should be looked at. If a guy has a history of fights and arrests for violence and finally goes to the hoosegow, you don't want him packing when he gets out.

But a one-time event? Consider little Casper Milquetoast who, after forty years in a hen-pecked condition of marriage finally strangles his wife. He's sixty-five years old and it took forty years for him to finally blow up. As far as I'm concerned, put him on probation and keep an eye on him, but don't worry about the poor little creature...

The penal system in the US is in conflict as is the way the penal system is viewed. Is the purpose of incarceration punishment or rehabilitation or both? Does it accomplish either? And how do we know if it has or it hasn't?

As it stands, behavior after release is the only measure. Assuming that a felon, having served his sentence, or been released early on parole. is rehabilitated is probably naive at best.

Parolees have not competed their sentence, they are just allowed to finish it outside of prison as long as they meet the terms of their parole. Obviously, a parolee should not have his or her rights restored in full or even be eligible for such restoration until their sentence is complete.

But once the sentence is completed? Perhaps non-violent felons should be allowed to have their full citizenship rights restored. After a 5 year probationary period beginning with release from prison, a non-violent felon could apply for restoration. I think the decision to restore should be made on a case by case basis. Anyone seeking restoration of rights would file suit and the case decided by a jury.

Violent felons who are one-time offenders might be eligible as well, but repeat or multiple offenders would not.

I believe that if a person is to be trusted to live among society, they are to be trusted as a full member of society, with all the rights and privileges that come with. If a person cannot be trusted with a gun, they cannot be trusted with their car, knives, boards, shovels or hands; they should be locked away or dead.

How did we ever survive as a nation all the way from 1776 to 1967 with ex-cons owning guns? We survived just fine. Think about it, this whole discussion is an artifact of the unconstitutional Gun Control Act of 1968.

I don't remember my history well enough to know where the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act fits in -- it was perhaps even more influential in the shaping of attitudes towards criminals.

If a person cannot be trusted with a gun, they cannot be trusted with their car, knives, boards, shovels or hands; they should be locked away or dead.

Click to expand...

Locking people away is expensive. So is capital punishment since the appeals process can take a long time and the sentence must be defended. The US has the largest prison population in the world, most of it made up of non-violent offenders. If we reserve incarceration for dangerous violent offenders that can't be trusted at large in society, what do we do with the non-violent ones instead of prison? Fines and community service? Required rehabilitative counseling? "Reeducation"? We have to do something. Don't we?

If Person A is deemed still unsafe to own a firearm based on whatever he did to be incarcerated, then why is Person A out of prison?

Click to expand...

Because serving sentence does NOT mean they are rehabilitated.

Just that they served the time. Nothing more.

Violent felons aren't released from prison because they are ready to be re-integrated into society. They are released because they move to the bottom of the incarceration priority list.

I am fine with moving the law to say only violent felons are banned for life. I am also in favor of a well-managed, timely expungment process. HOWEVER, if a felon has his record expunged, and re-offends, it's all back in the record forever. I'm telling you, one day when I'm in power....

The "right" to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution. I think most on THR will agree with that. I have a brother-in-law who is a retired Gunny that was convicted several years ago of a white-collar, non-violent, nobody really got hurt, type of crime and he cannot own a firearm, ever! That is probably a mockery of the system. However, I have no problem with making it illegal for a person convicted of a violent crime, especially one convicted of a crime involving a gun, being denied this "right" after their release from prison. I don't know the percentage but I feel that a large majority of violent criminals WILL commit another violent crime after release. Many of them are released only because of the crowded prison situation. I personally feel that there are things we can do to forfeit our rights and being convicted of a violent crime is one of those things. Sex offenders are required to report their address to local authorities and this info is readily available to regular citizens. As a father I have no problem with this policy. There is no way to have a law that if "fair" to everyone. My brother-in-law is shafted IMO but I can live with the guy who commited aggravated assault being denied this "right".

The only folks that should not be allowed to posses a firearm are those that are not free to walk about in public. Those incarcerated, in a nut house, and those that agreed to some limits on their freedoms as a condition to be released from confinement.

IMHO, those that are incarcerated, and those that are in a mental institution should not be allowed to have firearms because they are being protected by the state. Everyone else has a right to self defence.

If they are safe enough to release, they are safe enough to resume live in society. If they are not, they should not be released, or they should be executed. The whole idea of warehousing all those people should be reevaluated.

Rehab is not what happens in prison...it is the punishment their parents never gave them for doing wrong. It has been said, and I agree, "if you do not teach your children discipline, the state will"

Scum, such as Charles Manson, are nothing more than government subsidized oxygen thieves, and deserve to die. As already stated, jail time is just that, time served, it's not complete rehab. Enough with this bleeding heart B.S.. The laws are being made for trial lawyers by trial lawyers (politicians) to get rich, not protect the average U.S. citizen. Bring back cowboy justice-necktie parties. Once a hard core criminal is executed, there are no appeals and he does no one any more harm. Murders, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers and other riff-raff criminals deserve a fair trial, and then a swift execution, not a restoration of rights the rest of us have!

"Bring back cowboy justice-necktie parties. Once a hard core criminal is executed, there are no appeals and he does no one any more harm. Murders, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers and other riff-raff criminals deserve a fair trial, and then a swift execution, not a restoration of rights the rest of us have!"

Exactly. I think anyone (especially who hurts or molests children) should be executed in a swift and timely manner. I don't care who's feelings get hurt, as long as these sick people never hurt anyone again and are off the streets.

On the other hand, if someone who was caught smoking marijuana a couple times when they were a kid but now have a steady job, a wife and family, and doesn't mess around with druggery wants to get a shotgun and shoot some ducks, I'm fine with it. There are circumstances where I'd say someone is capable of owning a firearm without being a danger to themselves or others.

My good friend Nick was caught driving under the influence when he was 17, he had one and a half beers and drove about 2 blocks to his house. I can tell he learned his lesson, he's not a screw up and I see he's got control of his life. Although that is one of the stupidest mistakes a person can make I don't think he should be banned from owning a gun. It was when he was young and stupid, now he's wiser and has his act together. He's a responsible adult now, if he wanted a firearm and I had the power to I'd give him one. He's a good level headed American now, I think he's earned back his second Amendment rights.

Anyway, that's all I've got to say about that. Y'all take care!
Levi

Is the purpose of incarceration punishment or rehabilitation or both?

Click to expand...

Except most humans on some level seem to feel punishment is rehabilitation. "Don't do this bad act or you will get these negative consequences again". Why do parents spank or ground their children? To punish them and to get them not to do the bad act again at the same time. Prison is grounding for adults. We're moving away from spanking with children, and we've moved away from physical punishment of criminals a while ago. For both children/parents and criminals/state, our response to bad acts seems to be grounding the offender.

When you were a child and you did something you wanted, but you knew it was against the rules; did getting caught and punished make you not want to do it again...or just not want to get caught again?

And yes, if someone had been convicted of embezzlement and released would I hire them? Yes. I believe in second chances, we only have one life to live and it should be a good one.

Click to expand...

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me......I wouldn't hire him.

I am making the most of my first chance and I expect the same of others.

My mini CrimJ system rant:

If you say "let's stop using our resources supporting all of these people who aren't violent offenders" you are being "soft on crime.". Three strikes sentencing means that violent rapist killer offenders are released because 3 time pot dealers CAN'T be. And last but not least: if spanking and physical punishment works, WHY IS ANYONE EVER SPANKED MORE THAN ONCE???

I'm done.

WHY IS ANYONE EVER SPANKED MORE THAN ONCE???

Click to expand...

Not unlike miscreants, some folks just plain don't get it the first time around, many others do.

Violent Criminals = No Guns....Sorry
Mentally Ill (I know, it's a broad term) = No Guns....Sorry

That would about sum it up for me....

Convicted felons should be prohibited for life.