Why it's so difficult to decide when to restore rights to ex-felons
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Why it's so difficult to decide when to restore rights to ex-felons

  1. #1

    Why it's so difficult to decide when to restore rights to ex-felons

    Wasn't sure where to post this. It has to do with 2A, but so much more. In another discussion thread, the issue of 2A rights being restored to felons (or not) after they'd finished their sentences, etc., was very thoughtfully discussed. My argument is that even ex-felons SHOULD have their rights restored (all of them), but at the same time, we should be absolutely certain as a society that that person is deserving of those rights being restored before releasing him/her back into society. In other words, you're either civilly dead AND incarcerated, or you're released and restored to full citizenship. The problem with that is that our justice system has gone from punishment...to correction...to rehabilitation. Now every crime is seen as a cry for help, a mental affliction that we need to fix. But show me someone that our justice system has fixed! Heck, show me someone a psychologist has fixed! When our justice system 'progressed' to rehabilitation, it left correction and punishment behind, to the detriment of our society. Now we are forced to release inmates to the streets, knowing they will reoffend because nothing has changed them, and have this ridiculous discussion of why we aren't restoring their rights to them.

    This article was just recently published, regarding the UN calling for a complete elimination of solitary confinement in prison systems, calling it "punishment" as if punishment is somehow a dirty word. As many of you know, I've been working in prisons for almost twenty years, and I'm here to tell you, when you take punishment out of the prison system, all you have done is create criminal training camps. This is a perfect example of how our justice system is failing.

    Anyway, here's the article. Hope the link works. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

    U.N. torture sleuth urges end to long solitary terms | Reuters

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    I'd have kept it with the other thread we've got going on this topic.

    I do agree that long solitary terms are bad. The human mind needs interaction.

    Solitary in general may be helpful, but how are you going to punish a person who's already going to spend the rest of their life in prison?

    I'm not sure where I stand on supermax, and the solitary confinement that is normal there.
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  4. #3
    Ok, here's the problem: if we are going to say a person should never be released (i.e., life without the possibility of parole), then why are we keeping this person alive? He is then a drain on society and the economy, nothing more.

    Supermaxes are meant to house the most violent offenders, those who pose the highest escape risk, the highest risk of assaults inside and outside the prison. That's why they have to be separated from other inmates. It's all based on a pattern of behavior. Inmates don't start out in solitary. They earn it, believe me. By the time a committee says "this guy needs to be single-cell status" he has already demonstrated why, and there will be plenty of documentation to support it.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by Providence Ranch View Post
    Ok, here's the problem: if we are going to say a person should never be released (i.e., life without the possibility of parole), then why are we keeping this person alive? He is then a drain on society and the economy, nothing more.
    This is why we keep them alive: The Innocence Project - New Orleans Man Wrongly Incarcerated for 30 Years Exonerated of Rape that New DNA Evidence Proves He Didn’t Commit
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  6. #5
    It's not difficult for me, If their crime is violent towards another person, than no rights.if their crime was that of victim less crime.then have an hearing to determine if they quailify for their rights to be re-stored.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    It is as simply as this If you are releasing them back into society then they have served their time and their rights need to be restored, Otherwise if you feel that they are or still pose a threat to society why then are you releasing them back into society where you know they will cause harm?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast