Posted: 3/10/2005 7:27:43 AM EDT
| that have paid their debt to society be allowed to vote? Senator Hittlary Kliton in among a few senators pushing to allow ex-felons to vote. Mainly I assume the majority of ex-felons vote democrap. If this turn out to be law, should ex-felons be allowed to purchase firearms? Just wanted to see what everyone thinks.... |
While the irony in a Klinton pushing this particular bill doesn't slip past me, I have always maintained that if you haven't FULLY paid your debt, you should still be in prison, and if you have, your rights should be fully restored.  edit: and I think this is a dupe topic from last week..... 
|
For the record, the same logic I use to say they should be allowed to vote....would have kept most of them in prison to begin with.
|
This is how I feel. If you are still a danger to society you should not be free! |
|
Who gives a shit what that witch thinks........ BTW, I heard that stink she pitched over the fact that the "new" Hillary Clinton stamp, put out by the USPS, was falling off all the letters, was resolved......... Seems the majority of folks were SPITTING on the wrong side............  Mike |
|
Personally, I say no. Felons did not pay their debt to society by spending time in prison. Society paid a debt to put them there. Costs all of us tax payers money to run those facilities. Who is paying who here? They lose time, we lose money. Sounds like an even trade to me. Their lack of privelege, and subsequent demotion to second-class citizens IS their payment to society as far as I'm concerned. They chose that path. I didn't choose it for them. |
|
The part of not owning a gun was in only in recent time because of the anti-gunners. Many people in the past plead guilty to BS stuff like tax fraud also fell into this category. A conviction of possession of marijunaa is also a felony. Many of the laws on the books carries felonies. BTW: If you're convicted of a felony, you also can't get bonded, hold professional licenses such as doctors, dentists, engineers etc. |
+1 on all counts |
|
Well there is a process in place, a felon has to go before a Judge to get his rights restored. If a felon can go 10 years without any farking trouble, is holding a job, and contributing to society. Then I would say yes. We are probably only going to see less than 5% of felons last this long without gettiing into trouble. Most are back into trouble within days or weeks of release. |
+1 |
| I'm certainly no Hillary fan, but, I'd say 'yes'. There is something almost immoral----certainly ethically questionable----about continuing to punish people after they have "paid their debts" for their prior transgressions. Then too, I'm not so sure that restoring these same rights doesn't inadvertently contribute to them being, in the long run, better citizens-----and, in that regard, I think that the goal should be correction, not (continued) punishment. |