• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Felons

LeoVlaming said:
It punishes. Or are you going to deny that?
Click to expand...

It's not vengeance. It's not trying to teach someone. It's security in the form of money extracted as justice. People were endangered, justice served.
 
ecofarm said:
It's not vengeance. It's not trying to teach someone. It's security in the form of money extracted as justice. People were endangered, justice served.
Click to expand...

Do you deny it is a form of punishment?
 
LeoVlaming said:
Do you deny it is a form of punishment?
Click to expand...

Yes. I deny that justice is ever punishment. Justice is never vengeance. Vengeance is never justice. Justice is security and redemption. Not vengeance, not punishment.



Let me try to explain it like this:

You're in the wilderness. You have no society. You're alone. A representative of two societies approach you. The first proposes, "join us, our society provides security and opportunity for redemption". The second representative proposes, "join us, our society provides punishment." Which do you join. Why.
 
ecofarm said:
Yes. I deny that justice is ever punishment. Justice is never vengeance. Vengeance is never justice. Justice is security and redemption. Not vengeance, not punishment.



Let me try to explain it like this:

You're in the wilderness. You have no society. You're alone. A representative of two societies approach you. The first proposes, "join us, our society provides security and opportunity for redemption". The second representative proposes, "join us, our society provides punishment." Which do you join. Why.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you can't see the difference between punishment and vengeance. They are not the same.

Denying that a fine is a form of punishment is simply ridiculous.
 
LeoVlaming said:
Your problem is that you can't see the difference between punishment and vengeance. They are not the same.

Denying that a fine is a form of punishment is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Can't define punishment without vengeance via retribution.
 
ecofarm said:
Can't define punishment without vengeance via retribution.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true. A punishment is a sanction inflicted upon someone who commits a crime. Nothing more, nothing less.

Vengeance is something you inflict on someone else because of an injury you feel he caused you, regardless of whether that injury was a crime or not.
 
LeoVlaming said:
That is simply not true. A punishment is a sanction inflicted upon someone who commits a crime. Nothing more, nothing less.

Vengeance is something you inflict on someone else because of an injury you feel he caused you, regardless of whether that injury was a crime or not.
Click to expand...

You literally cannot define punishment without vengeance by way of retribution.

It's about perspective. Knowledge + perspective = understanding. I figure you've got all the knowledge you just can't see my perspective. It would be one thing if you did and disagreed, but you're not seeing what I'm seeing.

I'm seeing a failed justice system because the common man and even much of the learned see it as a punishment system.
 
ecofarm said:
You literally cannot define punishment without vengeance by way of retribution.

It's about perspective. Knowledge + perspective = understanding. I figure you've got all the knowledge you just can't see my perspective. It would be one thing if you did and disagreed, but you're not seeing what I'm seeing.

I'm seeing a failed justice system because the common man and even much of the learned see it as a punishment system.
Click to expand...

You really are hilarious. Just keeping living in your alternate reality.
 
CLAX1911 said:
so I didn't say recidivism occurs because people don't get to vote,
Click to expand...
You said
CLAX1911 said:
Keeping someone in that status after they've served their time it's probably the number one cause of the recidivism rate in the US.
Click to expand...
, which includes voting.

Regardless, restoring rights is not the number one cause for criminal recidivism. Not even close.
 
As felons have already established that they engage in wrongful thinking there is no reason to immediately grant restoration of rights.
All rights should only be automatically restored after a period of time of non-criminal behavior after they have been discharged from their sentence. Any criminal activity, no matter how small would restart the tolling of that time, with prison/jail time suspending the clock until they are again discharged.


FreedomFromAll said:
I get why violent felons lose their second amendment rights but not non-violent felons.
Click to expand...
You may very well get it, but the association is specious.
If a person used a gun wrongly then I could certainty see the loss as an outcome, but not just all those who were convicted of a violent crime, as having been violent does not mean the person would go to the extent of using a firearm in a wrongful manner.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Check what and see?
Click to expand...

When you apply for most jobs they run a background check on you to see if you're a convicted felon and if you are they will often deny you the job, should that be allowed?
 
Excon said:
As felons have already established that they engage in wrongful thinking there is no reason to immediately grant restoration of rights.
All rights should only be automatically restored after a period of time of non-criminal behavior after they have been discharged from their sentence. Any criminal activity, no matter how small would restart the tolling of that time, with prison/jail time suspending the clock until they are again discharged.


You may very well get it, but the association is specious.
If a person used a gun wrongly then I could certainty see the loss as an outcome, but not just all those who were convicted of a violent crime, as having been violent does not mean the person would go to the extent of using a firearm in a wrongful manner.
Click to expand...

Wrongful thinking deserves taking away rights?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I was just thinking that if I was a felon I would vote for sweeping gun control laws to take guns away from other people to make the world safer for not only me but my family.

I get why violent felons lose their second amendment rights but not non-violent felons. You could grow too much weed on your property and lose your right to near arms over it, it just doesnt make sense.
Click to expand...

Trouble is, it wouldn't make it safer. Did you know it's really not possible to stop a felon from getting a gun? There's this thing out there called the black market. Oh...there always theft of course.
 
Excon said:
As felons have already established that they engage in wrongful thinking there is no reason to immediately grant restoration of rights.
All rights should only be automatically restored after a period of time of non-criminal behavior after they have been discharged from their sentence. Any criminal activity, no matter how small would restart the tolling of that time, with prison/jail time suspending the clock until they are again discharged.


You may very well get it, but the association is specious.
If a person used a gun wrongly then I could certainty see the loss as an outcome, but not just all those who were convicted of a violent crime, as having been violent does not mean the person would go to the extent of using a firearm in a wrongful manner.
Click to expand...

Quite right. Felons can get their rights restored by petitioning a court. There is no reason to automatically restore rights after serving their time. There is, however, a reason required in the ruling if a judge determines rights are not to be restored.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Wrongful thinking deserves taking away rights?
Click to expand...
It isn't just the thinking, but the acting on that wrongful thinking as well.

So yes, not abiding by society's laws is a valid reason to temporarily revoke rights and privileges until a certain amount of non-criminal time has passed.




Tans said:
Quite right. Felons can get their rights restored by petitioning a court. There is no reason to automatically restore rights after serving their time. There is, however, a reason required in the ruling if a judge determines rights are not to be restored.
Click to expand...
No. The individual should not have such a burden placed on them. Such a burden should only apply to the state to prove as they did with the conviction of committing a crime, and only for temporary purposes.

As I stated it should be automatic after a specific period of time of non-criminal activity after discharge. That establishes a willingness on the part of the individual to follow societies rules.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
It isn't just the thinking, but the acting on that wrongful thinking as well.

So yes, not abiding by society's laws is a valid reason to temporarily revoke rights and privileges until a certain amount of non-criminal time has passed.





No. The individual should not have a burden placed on them other than
As I stated it should be automatic after a specific period of time of non-criminal activity after discharge. That establishes a willingness on the part of the individual to follow societies rules.
Click to expand...

I agree but I dont think that in all cases permanent revocation of rights is valid, nor what the founders intended.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I agree but I dont think that in all cases permanent revocation of rights is valid, nor what the founders intended.
Click to expand...
As I never suggested permanent revocation, that is fine.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You said , which includes voting.

Regardless, restoring rights is not the number one cause for criminal recidivism. Not even close.
Click to expand...

I think it is. If someone is seen as a felon and treated as a felon they are treated as a second-class citizen.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I think it is. If someone is seen as a felon and treated as a felon they are treated as a second-class citizen.
Click to expand...
What you think is irrelevant. Not having their rights restored is not the primary cause for criminal recidivism. Period. I’ve read through several clinical studies of criminal recidivism and not a single one even mentioned absence of former rights as a cause for criminal recidivism, much less the primary cause. Educate yourself. Thoughts and feelings aren’t facts.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
What you think is irrelevant. Not having their rights restored is not the primary cause for criminal recidivism. Period.
Click to expand...
this looks like a claim made without evidence. Watch me dismiss it without evidence.

I’ve read through several clinical studies of criminal recidivism and not a single one even mentioned absence of former rights as a cause for criminal recidivism, much less the primary cause. Educate yourself. Thoughts and feelings aren’t facts.
Click to expand...

I will educate myself on facts. The claim that you have "Read studies" followed by insistence that you've posted are not facts.

get onto proving them then I'll happily accept them other than that you're wasting your time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom