B.S policy

[Glock 40]

My crazy old uncle who looked and acted like J.D. Hogg told me some 35 years ago as a young man. "Boy if you would take all the criminals downtown on Friday night and burn a couple of the rapist and murders at the stake. A lot of these punks would hear those screams and think twice about a life of crime." While it was a bit extreme there was some logic to it. Probably only take a couple weeks especially with social media now for people to figure out crime don't pay.

 

[Ethan N]

Yeah, I should have been more specific. I was thinking 3 felony strikes (violent or not).

Interesting thing is, California’s 3 strikes law only applies to felonies, but they have some convoluted BS where if you have a certain number of prior convictions, future misdemeanors are enhanced to felonies or something like that. Hence getting a life sentence for stealing a pack of gum.

I could go for 3 violent felonies or 5 felonies total. I’ve seen so many things in the OK statutes and US Code (especially the US Code) that made me go “that’s a FELONY? WHY!?” that 3 strikes makes me nervous. We really have to think things through carefully when we’re talking about the rest of someone’s life, even if they’re a repeat offender.

 

[dennishoddy]

I'm kind of split in my thinking of restoring full rights to felons.

A non-violent felony does not involve the use or threat of force or infliction of injury against the victim. Rather, the damage caused by the non-violent felony is non-physical, such as financial damage or property damage.

Many non-violent felonies are “victimless” crimes. The legislature criminalizes certain victimless offenses for moral and societal purposes. For instance, carrying a pistol without a license is a victimless, non-violent felony.

When it comes to non-violent felonies, I can see restoration of rights on a case by case basis, not a blanket rule that would allow every non-violent felon to regain rights.
You wrote a bad check and got a felony, convicted, served some minor time, and you paid the restitution, I'm all for restoring that person their rights.
On the other hand a financial manager that ran a scam and bilked hundreds of people from their life savings that will never be able pay restitution should never get their rights back.

 

[MacFromOK]

Interesting thing is, California’s 3 strikes law only applies to felonies, but they have some convoluted BS where if you have a certain number of prior convictions, future misdemeanors are enhanced to felonies or something like that. Hence getting a life sentence for stealing a pack of gum.

Meh. Oughtta think twice before stealing a pack of gum anyway.

FWIW, I don't recommend anything from California as a "how to" model.

 

[Ethan N]

I'm kind of split in my thinking of restoring full rights to felons.

A non-violent felony does not involve the use or threat of force or infliction of injury against the victim. Rather, the damage caused by the non-violent felony is non-physical, such as financial damage or property damage.

Many non-violent felonies are “victimless” crimes. The legislature criminalizes certain victimless offenses for moral and societal purposes. For instance, carrying a pistol without a license is a victimless, non-violent felony.

When it comes to non-violent felonies, I can see restoration of rights on a case by case basis, not a blanket rule that would allow every non-violent felon to regain rights.
You wrote a bad check and got a felony, convicted, served some minor time, and you paid the restitution, I'm all for restoring that person their rights.
On the other hand a financial manager that ran a scam and bilked hundreds of people from their life savings that will never be able pay restitution should never get their rights back.

Some good points. What do you think about gun rights in particular? One of the problems I have with denying gun possession to felons is it makes their whole family more vulnerable to violent crime. I have a hard time stomaching that. Doesn’t that former financial manager still deserve to be able to protect himself and his family effectively?

 

[dennishoddy]

Some good points. What do you think about gun rights in particular? One of the problems I have with denying gun possession to felons is it makes their whole family more vulnerable to violent crime. I have a hard time stomaching that. Doesn’t that former financial manager still deserve to be able to protect himself and his family effectively?

I don't think that financial manager has met his obligation to society if he can't provide full restitution to those he bilked and ruined their lives forever and should not regain his full rights. We punish the offender in this country, and unfortunately the family unit sometimes suffers, but the offender should take full responsibility for putting their family in that position in the first place. In that particular example of a fund manager bilking his clients, the family lived a lavish life because of the crimes of the perpetrator, so in retrospect do they not carry some guilt as well even though they may have been unsuspecting? Who is to say they didn't know and the manager fell on the sword to spare jail time for the family that claimed to know nothing?
That is the reason I said on a case by case basis. We can't put every non-violent crime under the same blanket umbrella.

 

[Ethan N]

I can’t support a life sentence on a convict’s right to vote or right to keep and bear arms when we don’t consider a life sentence on their right to personal liberty to be appropriate. I’ll echo @MacFromOK’s thought that if someone can be trusted to be released into the public, they should be trusted with their other rights. Restitution should be sought, but it is not and should not be the goal of criminal prosecution. That’s what civil cases are for. And the inability to make restitution should not be used to hold someone’s rights hostage for the rest of their life.

 

[TerryMiller]

Having worked at the OSBI and read many cases and heard of others, and after being at the funeral and graveside services of a mother and her 8-year-old daughter today, I'm not too hot on the idea of doing much for criminals. The husband is still in the hospital in critical condition, having a good portion of his body crushed in the accident. If he lives, he may never be the same again.

From what I have heard this family was T-boned by a meth-head felon (multiple times) that was running from the police.

Sorry, but I don't think I could be as lenient as some of you today.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Rights carry responsibilities. Maybe a case by case resolution, but I cannot think of any reason to reinstate firearm rights to anyone convicted of a violent felony. We have way too many that have decided that crime is their career choice, or that violence is just fine with them.

 

[Dumpstick]

That sounds nice and all. But would this be your response if I proposed the death penalty for all criminal convictions? If so, begone. If not, you admit there is room for discussion as to what constitutes “mercy” and what is unjust punishment, so your quotation only diverts from an intelligent conversation about where that line should be drawn.

And it’s worth pointing out that Adam Smith actually wrote “…mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent…”* in the context of making the point that after a criminal has been convicted but before sentencing, there is a tendency for some people to begin to pity him and lose the desire to punish him because he’s already been humbled by the criminal justice system (if not in his heart, then in practice) and he’s facing a punishment that grieves their growing compassion toward him in his newly humbled condition. So in this context, “mercy” means a failure to impose any significant punishment, and “the innocent” refers to society in general, not the specific victims of the crime. Invoking the ideas of one of the greatest philosophers in history can be a great way to contribute something significant to a conversation, but it helps if you understand what they were talking about first.

* This is a correct quote if my memory is not failing me, which it may be. I have a bunch of my belongings packed up in preparation for moving and don’t have a copy of Moral Sentiments accessible. I apologize if it’s not word for word.

First, I resent the implication that I don't understand about what Adam Smith was speaking. If you think you are the only person extant that can explain philosophical texts, then "begone". I cannot abide pedantic asses that think common folk are dummies.

Second, this is the worst case of someone putting words in my mouth that I have seen in years. I never mentioned the death penalty. I never intimated anything about what type of punishment, or even to what type of crime I was referring.

Third, re-read my original post. See any quotation marks ? No ? that's because I didn't intend to make it a direct quote.
I intended to relay the flavor of the thought.

So you think I'm diverting from an intelligent conversation ? So be it. I'm out.

A pox on you, Sir.