Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
B.S policy
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dennishoddy" data-source="post: 3229198" data-attributes="member: 5412"><p>I'm kind of split in my thinking of restoring full rights to felons. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> 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. </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dennishoddy, post: 3229198, member: 5412"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
B.S policy
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom