Constitutional 'rights' and felons?

[dsnover]

I got into a 'theory' discussion with a family member, and the topic of constitutional rights came up. We both were wondering if a felon has done his/her time, why are only _some_ of their constitutional rights restored? For example, free speech seems to be restored, but RKBA is not (or is it? Doesn't _seem_ to be so). In any event, why would the 2nd NOT be restored (politically incorrect as it may sound)? If the 'rights' are selectively restored, shouldn't rights be an all or nothing proposition, if the system deems someone has done their time?

[kevindsingleton]

I don't know why it is, but it is. I agree that, if a convict has done his time, and is deemed to be safe to be released back into society, then all of his/her rights should be restored.

Otherwise, keep'em in prison. If they're too dangerous to freely exercise their rights, then we shouldn't be letting them out of custody.

Unfortunately, we live in what is close enough to a democracy to ever get this process passed, as it would be very unpopular, despite the simple logic involved.

[son of the revolution]

There would need to be a wholesale shift in the paradigm of our Justice System and Crime Control/Incarceration before restoring 2A rights to convicted " felons " would be palatable or wise .

This type of issue creates quite a conundrum . On its surface , my libertarian mindset and common sense tell me that once someone has " paid their debt to society " that all previously infirnged rights are to be restored , as part of making them " whole " . At the same time , the vast majority of our Penal System has moved past any meaningful attempts at rehabilitation of criminals and to more of a " warehousing " model . The fact is , most Penal Facilities these days are merely the " Graduate School " for Being a Criminal 101 .
The recidivism rates are averaging 50 percent if not much higher , hell look at the debacle in Philly with the revolving door Justice System and the havoc its creating on the streets ! Wait a few months to see the Violent Crime rate skyrocket in California , since they just released 55,000 offenders because of their budget problems ! There was even an economist that acknowledged the release will result in 150 additional murders , four hundred and something additional rapes , and 1,000's of addtional violent crimes each year , for an average rise in violent crime of 6 percent .

Then theres the problem of honest to God " non violent " offenders . A vast majority of prisoners are inside for mere possesion of illegal drugs , they may have never been charged with any other offense , yet now thrown into the gladiator school of a State Pen , they often quickly learn to survive , they MUST resort to violence , which in many cases has the effect of desensitizing them to violence in general , thereby planting the seed of a new , growing violent criminal , who , when released , has a chip on his/her shoulder about being railroaded by the State , plus the first hand experience of violence as a means of survival and waa laa , despite its best efforts , Society has now succesfully helped create the very monster their trying to stomp out .

What about the white collar guys that commit their crimes in the boardroom , and if someone yelled BOO! to loud , would likely collapse in terror , having never been exposed to " violence " in the silver spoon world ?
Hard to say if this type may or may not be prone to resort to violence once he's served his/her time . I mean clearly Martha Stewart did her Country Club Stretch , got out, picked up the pieces and moved on , Im not terribly worried if Martha wants a shotgun to shoot trap on her estate .
On the other hand , what if our white collar criminal is a COO or CFO , that becomes the " fall guy " and spends all his gray bar hotel time ruminating about how people he felt he could trust set him up , while they vaca in the Bahahama's , smug in the knowledge they got away with it ?
This guy may very well develop and harbor some serious vengence fantasies , that he may willingly act on after release .

In short , while I believe that in a perfect world , each person , convicted of a crime and serving their sentence , should have their 2A rights restored if their behavior , crime and likelyhood of recidivism could be accurately assessed as not prone to violence , the fact is thats an almost unattainable goal , as the human mind remains a mystery in large part , and it will be impossible for the foreseeable future , to accurately predict who will go on a violent crime spree and who wont , and what the precipitating stressors might be .

[GunLawyer001]

It's not about punishment, it's about making distinctions among people based on past conduct.

If some guy gets a job teaching 7 year old girls, and he molests a few of them, gets convicted, does his 10 years or whatever, and gets out, should he now be eligible to get another teaching job at the school where your 7 year old daughter attends?

If someone gets a gun in his hands and immediately robs a liquor store, carjacks a soccer mom, and shoots at a security guard, then he goes to jail for 10 years, and gets out, is he now a trustworthy soul who should be packing heat behind you as you tap the ATM?

Yes, the best answer is to create a criminal justice system that segregates & rehabilitates, and only releases the reformed citizens who yearn to occupy a cubicle for 40 hours per week. Who has that system?

[Steeltown]

This is what you want to discuss for your first post? No "Hi" I'm a newbie and all that jazz? Just kidding.

This is a great post and I think you are going to get a lot of viewpoints. I for one never really thought about this and now that you brought it to the table I am very interested as well to here what others have to say. I will say that I lean towards GunLawyer's reply which IMO is 100% valid.

[kevindsingleton]

In short , while I believe that in a perfect world , each person , convicted of a crime and serving their sentence , should have their 2A rights restored if their behavior , crime and likelyhood of recidivism could be accurately assessed as not prone to violence , the fact is thats an almost unattainable goal , as the human mind remains a mystery in large part , and it will be impossible for the foreseeable future , to accurately predict who will go on a violent crime spree and who wont , and what the precipitating stressors might be .

Given that impossibility, it is a crime to punish all for the transgressions of the few, is it not? Are we not, by denying 2nd Amendment rights to all convicted felons, punishing "before the fact"? Does this not fly in the face of all that is American? How can we accept this situation, and decry the assault on our 2nd Amendment rights that is purportedly intended to "prevent" crime? Is one argument not identical to the other?

Do we not deal with the exact same impossibility in predicting who will go on a violent crime spree when we issue concealed carry permits and approve NICs checks? Isn't it the gunbanners argument that preventing access to guns will prevent violent crime, and, isn't that the most specious of arguments, since we all know that criminals will get guns, anyway, and you don't need a gun to commit violent crime?

We'll never live in a perfect world, so why not make this one the best we can? Everyone should have equal rights, unless they're incarcerated.

Every one.

waa laa

What?

[kevindsingleton]

It's not about punishment, it's about making distinctions among people based on past conduct.

If some guy gets a job teaching 7 year old girls, and he molests a few of them, gets convicted, does his 10 years or whatever, and gets out, should he now be eligible to get another teaching job at the school where your 7 year old daughter attends?

If someone gets a gun in his hands and immediately robs a liquor store, carjacks a soccer mom, and shoots at a security guard, then he goes to jail for 10 years, and gets out, is he now a trustworthy soul who should be packing heat behind you as you tap the ATM?

Yes, the best answer is to create a criminal justice system that segregates & rehabilitates, and only releases the reformed citizens who yearn to occupy a cubicle for 40 hours per week. Who has that system?

If he's not safe to teach (or anything else), why would we want to release him back into society? It's downright criminal! If it's not safe to trust him with "rights", then it's not safe to trust him with any "rights".

Can you not do more damage with your 1st Amendment rights than can I with my 2nd?

I would tend to lean towards the side of liberty, given the choice.

[son of the revolution]

Given that impossibility, it is a crime to punish all for the transgressions of the few, is it not? Are we not, by denying 2nd Amendment rights to all convicted felons, punishing "before the fact"? Does this not fly in the face of all that is American? How can we accept this situation, and decry the assault on our 2nd Amendment rights that is purportedly intended to "prevent" crime? Is one argument not identical to the other?

Do we not deal with the exact same impossibility in predicting who will go on a violent crime spree when we issue concealed carry permits and approve NICs checks? Isn't it the gunbanners argument that preventing access to guns will prevent violent crime, and, isn't that the most specious of arguments, since we all know that criminals will get guns, anyway, and you don't need a gun to commit violent crime?

We'll never live in a perfect world, so why not make this one the best we can? Everyone should have equal rights, unless they're incarcerated.

Every one.



What?

LOL " waa laa " = voila' sound it out , cant think of any other way to explain it , but I know you've said it before , Im sure my spelling it phonetically instead of properly didnt help , my bad

[GunLawyer001]

Quote:
waa laa

What?

I believe that was a stab at French, sometimes rendered as "voila", sometimes the more musical "viola". Alas, it's a mute point (having no consequence, hence moot as well.)

[GunLawyer001]

If he's not safe to teach (or anything else), why would we want to release him back into society? It's downright criminal! If it's not safe to trust him with "rights", then it's not safe to trust him with any "rights".

Can you not do more damage with your 1st Amendment rights than can I with my 2nd?

I would tend to lean towards the side of liberty, given the choice.

Let's ask the typical inmate, whether he'd prefer a lifetime of incarceration, or release without gun ownership.