If they’re a danger, they probably should still be in jail
4 Responses to “If they’re a danger, they probably should still be in jail”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 20th, 2015 at 12:17 pm
We cannot just put people in jail “until they are no longer a danger”; we have to set timeframes. Unfortunately that means we let some (or many) people go that are still a danger (repeat offenders) because they have served their time.
August 20th, 2015 at 6:45 pm
We kind of do, when people are let out on parole. But indefinite sentences are certainly open to abuse (life sentences might be under a different category).
August 20th, 2015 at 8:55 pm
I’m going to sound like a wonky, nutty politician here. It’s been a long day.
I’m big on this for sex offenders, too — no need for a registry. Either they’re still a danger (child molester, high recidivism), or not (guy peeing behind some bushes).
Also, no law against felon in possession will actually stop them if they want to commit a crime. If someone can’t be trusted to own a legal firearm, I don’t want them out, which leads me to:
Also again, there are too damn many felonies that have nothing to do with gun ownership or violence. No amount of weed, or tulips, or too short/too long lobsters should bar a person from their God-given rights.
Also finally, once you pay your debt you should be treated as a citizen again and given a chance to start anew.
August 21st, 2015 at 1:33 am
“Also finally, once you pay your debt you should be treated as a citizen again and given a chance to start anew.”
I agree with that 100%. IMHO, it’s wrong to punish someone for the rest of their life AFTER they’ve done the time.