Did you know . . .
All felons are black? Me neither.
Lame.
The article he linked brings up a question I often ponder:
When it comes to rights, we restrict certain rights if someone commits a crime. For example, the state revokes their right to arms (do we want criminals packing heat?) and (in some cases) their right to vote. Exactly what criteria are involved in deciding which rights to restrict? Do we want convicted felons assembling peaceably or free from unwarranted searches?
The knee jerk libertarian in me thinks that, since the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights but limits governmental infringement of rights, it’s a no-no! But if I concede I don’t want criminals packing heat (after all, who wants that?) then should I concede that they also shouldn’t have a right to freedom from self incrimination?
Thoughts? Or am I a space cadet on this one?
July 8th, 2004 at 2:28 pm
[…] “> Good stuff |By SayUncle| There’s a good discussion of the question I posed here about the criteria for restricting rights to convicted criminals. SayUncle : Good stuff Says:
July 8th, 2004 at 2:28 pm
[…] e question I posed here about the criteria for restricting rights to convicted criminals. Here’s a link to the comments. | Link | | Category: Current Eve […]
July 7th, 2004 at 11:44 am
I definitely see where you’re coming from. I’m still enough of an idealist not to like arguments from pragmatism where the “good of society” is invoked, which ultimately the reason given for restricting the rights of felons to vote or own weapons.
If the guy’s still that dangerous, shouldn’t he be in prison?
July 7th, 2004 at 12:21 pm
I don’t know if there is a simple formula to predict which rights can/cannot/should/should not be taken away. The problem with criminals packing heat is obvious. How a state would justify requiring convicts to incriminate themselves is somewhat less obvious.
July 7th, 2004 at 12:55 pm
Ok, but what I’m asking is: is he still a criminal after having served jail time or whatever?
Also, is it really obvious why he ought to be disarmed? Presumably he still might need to defend himself, his family, his property, and the country the same way the rest of us do.
July 7th, 2004 at 4:26 pm
I believe that felons, or more specifically, ex-felons who have served their sentences, should have every right to keep a firearm in their homes for delf-defense purposes. I can understand the argument against issuing CCW permits to convicted felons.
I think it should depend on the crime they were convicted of in the first place. Felony armed robbery would definitely disqualify a CCW applicant. Some “white collar” crimes, where no violence was involved (e.g. corporate embezzlement) might be a different story.
Theres a lot of gray area no doubt, where the rights of ex-felons are concrened.
Laws such as those on the books here in Massachusetts, that do nothing to address violent crime, and serve only to restrict the rights of the law-abiding citizenry, should be summarily abolished.
Yeah, I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I had to vent a little. It’s been awhile.
July 7th, 2004 at 4:40 pm
Even being a libertarian, the answer is easy to me. A felon has the rights that The People decide to return to them. When you are convicted of a felony by a jury of your peers, absent misconduct by the court, you are forfiet. Anything that you do now is a privilege granted to you by the state.
The death penalty exemplifies this. Once someone is executed, you have removed all thier rights. No bearing arms, no voting, no cable TV. You have to right to rot. When the People (sitting as a petit jury) decide to show mercy and not execute you for your crime, you should be happy with any latitude they grant you.
July 7th, 2004 at 5:51 pm
I’ll answer this as an idealist, because that’s what we all are — deep down.
I believe that people change. I believe in rehabilitation. I believe that a fair judicial system coupled with a strict penal system can ensure that only those who can be trusted are let back out onto the street.
I believe that after release, every former prisoner should be on probation. If after a period of months to years (depending on the crime) the person in question has become a citizen rather than returning to being a criminal, then all rights should be restored. Voting. Carrying a weapon for self defense. Adopting children. Getting a government job.
One mistake shouldn’t wipe out an entire life unless that “mistake” was the taking of a life.
That’s right. A firmly Republican, right-wing conservative believes in felon rights.
On the other hand, I also believe in a self-sufficient penal system that is far harsher than the current system (the one that puts criminals in with other more experienced criminals so that they come out smarter criminals than when they went in).
July 7th, 2004 at 6:04 pm
I’ve seen how the system at the State and Fed level identifies and feeds itself mostly on folks least able to defend themselves. Look how many things ARE felonies now, as compared to 30 years ago. I think once you have served your time, all rights should be recognized once again.
The Gov has a huge investment in producing a large underclass of humans with reduced rights. Get busted for misdemeanor drugs one time, pay a fine and every time you are pulled over for traffic violation, moving or not, you are going to be detained, searched and subjected to MUCH stricter scrutiny than someone with a “clean” record. Get a felony, even non-violent, and you will be arrested at the slightest provocation.
July 8th, 2004 at 5:40 am
“Ok, but what I’m asking is: is he still a criminal after having served jail time or whatever?”
Not to be flippant, but the short answer is “Yes”. Phelps has got this one cold, but I figured I’d put my own spin on it. (Sorry, Phelps.)
People have a very odd and distorted perception of the role of law enforcement. There isn’t a “debt to society” that will be paid off by going to jail. After serving a sentence you don’t start from GO with a clean record and gold claps all around.
Instead it’s more of a social contract. Break the contract and you’re not a full member of society.
There’s three levels to this. There’s the average citizen, one who doesn’t break any laws. They’re afforded the full spectrum of rights and protections that society holds dear. You don’t even have to contribute directly to the common good to enjoy these since eve hermits have all of them.
The second tier is for people who have committed crimes, but only those crimes that are not considered too damaging to the common good. Still, even those criminals are considered to be less than full members of society. Banks won’t lose too many discrimination lawsuits by refusing to hire people convicted of misdemeanor check fraud, for example.
Then there’s a line drawn out there. There has to be a line somewhere, and this is it. Commit a felony and it’s pretty clear that you’re not interested in playing by the rules set down. That means that society isn’t interested in letting you play by certain rules.
Felons can’t vote in national elections, own or possess firearms, serve in the armed forces or run for elected offices. EVER!! They’ve broken the contract and they’re out, period.
So going to jail isn’t to balance the books. It’s to punish the individual so that maybe, just maybe, they’ll think twice before doing another crime.
It doesn’t work, but at least they have a hard time hurting innocent people while they’re kept in a cage.
James
July 8th, 2004 at 5:50 am
“Get busted for misdemeanor drugs one time, pay a fine and every time you are pulled over for traffic violation, moving or not, you are going to be detained, searched and subjected to MUCH stricter scrutiny than someone with a “clean” record.”
Well…..DUH!
“The Gov has a huge investment in producing a large underclass of humans with reduced rights.”
Uh-huh. It’s all a big ol’ conspiracy against little ol’ you.
The laws were passed by elected officials. They owe their jobs to the continuing goodwill of the people who cast the votes.
The laws are enforced by police directly under the control of those elected officials. They owe their jobs to the continuing goodwill of the officials. (Meaning they’re screwed if the voters put too much pressure on the politicians.)
Don’t like it? There’s 2 options open to you. You could try and get candidates elected who say they’re going to change the system and treat criminals with more latitude. Good luck! It’s never going to happen. (If you don’t like it, too bad. That’s democracy for you! Always letting the will of the majority overcome the desires of the fringe groups.)
Your 2nd option is to simply avoid committing crimes. Simple, no?
I can’t count the number of times I’ve had someone claim that they just didn’t know that what they were doing was a crime. If they’re telling the truth they’re idiots, or they’re so lacking in a moral compass that they don’t think about anyone but themselves.
Either way they get what they deserve.
James
July 8th, 2004 at 7:57 am
Toss out felonies for gun laws, toss the violations of most of the “drug war” foolishness- certainly two sets of laws whose foundation morality could be questioned, then perhaps take a look at tossing violators of IRS “tax law” convicted in tax court. I wonder how many felons you would unconvict?
Anyone want to argue the morality in just those three areas?
July 8th, 2004 at 10:16 am
“Anyone want to argue the morality in just those three areas?”
Sure, I’ll bite.
“Toss out felonies for gun laws,…”
So you think it’s a good idea to allow felons who have been convicted of violent crime to arm themselves? People who have been convicted of murder, sexual assault, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery?
I run a free self defense class for victims of violent crime. Every single one of my students would say that you’re very wrong about this. And so do I.
“toss the violations of most of the “drug war” foolishness…”
You get a pass on this one. I also think that most drug laws are simply a drain on resources that could be used somewhere else. But it’s what the voters want, and we get into that whole Democracy thing again. The majority calls the shots, so you had just beter get used to it.
“take a look at tossing violators of IRS “tax law” convicted in tax court.”
There’s more vital services provided by the government than I can count. Gotta pay for them somehow.
And don’t bother to offer a big “L” Libertarian rant about how these services would be better off being privatized. Considering the resources needed to provide effective firefighting, for example, it’s obvious that those people unfortunate enough to live in low income areas would be dying in droves without our current system. And I know that you wouldn’t want that with your concern for the “large underclass of humans with reduced rights.”
James
July 8th, 2004 at 11:59 am
“Robert,”
Why do you put “quotation” marks around the phrase “tax law” for no apparent “reason?” Are you one of those “moonbats” who think that “laws” they don’t really “like” aren’t “laws” at all?
Annoying punctuation aside, the number of tax evaders convicted in tax court is zero. The U.S. Tax Court does not hear criminal cases.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:17 pm
James,
I just want to take exception to the idea that “the majority calls the shots.” I hope you don’t really mean that you think that any law is ok as long as it has majority support.
July 8th, 2004 at 1:45 pm
Thib:
Well, the majority does call the shots, provided that the laws they pass are constitutional. As much as I dislike most drug laws, I don’t believe them to be unconstitutional.
July 8th, 2004 at 2:03 pm
I think there’s a big difference between what is right and what is Constitutional.
July 8th, 2004 at 2:12 pm
I think it depends on your views on crime and punishment. I certainly believe in the Social Contract / Debt view of crime, in that criminals incur a debt to society for the harm they bring, and sentencing is designed to collect that debt. This is of course, not a popular view with most criminologists, because it is value-neutral on the merits of rehabilitation and/or punishment. (It really ticks of the rehabists.)
Basically this view means that we should match our sentences to the harm done by the crime. If someone pays the debt back, they are once again full members of the contract. If the debt is too great to ever allow them back into society, then we need to lock them up / exile them away / kill them. That is the uncomfortable truth of Social Debt theory.
So yes, I think that criminals who have paid their debt in full (none of this parole crap, either) should in fact be allowed to have all the benefits of a citizen. I also think that we have far too many crimes that do incur no harm to society, or that their punishment and classification far outweigh the harm they do. Lastly, I think that the number of crimes that have sentences that are too light are also significant. But that’s an argument for another time.
July 8th, 2004 at 5:57 pm
Thibodeaux:
True enough, but them’s the rules. If you think that some elite arbiter of “right” and “wrong” should be able to dictate what people can and can’t do, then you don’t really believe in democracy.
The Constitution, at least, was formulated by the people, ratified by the people, and can be changed by the people, given a large enough majority wanting to change it.
July 8th, 2004 at 7:45 pm
Patriot Act: package sitting around going nowhere for years, enacted largely without being read.
Campaign Finance: Even the folks who voted FOR it were shocked by what it required.
Texas Legislature passes 1000 new laws per session. How many years until Texas is considered legislated enough?
Just driving down the street: count the number of state liscenses, tags, stickers, papers you have to have to be legal.
We just worked until July to pay the combined fed/state taxes.
All of my law enforcement friends say that anyone can be arrested for SOMETHING. Many of them shake their heads, say it “ain’t like it used to be” and are counting the months until retirement.
Is this the way free humans to live? Is it the vision the founders had when they wrote the Bill of Rights? Does it help to strip felons of rights?
Ok. Maybe. But I have my doubts about how happy we ought to be about the status quo and how much power any person has to do anything to make this country a place where our children will live lives of greater liberty and freedom than we have now.
July 8th, 2004 at 9:18 pm
” I certainly believe in the Social Contract / Debt view of crime, in that criminals incur a debt to society for the harm they bring, and sentencing is designed to collect that debt.”
Don’t confuse the two, the social contract and serving a sentence as paying a debt. If there was any merit in the idea that doing jail time actually provides a benefit to society then we wouldn’t have any debate over the cost of prisons.
“So yes, I think that criminals who have paid their debt in full (none of this parole crap, either) should in fact be allowed to have all the benefits of a citizen.”
When the victim of even a simply robbery is reimbursed in full by having the criminal serve a jail sentence you can call me. Until then your position isn’t realistic.
James
July 9th, 2004 at 8:38 am
Girsch, I know that’s the way it is, and truly I don’t know of any better way to do it. However, while I do not believe in an “elite arbiter,” I also do not believe in democracy, as most people think of it, as a goal in itself. The goal is liberty and protection of individual rights.
July 9th, 2004 at 11:31 am
James:
If there was any merit in the idea that doing jail time actually provides a benefit to society then we wouldn’t have any debate over the cost of prisons.
Non-sequitur. Of course we would still debate it. It’s a cost-benefit analysis, like anything else. Anyway, even if the sole benefit of jail time is keeping the criminal off the street for a little while, there’s still a benefit.
I do agree with you, however, insofar as a convicted felon forefeits some of his rights, provided those rights can be reinstated if said felon is ever exonerated.
July 9th, 2004 at 3:54 pm
“I do agree with you, however, insofar as a convicted felon forefeits some of his rights, provided those rights can be reinstated if said felon is ever exonerated.”
Well, sure! If the criminal is innocent then he’s innocent, and not a criminal.
James
July 11th, 2004 at 12:14 pm
Wow! Good discussion!
Assuming the law broken isn’t an assinine one, the criminal has lost his rights by violating the rights of others. If you break a contract by not fulfilling your obligations, you then lose the right to the benefits of that contract. The Constitution is essentially a contract between the people and the government, and between us individually – you, me, and the pizza delivery boy. If you break your constitutional obligations to your fellow citizens by robbing the pizza boy, you’ve surrendered your constitutional rights and protections by essentially stating that the constitution doesn’t apply to you. So be it.
There are a lot of silly laws on the books, but that issue should be dealt with by getting rid of the bad laws, not by letting genuine thugs off the hook.
From a practical standpoint, it’s probably a bigger issue to the law-abiding than to the thugs. Hillsborough County Elections office, under Pam Iorio, had a special session to restore voting rights to felons. It can be done, legally and today, given that the felons have been straight for a while (I’m thinking it’s around 10 years) and fill out a few forms and whatnot. She had notices sent to hundreds of ex-felons; 10 showed up.
Sooooo – genuine criminals don’t get a lot of sympathy from me, which is okay because (a) they don’t seem to want it very badly anyway and (b) I don’t exactly see a lot of thugs falling all over themselves in sympathy for their victims.
An aside, but – screw a criminal’s debt to society. I’d prefer to see a criminal’s debt to the individual victim paid, threefold. Violent crimes can never be thoroughly amended, so where are you then?
Given rescidivism rates, it’s self-destructive to assume somebody goes into prison a thug and walks out an angel. I’m okay with about 10 years of being a responsible citizen, and then if the ex-felon requests some of his rights back, okay. But not for most violent crimes.