eye95
Well-known member
I am not worried at all about someone calling me a name...got over that in the 2nd grade and didn't think you were calling me those personally.
First, I never said a single thing about depriving someone of their rights after conviction and during incarceration...that is YOUR statement/implication not mine. Personally, I would deprive them of quite a few MORE during their stay on taxpayer time and money.
However, the decision to deprive someone of their RTKBA AFTER they have completed their sentence and are returned to live their lives in society IS selective and arbitrary. We do not deprive them of much else, just the ability to defend themselves in a society where society has VOCALLY waived that responsibility to protect it's members. What other SIGNIFICANT portions of the Bill of Rights do they lose after completion of their sentence? Therefore, that decision IS selective and arbitrary. (I really do not include the loss of voting and jury duty as a significant loss).
Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how is society safer by depriving RTKBA to a person who was convicted of a non-violent felony (let's say securities fraud) and then released from prison a few years later? It isn't. But, perhaps they should have their 4A rights removed or limited so we can search their computer records later to make sure they are not doing the same thing they were convicted of before? Obviously not...but it would make more sense than RTKBA.
If you want to oppose my choice of words, then feel free to demonstrate how my choice of words is incorrect.
The thing about name calling was not directed at your post, but the juvenile reaction to my answer.
I said nothing about during their sentence, nor can anything I said be reasonably construed as implying anything about what you said on that matter.
My point has nothing to do with that one iota. The forfeiture of the RKBA is a separate and distinct part of the consequences assessed after due process. The time of that penalty is independent of the time being served behind bars, a fine, or any other forfeiture of rights after due process as a result of committing a crime. Under the Constitution, that is perfectly acceptable. I see no one addressing that point other than with what amounts to "nuh-uh."
Again, I think States generally go too far in assessing that quite Constitutional forfeiture. My point is solely that saying it is unconstitutional is just plain unsupportable. It is a policy issue. Deal with it that way or you will get nowhere in trying to fix what you see is wrong.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
