Can people who have finished their felony sentences recover their 2nd A Rights

[Ghostseeker61]

You're right there, the death penalty doesn't slow 'em down cause they spend 20 yrs on the row then released on a technicality. So there is no repercussions. But still, rights being revoked may stop some.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If you're not incarcerated, on probation, or parole, then all rights should be restored. If they are too dangerous to ever own a gun, they shouldn't be free. That's my utopian view, thought admittedly somewhat unrealistic.

Holy crap. Kut, you and I actually agree on something! I'm not sure how you mean "somewhat unrealistic", but the essence of the stated belief is similar to my own.

There is too much recidivism in the prisons to say that once you have served your sentence, your rights should be restored.
I think there has to be a time of proving.
Where they get and keep a job, keep out of trouble, contribute to society in general.
THEN go before a judge and argue to get their 2A rights back.
IMHO

It sounds like you're discussing a legislated privilege, rather than a natural right, at least to me. The recidivism is not an argument to restrict natural rights, but an argument to increase the severity of the time served. That is, if you commit a crime of violence against another, other than a self-defense case, your time incarcerated needs to be so awful that you never want to return there again, and will straighten up after you're out to keep that from happening. Too, when someone has been incarcerated, many people will not hire them to jobs with good pay, and a means to actually earn a good living so that a return to crime is not the only way to support oneself.
I would further argue that while a period of proving one's character change is appropriate, I think the default should be that after X time, no further arrests or suspicions should mean the return of one's rights in toto, or, stated conversely, that the state should have to argue to prevent the restoration of rights, not the citizen have to prove he's "worthy".



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hornett]

Bill, I understand more where you are coming from now.
And I completely agree with you.
However, I don't think that is ever going to happen.
Longer sentences and harsher prison time would work, but, unfortunately, this is 2016 and we have progressed beyond those archaic ideas
Short sentences, reduced sentences, three good meals a day, a gymnasium, and lots of felons from which to learn better ways to commit crime is more the norm.
Jail can be better than the real world for many of the prisoners.

 

[Jludo]

Bill, I understand more where you are coming from now.
And I completely agree with you.
However, I don't think that is ever going to happen.
Longer sentences and harsher prison time would work, but, unfortunately, this is 2016 and we have progressed beyond those archaic ideas
Short sentences, reduced sentences, three good meals a day, a gymnasium, and lots of felons from which to learn better ways to commit crime is more the norm.
Jail can be better than the real world for many of the prisoners.

What would you propose to make the system better? A model that actually reduces recidivism ?

 

[Jludo]

I'd say for anyone who argues a gun is just a tool and criminals will find a way to commit crimes, there should be no issue with restoring gun rights. To not would be an admission that guns are more dangerous and access be more restrictive.

I've also heard it said that criminals will disregard gun laws. So guns will only be kept out of he hands of ex convicts who plan on obeying the law when they get out.

 

[jamil]

I think lawyers like it the way it is because for rights to be restored, lawyers get paid. I think the default should be, you get your rights back when your debt to society has been paid (out of jail, fines paid, parole done, etc).

As for recidivism, at some point an offender's behavior makes it obvious he or she just can't function between the rails. Time to take them out of society.

 

[jamil]

Holy ****. I just saw Kut's post. How can we agree!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I wrote something a long time back. I don't have a copy of it now, but essentially, "Nothing stops a criminal but a coffin or a cell. Lock 'em up forever or send 'em straight to hell." Obviously, I'm not talking about jaywalking or minor crap, but rather, serious crimes, such as rape, murder, cho-mo, and the like- things that actually cause harm to a person.

What kind of sentencing would truly deter the criminal, removing his dedication to committing his crimes? I'm not an expert in criminal rehabilitation, but the thoughts that come to mind would have to account for which crimes have a high rate of recidivism. Do murderers really come back out wanting to kill more people? Not usually, from what I understand. Rapists are more so, and the slime that go after little kids... I recall that they are never "rehabilitated". Conversely, thieves and muggers tend to return to those ways. I don't think chopping off hands or other parts is the solution, but what we have now with catch-and-release, if we can even catch them, isn't either. Maybe a return to hard labor/chain gangs?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Alamo]

An amusing side note:

As I read the majority opinion I had one eye on the sources cited, and chuckled to note that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which uses the URL of "smartgunlaws.org", was cited exactly once -- as support for the observation that unlicensed concealed carry is not universally considered a serious crime...and often not a crime at all! Gasp!

(emphasis added)

Similarly, though some states punish the unlicensed carrying of a concealed weapon as a serious crime, see Gov’t Suarez Br. at 16-17 n.5, more than half prescribe a maximum sentence that does not meet the threshold of a traditional felony (more than one year in prison) and others do not even require a specific credential to carry a concealed weapon, see Thomson Reuters, 50 State Survey: Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon (Statutes) (October 2015); U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., States’ Laws and Requirements for Concealed Carry Permits Vary Across Nation 73–74 (2012), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf (last visited Aug. 25, 2016); Law Ctr. to Prevent Gun Violence, Concealed Weapons Permitting, Concealed Weapons Permitting | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (last visited Aug. 25, 2016).

I'll bet that chafed their britches.

 

[lcole1969]

In indiana you can regain your firearm privilege through an expungement but it must have the proper wording of the firearms rights being restored.

 

[Hornett]

What would you propose to make the system better? A model that actually reduces recidivism ?

Reference what Bill said in his post above
And...
You don't have to go any farther than to look up Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona.
Pink jump suits, real work for prisoners, and tent cities when the jails are overcrowded in lieu of releasing prisoners early are just some of the changes he has imposed.
Jail is NOT FUN in his county in AZ, I can tell you that.

 

[DRob]

.......................
Jail can be better than the real world for many of the prisoners.

This is a big part of the issue. Many, many convicts have a better, safer, more comfortable life in prison than they did on the outside. That's not punishment, it's a vacation on the taxpayer's dime.

That said......Yes, there should be a clear path to restoration of rights but it should not be automatic.

 

[jamil]

This is a big part of the issue. Many, many convicts have a better, safer, more comfortable life in prison than they did on the outside. That's not punishment, it's a vacation on the taxpayer's dime.

That said......Yes, there should be a clear path to restoration of rights but it should not be automatic.

I think it should at least depend on the nature of the crime. Recidivism for non-violent crimes tend to involve repeating non-violent crimes, like drugs and property crimes. Non-violent felons should have their rights restored by default.

I could see a compromise for violent felons, but to others' point, there is a class of criminal that probably shouldn't get back out in society.

 

[Jludo]

I'd be curious what the thoughts were on systems like Norway's. Has one of the lowest recidivism rate and does the opposite of what's proposed in this forum. Any evidence to back up the idea that prisons should be more harsh?

Why Norway's prison system is so successful - Business Insider

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If you're not incarcerated, on probation, or parole, then all rights should be restored. If they are too dangerous to ever own a gun, they shouldn't be free. That's my utopian view, thought admittedly somewhat unrealistic.

I agree with this ... However, with a caveat. That caveat is that there should be NO provisions for early release. If your sentence is 20 years, you serve 20 years, period. No early release for getting your GED or your college degree or "good behavior" (I can't believe good behavior is a thing - that ship has already sailed, or else you wouldn't be incarcerated to begin with.).

 

[IndyDave1776]

What would you propose to make the system better? A model that actually reduces recidivism ?

To a great extent, we are on the same page, but there are a number of problems which must be overcome.

First, the reason Indiana changed from indefinite sentencing to definite sentencing (i.e., doing 10-20 replaced with a 20 year sentence with possibility of release at 10 with credit time) was a court decision that inmates had a right to know when they are going to be released. In reality, the 'solution' was just a different way of saying the same thing, but that would eliminate the sharp end of the Norwegian system in which you can be kept forever if you are deemed not rehabilitated.

Second, the American system is very much profit-driven. This includes profiting at most all levels including enforcement, prosecution, and correction, in the last case with the staff being acutely aware that their job security and promotion opportunities come largely from the expansion of numbers under circumstances in which recidivism is necessary to break even much less afford a growing inmate population. Obviously, there is a direct motive to encourage rather than reduce recidivism.

Third, far too many correctional staff are people who are drawn to the profession for the entirely wrong reasons. As I was fond of putting it, they apparently didn't have a dog at home to kick (not that I advocate kicking the dog, but I also didn't advocate bringing it to work). In my reckoning, the staff needs to be made of up two basic types of people--the do-gooder at heart who is equipped to capitalize on the redeeming qualities available in people (which will get you run out the door on a pine rail today) and the firm but FAIR person to back the first up. People who are there because they want a class beneath them to kick and people who are simply there for a paying job are not making a positive contribution, although I have seen plenty of examples of the latter who proved to be among the better staff. The point not open for flexibility is that the self-serving and/or sadistic need sorted out and removed, preferable in the hiring process.

Fourth, different sorting criteria need to be applied when dividing the inmates among institutions. At present, inmates are assigned to prisons by security class based almost entirely on the nature of crime for which they are convicted. The problem is that this fuels the trend for prisons to be institutions of higher learning for criminals to become more efficient criminals rather than to be corrected. My rule of thumb was that 1/3 of inmates are going to be incorrigible, 1/3 will never do it again, and 1/3 are pliable to the handling they receive in prison. A few inmates whose judgment I trusted felt I was being a little optimistic, but the basic principle stands--and seeing salvageable lives thrown away for the financial well-being of the system and those operating it really rubbed me the wrong way. Inmates need sorted such that the pliable and impressionable are kept well away from the incorrigibles!

Fifth, I am inclined to believe that there is a possibility that the Norwegian inmates, for example, may be more docile in general than our inmates simply as a matter of the culture. I do not see it as a system we can simply adopt for our own use. When it is all said and done, we can milk a lot of cows, but we are going to have to make our own milkshake that fits our own people. I would emphasize that this, in my reckoning, includes liquidating our supply of dangerous incorrigible criminals (with the caveat, of course, being that most of us would fall on the list that some people would want liquidated in spite of the fact that exercising constitutional rights is not criminal, not in principle and at least not yet in law).

Sixth, private prisons by their very nature invite abuse as the profit motive directly discourages any effort to reduce recidivism. The only way I can see it working is to allow it with requirements rigidly applied regarding supplies (i.e., not allowing conversion of the food budget into profit budget), services, recovering cost of facility construction and maintenance, and salaries/wages. The only way I see that working is reimbursement for actual expenses within the terms for nature, quality, and quantity of goods and services rendered. Not only would it have to operate as a not for profit, but salary caps would also be needed to prevent the owners and managers from simply stripping out money in astronomical salaries and bonuses. The net result would be private incarceration limited to those doing to because they honestly believe their ways more effective rather than doing it for profit.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Oh, and I got distracted enough to skip over my belief that if you are too dangerous to have all your rights, you are too dangerous to roam free. I see a dangerous trend in the conversion of rights into conditional and revocable privileges that more and more reasons to deny one's rights are being invented (like including some misdemeanors along with felonies for denial) such as to produce a de facto second-class citizenship which will get progressively easier to 'obtain'. This will eventually lead to a system in which only the patricians have rights while most of the rest of us will have made some minor misstep to be demoted to second-class. Before you form up your reaction to this, the situation we have today would appear just as asinine to our counterparts of 200 years ago as becoming a prohibited person for a traffic ticket would appear to us today.

 

[Shalashaska]

I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time, you shouldn't be treated any differently from other citizens. If people are considered too dangerous to own guns, we shouldn't be letting them out of prison in the first place.