Quote:
Originally Posted by kalimus
See I actually disagree with you about this. Unfortunately, the system IS broken, and it "has" to be like this. But revoking a person's rights forever should only be done with due process... like the process that happens that would lead to a conviction. After a conviction, a person is given a penalty. Sometimes it's a fine, sometimes it's long term jail time. However, after that is taken care of, the criminal's debt to society is supposed to be deemed "paid", which means restoration of all rights. (Edited to add: I mean to say that "forever" means that due process has removed them from society "forever").
The legal system serves two main purposes: Rehabilitation, or removal. If a person is sentenced to jail time (removal) and let out, it is because the debt is paid and they are "rehabilitated". If they prove in jail that they are too dangerous, they are kept. If a person is so potentially dangerous that he or she is barred from having a firearm, then he or she should not be in the general public. At all. There is no such thing as a person "too dangerous to have a firearm", but not so dangerous that we'll risk that person having access to things that can make explosives, or knives, or whatever makeshift weapon. That's a ridiculous assertion that is implied by the way our legal system releases people. If someone is let out and is on probation, then I understand. That person is still paying their debt to society. But once that is all done... hasn't punishment been applied? Of course there are countless legitimate things that could have rights temporarily revoked... but those are slippery slopes as well....
|
See, I agree with you on this in theory, but in practice I'm more hesitant. In a perfect world, if a person commits a crime, they are punished
accordingly. But there are plenty of cases that go through the system and, even though the person was convicted, they are effectively given just a slap on the wrist (in the relative sense) depending on how good their lawyer is or who the judge was or how lenient the jury was.
How many child molesters are out there that are repeat offenders? They were convicted, registered, and served their time. But then they were let out of prison, supposedly "rehabilitated," and then they commit the same crime (or some variant) again.
So, in this particular instance, until we get criminal punishments standardized here, I have a problem with assuming a person is "rehabilitated" just because they "paid their debt" to society. That's why I think there are some crimes that, even if you serve your time, should completely exclude you from ever owning a firearm for the rest of your life. Granted, it would likely be a short list, but it would still need to exist, at least with the way the current system is setup.
