Criminal survey

[StarKing]

It occurs to me that a survey of criminals and ex-cons who voted in the Presidential election might show some revealing statistics. Anyone seen such a survey, or in a position to do one?

 

[Bill of Rights]

If they are classified as felons, they likely did not vote, at least not legally.

 

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

If they are classified as felons, they likely did not vote, at least not legally.

In which state? Some states deny felons the vote, but Indiana is not one of them. In Indiana felons are only prevented from voting while serving time.

I don't think any state should be denying a person their vote on account of a criminal conviction. It's too fundamental. If someone really is so bad that they can not be trusted to vote anymore, they probably should be incarcerated. On the other hand, allowing the currently incarcerated to vote is bad because if the convicts were to register in the precinct that included the prison, that might be enough to essentially give the criminals their own legislator.

 

[Bill of Rights]

In which state? Some states deny felons the vote, but Indiana is not one of them. In Indiana felons are only prevented from voting while serving time.

I don't think any state should be denying a person their vote on account of a criminal conviction. It's too fundamental. If someone really is so bad that they can not be trusted to vote anymore, they probably should be incarcerated. On the other hand, allowing the currently incarcerated to vote is bad because if the convicts were to register in the precinct that included the prison, that might be enough to essentially give the criminals their own legislator.

As my rep comment said, thanks for the correction. I think too many things are "felonies" these days, but I agree that while incarcerated, they should not be voting, and in some cases, I think they should be incarcerated for much, much longer sentences. I'm thinking in the three digit range, and the first digit is not a one or a zero-that way, even if they only serve half their sentence, as IN usually does, they're still locked up for life.

ETA: And the criminals already have their own legislators; in many/most cases, they're called "liberals".

Blessings,
Bill

 

[StarKing]

C'mon Bill. I'm a liberal...we're not ALL idiots (Though I must admit, it certainly looks like most are - at least most of those who are in control).

OK, I'll give you that one, at least as a general rule with at least one exception (me).

 

[Colt556]

A person with a Dishonorable Discharge can't vote I believe. Some, if not all, convicted felons should also lose their right to vote. They can't legally own guns so why should they be allowed to vote for criminal loving liberals. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be voting conservative.

 

[Bill of Rights]

C'mon Bill. I'm a liberal...we're not ALL idiots (Though I must admit, it certainly looks like most are - at least most of those who are in control).

OK, I'll give you that one, at least as a general rule with at least one exception (me).

You're not the only self-proclaimed liberal to call me on that, though I appreciate you commenting rather than taking offense... or at least taking much offense...

Since the question has come up twice now, I'll clarify my meaning: Neither you nor the other person is a legislator, so the comment does not apply to you, though some bulwarks of liberalism include abolishment of capital punishment, alternative sentencing, and looking for any and all reasons why a guilty person should not really be guilty--it's all society's fault.. that poor boy never had a chance, he's so put upon, why, do you know he grew up in a broken home?

Gimme a break. I don't care if a criminal's mommy didn't love him enough or left him sit too long in messy pants one time or whatever was the supposed cause of his crime-because no matter what it was, it won't make his victim any less victimized nor will it bring him/her back to life. Do the crime = do the time. Anything less and I reiterate: Gimme a break.

If the above does not apply to you, perhaps you're not as liberal as you feel you are. If it does, well... What can I say, except that I hope you're not the slimeball's next victim

Blessings,
Bill

 

[cosermann]

We're often pretty quick to deny "felons" certain rights. The thing that concerns me is how easy it has become to be a "felon" in this country.

Time was when a felony was a serious crime, a heinous crime (i.e. things like homicide, rape, kidnapping, arson, etc). That is (was) as it should be. Many of the laws denying felons certain rights were born within this context.

However, nowadays there are a number of nonviolent felonies, "victimless" felonies, procedural felonies, "environmental" felonies, etc. such that if the state were determined the state could pursue and make felons of many otherwise law abiding, upstanding citizens, stigmatize them and strip them of many of their rights. Frankly, there are some trivial and ridiculous things that are now felonies. So, the bar as to what constitutes a felony has been lowered, i.e. the context has changed, but the laws depriving "felons" of certain rights remain unchanged.

The multiplication of ridiculous and trivial felonies (to say nothing of the multiplication of federal crimes), dilutes the heinousness of truly serious crimes, promotes disdain for the law, provides gov't with the tools to abuse its citizens, and endangers all of us.

 

[Bill of Rights]

We're often pretty quick to deny "felons" certain rights. The thing that concerns me is how easy it has become to be a "felon" in this country.

Time was when a felony was a serious crime, a heinous crime (i.e. things like homicide, rape, kidnapping, arson, etc). That is (was) as it should be. Many of the laws denying felons certain rights were born within this context.

However, nowadays there are a number of nonviolent felonies, "victimless" felonies, procedural felonies, "environmental" felonies, etc. such that if the state were determined the state could pursue and make felons of many otherwise law abiding, upstanding citizens, stigmatize them and strip them of many of their rights. Frankly, there are some trivial and ridiculous things that are now felonies. So, the bar as to what constitutes a felony has been lowered, i.e. the context has changed, but the laws depriving "felons" of certain rights remain unchanged.

The multiplication of ridiculous and trivial felonies (to say nothing of the multiplication of federal crimes), dilutes the heinousness of truly serious crimes, promotes disdain for the law, provides gov't with the tools to abuse its citizens, and endangers all of us.

Absolutely correct. The bar is lowered and the punishments continually raised. I know I've told the story of a man I know who was sued for his livestock escaping through a fence he did not keep in good repair. He always paid for any damages they did, but when a neighbor took him to court for it, he just entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor and the neighbor found an old law that bumped it up to a felony. In the years since then, he's gotten it reduced to a misdemeanor again, after paying his fine or whatever his final sentence was. I do not believe that it included any jail time.

I also know a young lady who, a couple of years ago, exited a store with an empty bag of chips she'd been eating, and in conversation with a friend, forgot to pay for. She had the money on her, just simply forgot they were there. The store sent her with the police on a charge of felony theft. This, BTW, was a 99 cent bag of chips. Felony?

The judge, when the case came to him, dismissed it without hearing a word of testimony, and that was after the charge had been reduced twice.

Regardless, neither of these cases should have constituted felonies. I suppose you could claim that the first case was a "habitual offender" or some such, and in the second you could possibly claim that the store was the "victim", but it would seem to me that someone with some sense would simply (in the first case) accept the person's payment for any damages, and in the second, take the "offender" back to the register to pay for the item in question and possibly ban them from returning to the store, rather than use the legal system as a bludgeon against them.

Further, I can agree with the currently incarcerated being denied the privilege (not right) to vote, just as I can agree with the incarcerated not being permitted to lawfully own weapons, but once those sentences (the whole things) are served, all rights should be reinstated. Of course, that does not address the fact that I also think that the adjudicated sentences should be longer as well....



Blessings,
Bill

 

[StarKing]

...some bulwarks of liberalism include abolishment of capital punishment, alternative sentencing, and looking for any and all reasons why a guilty person should not really be guilty--it's all society's fault.. that poor boy never had a chance, he's so put upon, why, do you know he grew up in a broken home?

Gimme a break. I don't care if a criminal's mommy didn't love him enough or left him sit too long in messy pants one time or whatever was the supposed cause of his crime-because no matter what it was, it won't make his victim any less victimized nor will it bring him/her back to life. Do the crime = do the time. Anything less and I reiterate: Gimme a break.

If the above does not apply to you, perhaps you're not as liberal as you feel you are. If it does, well... What can I say, except that I hope you're not the slimeball's next victim

Blessings,
Bill

I'll grant you those are some of the bulwarks of liberalism as the MSM defines it, but the media wouldn't know a real liberal if he walked up and kicked them in the face, and most real liberals are pretty close to that point. Those things are not legitimately liberal, they're just stupid. The term "liberal" has been misappropriated by a bunch of airheads and self-aggrandizing nitwits.
Real liberals (apparently a dying breed) actually think...and spend most of their time living in the real world. I'd be ashamed to take the label (and occasionally I am), but I remember when "Liberals" were actually liberal.
You don't see much of that these days.
Some of us are trying to fix that, but it's definitely an uphill battle. To be honest, I feel more comfortable among conservatives these days on most issues. You and I are a lot more alike than I am like those morons the MSM calls "Liberals".
Just for an example: I and most of those I call "real" liberals voted pretty nearly straight Republican in the last election. Knee jerk party line votes are not liberal.
---End Rant---
Thanks for listening. Pseudo-liberals would be ripping me apart by now, all the tolerance seems to be on the conservative side these days.

 

[StarKing]

Oh, I suppose I should mention that I'd be happy to be the slimeball's next intended victim. I promise he won't have a chance to victimize anyone else!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'll grant you those are some of the bulwarks of liberalism as the MSM defines it, but the media wouldn't know a real liberal if he walked up and kicked them in the face, and most real liberals are pretty close to that point. Those things are not legitimately liberal, they're just stupid. The term "liberal" has been misappropriated by a bunch of airheads and self-aggrandizing nitwits.
Real liberals (apparently a dying breed) actually think...and spend most of their time living in the real world. I'd be ashamed to take the label (and occasionally I am), but I remember when "Liberals" were actually liberal.
You don't see much of that these days.
Some of us are trying to fix that, but it's definitely an uphill battle. To be honest, I feel more comfortable among conservatives these days on most issues. You and I are a lot more alike than I am like those morons the MSM calls "Liberals".
Just for an example: I and most of those I call "real" liberals voted pretty nearly straight Republican in the last election. Knee jerk party line votes are not liberal.
---End Rant---
Thanks for listening. Pseudo-liberals would be ripping me apart by now, all the tolerance seems to be on the conservative side these days.

It seems that you're telling me that you're a "Jeffersonian Liberal", aka a libertarian, these days. It's not just the MSM defining the terms I used above, these are things I've seen personally about liberals as long as I've been aware enough to notice-roughly 40 years- though it seems more correct to say that the result has been to blame and punish the innocent (because they aren't; they've done SOMEthing, we just didn't catch them at it, so when something bad happens to them, it's just the universe equalizing things.) Conversely, when someone does something bad (a criminal), we can't punish them for it because bad things happened to them before, so they're just evening things up. This is where the concept of "karma" goes wrong. No one cites karma when something good happens to them.

Oh, I suppose I should mention that I'd be happy to be the slimeball's next intended victim. I promise he won't have a chance to victimize anyone else!

I would not be happy to be anyone's victim, intended or otherwise. I'd prefer his last intended victim had taken care of that problem and had indeed been his VERY last intended victim. Presented with the situation, however, I am willing to do what I must to ensure that I'm not his next victim nor that there is another after me.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Chefcook]

Originally Posted by cosermann
We're often pretty quick to deny "felons" certain rights. The thing that concerns me is how easy it has become to be a "felon" in this country.

Time was when a felony was a serious crime, a heinous crime (i.e. things like homicide, rape, kidnapping, arson, etc). That is (was) as it should be. Many of the laws denying felons certain rights were born within this context.

However, nowadays there are a number of nonviolent felonies, "victimless" felonies, procedural felonies, "environmental" felonies, etc. such that if the state were determined the state could pursue and make felons of many otherwise law abiding, upstanding citizens, stigmatize them and strip them of many of their rights. Frankly, there are some trivial and ridiculous things that are now felonies. So, the bar as to what constitutes a felony has been lowered, i.e. the context has changed, but the laws depriving "felons" of certain rights remain unchanged.

The multiplication of ridiculous and trivial felonies (to say nothing of the multiplication of federal crimes), dilutes the heinousness of truly serious crimes, promotes disdain for the law, provides gov't with the tools to abuse its citizens, and endangers all of us.

Absolutely correct. The bar is lowered and the punishments continually raised. I know I've told the story of a man I know who was sued for his livestock escaping through a fence he did not keep in good repair. He always paid for any damages they did, but when a neighbor took him to court for it, he just entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor and the neighbor found an old law that bumped it up to a felony. In the years since then, he's gotten it reduced to a misdemeanor again, after paying his fine or whatever his final sentence was. I do not believe that it included any jail time.

I also know a young lady who, a couple of years ago, exited a store with an empty bag of chips she'd been eating, and in conversation with a friend, forgot to pay for. She had the money on her, just simply forgot they were there. The store sent her with the police on a charge of felony theft. This, BTW, was a 99 cent bag of chips. Felony?

The judge, when the case came to him, dismissed it without hearing a word of testimony, and that was after the charge had been reduced twice.

Regardless, neither of these cases should have constituted felonies. I suppose you could claim that the first case was a "habitual offender" or some such, and in the second you could possibly claim that the store was the "victim", but it would seem to me that someone with some sense would simply (in the first case) accept the person's payment for any damages, and in the second, take the "offender" back to the register to pay for the item in question and possibly ban them from returning to the store, rather than use the legal system as a bludgeon against them.

Further, I can agree with the currently incarcerated being denied the privilege (not right) to vote, just as I can agree with the incarcerated not being permitted to lawfully own weapons, but once those sentences (the whole things) are served, all rights should be reinstated. Of course, that does not address the fact that I also think that the adjudicated sentences should be longer as well....



Blessings,
Bill

 

[StarKing]

It seems that you're telling me that you're a "Jeffersonian Liberal", aka a libertarian, these days. It's not just the MSM defining the terms I used above, these are things I've seen personally about liberals as long as I've been aware enough to notice-roughly 40 years- though it seems more correct to say that the result has been to blame and punish the innocent (because they aren't; they've done SOMEthing, we just didn't catch them at it, so when something bad happens to them, it's just the universe equalizing things.) Conversely, when someone does something bad (a criminal), we can't punish them for it because bad things happened to them before, so they're just evening things up. This is where the concept of "karma" goes wrong. No one cites karma when something good happens to them.

"Jeffersonian Liberal"? OK, I can live with that.

40 years…1969...that sounds about right. The Democratic party was hurting for support and instituted the “Rainbow coalition” about that time…everybody’s welcome, including airheads, nutcases, and any number of off the wall left wing extremists. Yup, that’s about the time I started feeling like the media didn’t have a clue what a liberal actually was.

Karma, yes. I believe in Karma, however it does not resemble what you’ve described, though I totally agree that you’ve accurately described these people’s concept of it. One big problem for their understanding is that they are trying to see it from a secular and Newtonian perspective, and Karma doesn’t exist in a secular and Newtonian world.
Personally, I think the problem with these people is less noble and innocent than just a misunderstanding of Karma. To me they seem downright sinister.

I would not be happy to be anyone's victim, intended or otherwise. I'd prefer his last intended victim had taken care of that problem and had indeed been his VERY last intended victim. Presented with the situation, however, I am willing to do what I must to ensure that I'm not his next victim nor that there is another after me.

Blessings,
Bill

Perhaps I phrased myself poorly. I don’t really want to be anyone’s victim, intended or otherwise, nor would I be particularly happy with the likely result, however given that the slime ball is still out there finding victims…better me than some innocent who is not prepared to deal with the situation. As far as I’m concerned, allowing a criminal to continue to the next victim when you have the power to stop him is a crime in and of itself. Maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll come after me before he comes after you. If not, or if he gets past me, I have no doubt that you will make sure he goes after no others.

 

[42769vette]

im betting alot of us could be convicted felons we just didn't get caught. i 100% agree that as a society we are starting to call anything a felony. i bet our kids kids will be talking about there felony jay walking conviction. look how many things are felonies now that wern't felonies 100 ys ago. i know alot of folks think im kidding about the felony jay walking. but i bet it you had told someone 100 years ago that ___ would be a felony they would have thought you were kidding aswell

 

[Lawguns]

I think once they have served their time and met the requirements of their parole they should be readmitted into society as full members. Now I know I will draw heat for that comment and I am in general a conservative. But, if we take it all away and there is no hope to gain it back why bother to reform. Having said that I think there are many crimes where people should never have the chance to get out of jail and repeat offenders should have their sentences extended just for being repeat offenders.

 

[42769vette]

I think once they have served their time and met the requirements of their parole they should be readmitted into society as full members. Now I know I will draw heat for that comment and I am in general a conservative. But, if we take it all away and there is no hope to gain it back why bother to reform. Having said that I think there are many crimes where people should never have the chance to get out of jail and repeat offenders should have their sentences extended just for being repeat offenders.

we have had this conversation on here in probably january or so. you arn't going to take as much heat as you think. if i recall the poll correctly over half of us were for a felon regaining his/her right to have a gun depending on the felony and time since it was commetted.

and just for the record i am with you on them regaining there rights

 

[42769vette]

i usually suck at searches but i found the poll.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nd_carry_firearms_again.html?highlight=felons

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I think once they have served their time and met the requirements of their parole they should be readmitted into society as full members. Now I know I will draw heat for that comment and I am in general a conservative. But, if we take it all away and there is no hope to gain it back why bother to reform. Having said that I think there are many crimes where people should never have the chance to get out of jail and repeat offenders should have their sentences extended just for being repeat offenders.

Agreed.