reply to post by GhostLancer
I can tell that you are a really happy person and fun at parties... LOL Hey, relax. I see that this is going to be a rollercoaster. Relax, hero.
Yeah, right. This site isn't a party, and the terms and conditions of this site don't even allow you to discuss certain recreational patterns, so
let's not pretend we're at a party here, and recognize what is really going on. As my Dear old Mom used to always say; "The country is going to hell
in a hand basket!"
I haven't studied the reasons for implementing the parole system, but I imagine that it might have something to do with the overcrowding of prisons,
even as far back as the 1930s.
I actually Googled the history of parole when I initially replied to you, and the information as to why it was created is sleight, although it
Wikipedia say's that penologist Zebulon Brockway, first introduced the system in New York State to "manage prison populations and rehabilitate those
incarcerated", and doesn't say much else about the why. Whatever the why, the fact remains that the parole system is a method by which a prisoner
remains a ward of the state, or federal government even after being released. It is a dubious practice.
Committing a crime and being held accountable for it usually involves separation from open society. Convicts are not property, but they must be
handled in a contained environment.
There is the issue of felony disenfranchisement
, and there is the issue of holding
public office. Congress has been known to expel elected members who are deemed unfit due to convictions, and both while both disenfranchisement and
holding public office vary from state to state, many states ban felons, and even in some instances misdemeanor offenses from holding public office.
It is a fair question whether voting or holding public office are unalienable rights, since unalienable rights preexist government, but both voting
and holding office require the existence of a government in order to be fulfilled, but just the same, these are denied certain convicts, and this
makes them less a person than you and I, under the eyes of government. At the very least, this practice is questionable, and most unlawful. I am
talking about convicts that have done their time, and yet still denied voting and holding public office.
In terms of unalienable rights, there is the matter of the right to keep and bear arms. Felons have been barred from owning guns, and this is highly
questionable, and is no doubt an infringement on an individuals right, which is expressly prohibited by the 2nd Amendment on a federal level, and most
states acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms as well, and even those that don't virtually all states echo the 9th Amendment, so it is arguable
that even for the states that do not acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms, the declaration that enumerated rights shall not be construed to
deny or disparage other rights retained by the people lends credence the argument that virtually all states are entrusted to protect the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, and anyone not included as people, would fairly be described as property.
How would you run a prison? Perhaps a kinder, gentler place that good citizens might want to vacation in?
Great question, and given that you just asserted that imprisonment involves a separation from open society, what would be so wrong with a "kinder,
gentler place"? Lao Tzu suggests we should all be gentle in doing good, and imprisoning those who have harmed others is arguably good, what would
would be so wrong with being gentle in doing good?
More to the point, what the hell are we doing imprisoning people who have not harmed anyone? If there is no victim, there is no crime, and yet, there
are people placed in prison for these so called "victimless crimes", which undermines your whole "not property" argument.
? Convicts aren't property, but they must be *managed* and some people might see that as dehumanization. It's not. They did something wrong. They are
removed from society until society sees fit to release them back into the pond.
"Drug Crimes, Prostitution Crimes, and other various Black Marketing Crimes" are not crimes in a free society. Where there is no victim, there is no
crime. Those who have caused willful harm to another, are criminal, those who have not, did what they did by right. "Managing" and removing people
who have not caused any harm, but have instead violated questionable legislation is not an admirable strategy for a free society. In a society where
people are property, then "managing" people and removing those who violate arbitrary and capricious legislation is par for the course.
A convict does his time. He has a record of being dangerous and/or untrustworthy. He has to try to succeed again, even with those caveats associated
with his background. It's unfortunate, but it is a reality he/she has personally taken direct action to create (the committing of the crime).
Plenty of people who have never committed a crime are untrustworthy, and even dangerous, even if that danger has not yet manifested itself.
Untrustworthy, and even "dangerous", which in this context would be more correctly stated potentially dangerous, are not reliable litmus tests for
determining the rights of individuals.
Human rights are not arbitrary and capricious inventions of humanity. Unalienable rights are natural phenomena, which is what makes them law. All
law is simple, universal, true, and absolute. Once a convicted criminal has done the prison time determined to be appropriate for the crime
committed, that debt has been paid, and the universal law of rights applies once again.
Before the lazy crimvelvet jumps in and decides I am arguing that criminals have the right to a job, or some other stupid nonsense, let me be clear
here. No one has the right to a job. Everyone has the right to earn a living, but no one is owed a job. If an employer wants to make a decision
that a convicted criminal is not employable, that is the business owners right to make that decision. However, a person who has paid their debt for
the crime they committed - a real crime where an actual victim was involved - has the right to move forward, and under the rule of law - real law, not
legislation pretending to be law, or simulation of legal process - that person does not have to reveal any incriminating information about them self,
so they, just as it is with all other people, have the right to be as mystifying in terms of how trustworthy they are as the next fellow, and business
people, and neighbors, will have to take their chances just as they do with all the other untrustworthy potentially dangerous people who have never
been convicted of a crime...real crime, where a victim exists.
Sure, time is served. But we have a forgive and do not forget society when it comes to these things. Service industry and grunt jobs (cooks, chefs,
fast food attendants, store clerks, lawn maintenance, ditch digging, etc.) don't require an unblemished background. However, higher-end jobs
(attorney, medical field, police, firefighter, etc.) may require a cleaner background.
It is not up to "society" to determine what the law is, the law is what it is, and all people have rights, and rights are law. All law is simple,
true, universal, and absolute. Your advocacy of a caste system is unimpressive, and hopelessly naive. With a 97% conviction rate for the federal
government, this statistic does not bode well for defense attorneys and reveals a level of incompetency that suggests that people have as good a
chance hiring a ditch digger to defend them in a federal court as they do an attorney.
is a term used to describe death by doctoring caused by
treatment or diagnostic procedures, and if you click that link I provided you will discover that death by doctoring is the third largest cause of
death for Americans each year, which suggests that people have as good a shot at survival by using a dishwasher to heal them, than they do a doctor.
Police officers are increasingly becoming some of the most dangerous people in America.
The point is that, depending on the service provided, customers may not want a convicted felon to take care of them.
Interesting that you include police officers and firefighters in the same field of professionals as attorneys and doctors, where the former are not
professions that are generally viewed as having "customers", and again, just because police officers may not be convicted felons, this does not mean
the public is immune from thuggery when it comes to police officers.
In terms of other professions, the only way "customers" could know a person is a convicted felon is because they know personally that this person was
a convicted felon, or because of some bogus legislation that "requires" disclosure of this information. I have always found it amazingly hypocritical
that the right to privacy has only been recognized by the courts in terms of abortion, in terms of un-enumerated rights, but the idea of a right to
privacy when it comes to drug use, or prostitution, or other "victimless crimes" is not recognized, and of course this idea of requiring a convicted
person to disclose such information once their debt has been paid, is just another violation of privacy.
It's just that people are looking out for themselves and their families. I would not hire a contractor to work in/on my home who has a criminal
background. Am I mean? No, I'm looking out for my family.
I am all for people looking out for themselves, and I would never ask you to hire a contractor that you knew was a convicted felon. However, if you
are asking me to join you in advocating the capricious and arbitrary treatment of unalienable rights, such as the right to privacy, then my answer is
I don't think so.
You do not think the governments, federal, state, and local, are aggregating power? I would suggest you pick up some history books and find out for
yourself just how much power the federal, state, and local governments have aggregated since the inception of this country. Indeed, the Constitution
for the United States of America is the first example of a federal aggregation of power that did no exist under the Articles of Confederation of
Perpetual Union. While you keep advising me to relax, I will continue to advise you to stop being so naive.
The real situation is that people who have a criminal background have a harder time finding jobs.
Quite honestly, I am bored with this jobs issue. I am a free market advocate, and at this juncture in the United States, I would be more interested
in seeing people reject the idea of working for the man, and just become the man themselves. I don't know how many states statutorily define
"employee", but if it is only the State of California, that is one state too many. I am a capitalist, and no fan at all of corporatism, so frankly,
if convicted criminals are finding it increasingly harder to get a job, then my advise would be they go into business for themselves, and being a free
market advocate, all people, convicted of a crime, or not, will not find a free market in the so called "free and open market" where "deregulation" is
debated, but will find a free market in the black market, which is to say, unlicensed businesses.
Most of our prisoners, it seems, are there because of illegal drug use.
Bingo! Now we are getting to the root of a problem, in terms of a prison nation.
Legalizing marijuana would not only bring in billions (perhaps trillions) in tax revenue, but would free up a lot of prison space.
You can't legalize what is a natural right to do. If the best reason you can come up with to repeal the bogus legislation regarding marijuana is tax
revenue, then it is clear where your head is at. Look, if we are going to have a government, and I believe such a thing is necessary, then taxation
is a part of having a government, but when people look at a behavior that causes no harm to others, and creates no victim, and uses language like
"legalize" and justifies their logic with taxation, then you are not just naive about aggregation of power, you are facilitating it.
Some people are less aggressive and more pleasant; some seem angry and make discussions feel like a grudge-match in a blood pit. So, in a fashion,
you're pit-bull aggressiveness sends out signals of angry naivety, as the following quote from you suggests:
I could really care less how polite you think you're being while you piss all over my rights. I am not now, nor have I ever been a convicted
criminal, but I don't have to be one to recognize the steady rise of tyranny and the odious sycophants of tyranny. Politeness is not synonymous with
goodness. Smiling does not necessarily mean the person doing so is trustworthy, and when someone is smiling while trampling all over my rights, such
a smile is sinister, and one should not relax under such circumstances.
This country will keep steadily marching towards tyranny as long as there are people who look for excuses to justify the abrogation and derogation of
For me, and for many in this thread, this issue is not about actual criminals who have caused harm and created an actual victim, this thread is about
all those put in prison where no victim ever existed. For you, and too many others, you desperately want to make this thread about the actual
criminals only to justify the continuation of a rising prison population, and the invasions of privacy, and God knows what other violated rights you
advocate. It is just tragically ironic that while you desperately try to frame this argument about real criminals, only paying empty rhetoric lip
service to "legalizing" marijuana as if this is some sort of clever sheepskin to disguise what you really are, as you tell me to relax.
edit on 26-3-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)