It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by iwilliam
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by AnonyWarp
Say what you will.... I get that sentencing and punishment are all hosed up in this country. But forgive me if I remain unimpressed by someone who was convicted of a violent crime and only three years later whines about the consequences.
I have never violently attacked anyone in my life. I think this OP is a poor advocate for sentencing reform.
Well, how nice it must be to feel justified in a sense of smug moral superiority.
Let me ask you-- have you ever defended yourself from a violent attack?
Because in some places, and/or with a little bad luck, that could land you a record for a violent felony.
And if you haven't ever had to defend yourself from violence, then you have little idea of what that feels like, and your opinion becomes more and more irrelevant.....
I hit someone once while i was drinking, there was already an ongoing battle between two other people.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by onequestion
I can agree with and empathize with what you are saying, with three caveats:
1) An across the board loss of rights for all felons doesn't make sense to me. Not all felonies are created equal. I once made the decision to have an employee charged for stealing from the job ( a compact disc ) - not knowing ( I'd just moved to Texas ) that the state of Texas considers all workplace theft to be embezzlement, thus a felony. In attempting to make a statement to my staff I, sadly, possibly ruined a young mans life. All over eight ninety-nine.
The loss of rights for any felony should reflect only the rights that the persons felony categorically fell into. IE commit armed robbery? Sorry... no more guns for you. Embezzle? In that case I can see a loss of the right to be taken solely at ones word.
2) For most felonies there should be some sort of time limit ( if there isn't already ) after which a felon could petition for reinstatement of his rights. If someone makes a stupid mistake in their late teens / early twenties? I see no reason why they shouldn't get some review or consideration come their thirties or forties. Assuming, that is, they keep their noses clean in the interim.
3) If there was a gun involved in your felony, sorry to say it, but I feel that you probably should not ever have the right to own a gun afterward. This isn't personal. I just feel that such stern restrictions might help to keep younger folks from repeating the mistakes of prior generations. I grew up with a lot of older role models, many of whom were severe drug addicts. While I did pick up a few of their bad habits, drugs ( in any form ) are not on the list. Just seeing the trouble, sickness, pain, and death in several cases - that drugs caused and that I witnessed? I was put off of the idea of trying them before I ever had the urge. Kids seeing older felons languishing for their rights might well have the same sort of negatively reinforcing effect.
Originally posted by byGRACE
reply to post by onequestion
It is disgusting, true. Once your time is done all punishment should be done.
Originally posted by TechniXcality
Originally posted by Creep Thumper
reply to post by TechniXcality
I call behavior as I see it. You earned your punishment and whatever you lost.
Decent people don't spit on others no matter who they are.
yea im sure you've never fallen in with the indecent crowd. The difference of criminal and non criminal is who has gotten caught and who has not.
Originally posted by cusanus
Ok, my good deed for the day is to give you some real advice. The observations you've made are pretty common and everybody always suffers for the same, more or less and though you may get some sympathy, nothing anybody else can do will change it. Aside from that, if you aren't being punished by someone, somewhere, or in danger of losing credibility, then you're doing something wrong. If I can convince you that I'm not peddling religion, then read on.
First off, there's a person named Jesus. He's very much alive and well as many people claim, though most refuse to hear it. Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." If you read the first several verses of Matthew 5, you will get very literal instructions about how to become born again and saved, not from daily difficulties and oppression, but by the evils of this world unto eternal life and peace. Or not. It all depends on whether or not you're sincere enough and desire enough to find God, only through belief in Jesus. This isn't about blind belief, either, because God will meet you a very vivid and literal way, but you have to take the first step.
Originally posted by 19KTankCommander
violent Crimianl in your own words, Not knowing what you did really don't matter, have to remember one thing if it was not for those liberals and if this was 200 years ago and you got caught you would not be here to talk about it. Yes times have changed, and you don't get hung for steeling cattle anymore, instead you are put in jail and loose you rights when it comes to almost everything. No one to blame but yourself, I would guess someone at one point or time in your life told you "that is not a good idea don't do it"
So ask yourself this, is it better to be alive or should we enforce those old laws from years and years ago...
Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by dusty1
By law i am not aloud contact with the "victim".