Pardon me (political)

[silverscreenselect]

If something is the right thing for one, its the right thing for all.

You and I will differ on if something is "the right thing", though.

And it's a complete coincidence that "the right thing" in your view just happens over and over to benefit whites to the detriment of minorities.

You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

Voting laws to combat nonexistent voter fraud that invariably disproportionately disenfranchise black voters... right thing per BiT

Use of the pardon power to redress inequalities dating from Reconstruction legislation and that might disproportionately benefit black voters... wrong thing per BiT

I think I've got a pretty good idea.

[BackInTex]

Voting laws to combat nonexistent voter fraud that invariably disproportionately disenfranchise black voters... right thing per BiT

Use of the pardon power to redress inequalities dating from Reconstruction legislation and that might disproportionately benefit black voters... wrong thing per BiT

I think I've got a pretty good idea.

What you think and what is are two very different things.

I do not think voting laws to combat nonexistent voter fraud that invariably disproportionately disenfranchise black voters is the right thing.

I do think the second one above is wrong. Not necessarily the ends, but the means. But the ends are not perfect, but that is due to the means.

[TheCalvinator24]

I support restoration of voting rights (and gun rights, etc.) for those who have served their time and completed any applicable period of parole or probation.

[BackInTex]

I support restoration of voting rights (and gun rights, etc.) for those who have served their time and completed any applicable period of parole or probation.

Even if they were convicted of a violent crime? A violent gun crime? A second time? What about the lifetime sex offender registry?

There are folks, no matter how long they've spent in prison or on parole, should no longer be treated equally as citizens, IMO. Treated as humans? Sure. But not full, rightful citizens with ALL privileges.

[Bob78164]

I support restoration of voting rights (and gun rights, etc.) for those who have served their time and completed any applicable period of parole or probation.

I think I'd have an issue with restoration of gun rights for those convicted of crimes of violence, particularly if the offense involved guns. Similarly, I don't think I'd support the restoration of voting rights for those whose crimes involved voting fraud. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

I support restoration of voting rights (and gun rights, etc.) for those who have served their time and completed any applicable period of parole or probation.

I think I'd have an issue with restoration of gun rights for those convicted of crimes of violence, particularly if the offense involved guns. Similarly, I don't think I'd support the restoration of voting rights for those whose crimes involved voting fraud. --Bob

Penalties that extend beyond the Defendant's sentence are an affront to civil liberties.

[Bob78164]

I support restoration of voting rights (and gun rights, etc.) for those who have served their time and completed any applicable period of parole or probation.

I think I'd have an issue with restoration of gun rights for those convicted of crimes of violence, particularly if the offense involved guns. Similarly, I don't think I'd support the restoration of voting rights for those whose crimes involved voting fraud. --Bob

Penalties that extend beyond the Defendant's sentence are an affront to civil liberties.

Not if the penalty is part of the sentence in the first instance. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Penalties that extend beyond the Defendant's sentence are an affront to civil liberties.

Not if the penalty is part of the sentence in the first instance. --Bob

Alert the media! We've found our common ground.

[TheCalvinator24]

I think I'd have an issue with restoration of gun rights for those convicted of crimes of violence, particularly if the offense involved guns. Similarly, I don't think I'd support the restoration of voting rights for those whose crimes involved voting fraud. --Bob

Penalties that extend beyond the Defendant's sentence are an affront to civil liberties.

Not if the penalty is part of the sentence in the first instance. --Bob

With the exception of Life without Parole and the Death Penalty, all sentences have a determinate period. Once that period is complete, it violates civil rights to continue to deny Constitutional rights.

Any penalty that extends beyond the period of time of the particular sentence violates this basic premise.

Even if an argument could be made to extend beyond the individual sentence period, any extension beyond the potential maximum sentence possible for a particular offense runs afoul of basic civil liberties.

[Bob78164]

Even if an argument could be made to extend beyond the individual sentence period, any extension beyond the potential maximum sentence possible for a particular offense runs afoul of basic civil liberties.

Not if the Legislature said otherwise in a bill enacted and effective before the offense occurred (so as to avoid ex post facto issues).

I can see no principled reason that the maximum length of possible incarceration provided by the Legislature should necessarily be the maximum length of any form of punishment or civil disability. Consider a fine, for instance. That's a permanent deprivation of property. The offender doesn't get the money back after the maximum possible jail sentence (assuming there is a possible jail sentence involved).

In other words, the Legislature is entitled to punish offenses by means other than throwing people into jail. And there's no principled reason that one of those punishments can't be a deprivation of the right to bear arms or the right to vote, nor is there a principled reason why that deprivation can't last longer than a deprivation of physical liberty. Whether that's a good idea is a different issue (and one where I've stated my position). But there's no constitutional barrier, and I don't see a doctrinal barrier either. --Bob

[BackInTex]

With the exception of Life without Parole and the Death Penalty, all sentences have a determinate period. Once that period is complete, it violates civil rights to continue to deny Constitutional rights.

Any penalty that extends beyond the period of time of the particular sentence violates this basic premise.

Even if an argument could be made to extend beyond the individual sentence period, any extension beyond the potential maximum sentence possible for a particular offense runs afoul of basic civil liberties.

You are against a lifetime ban of pedophiles being able to teach children, work in a daycare, not having to register as a sex offender? That is part of the sentencing in Texas as far as I know.

If everyone is free to do as they please, then no one is free to do as the please.

I have no problem with folks who have abused their civil liberties being denied them, somewhat, for life. Actions have consequences and some of those consequences should be for life. And my consequences of someone else's actions should not be that I have to house and feed them for life. So there should be something to allow a person to not be in prison yet restricted to some extent, for life.

[BackInTex]

But there's no constitutional barrier, and I don't see a doctrinal barrier either. --Bob

Or more importantly, there is no moral barrier.

[TheCalvinator24]

With the exception of Life without Parole and the Death Penalty, all sentences have a determinate period. Once that period is complete, it violates civil rights to continue to deny Constitutional rights.

Any penalty that extends beyond the period of time of the particular sentence violates this basic premise.

Even if an argument could be made to extend beyond the individual sentence period, any extension beyond the potential maximum sentence possible for a particular offense runs afoul of basic civil liberties.

You are against a lifetime ban of pedophiles being able to teach children, work in a daycare, not having to register as a sex offender? That is part of the sentencing in Texas as far as I know.

If everyone is free to do as they please, then no one is free to do as the please.

I have no problem with folks who have abused their civil liberties being denied them, somewhat, for life. Actions have consequences and some of those consequences should be for life. And my consequences of someone else's actions should not be that I have to house and feed them for life. So there should be something to allow a person to not be in prison yet restricted to some extent, for life.

I'm not an authoritarian. It's part of the reason I can't stand Donald Trump.

Registering as a Sex Offender does not strip people of basic civil rights.

And yet, even if the registration requirement went away, there's no way a childcare business or school would ever hire someone with a sex offense on his record.

[silverscreenselect]

And yet, even if the registration requirement went away, there's no way a childcare business or school would ever hire someone with a sex offense on his record.

There was a recent case here in Atlanta in which a maintenance man at an apartment complex with a record that could have been discovered with a decent background check raped and murdered a six-year-old girl in a vacant apartment for which he had a master key. The maintenance man was the former roommate and good friend of the son of the apartment manager. It was settled just before trial (we were scheduled to cover the trial), and I'm sure that cost the complex and their insurer a bundle. (The maintenance man wasn't around for the civil trial because he hanged himself in his jail cell.)