-=> Quoting Robert Geller to Andy Kellett <=-
 AK>  My opinion: 1) I want felons to serve their terms, 2) Once they
 AK>  *have* served their term, why shouldn't they have their rights
 AK>  restored??  Before anyone says I'm soft on violent criminals, I
 AK>  support the death penalty for a lot of violent crimes, especially
 AK>  for repeat offenders.
 RG> Andy, how about this: After completion of term, NOT parole, the felon
 RG> must comply with naturalization regs, five years of lawful living,
 RG> demonstrate a knowledge of the Constitution and laws, and reapply for
 RG> full citizen status!
[ Buttinski mode on ]
I think there are a few jurisdictions that allow a convicted felon to
petition for full restoration of citizenship after having "lived cleanly"
post-release for a period equal to the original sentence.  The RTKBA,
however, is somewhat unique in that it is least likely to be exercised in
defense against an action of the government.  And when the need arises to
exercise the RTKBA, there usually is not time to pause and evaluate
alternative courses of action.
Accordingly, I have come to advocate that any person not in "official
custody" be accorded the unconditional RTKBA, if for no other "reason" than
to have available the most efficient means to defend himself against the
"random act of violence".  The courts have held that the State has no
obligation to protect or defend any particular individual against a
particular act of another, so the primary responsibility for self-defense
devolves onto the individual (where it belongs in the first place, IMO).
Nor can the State possess the physical capability to do so, because the
nature of situations requiring the exercise of the RTKBA usually require
its exercise immediately.
When we (society) place a person in "official custody" (e.g.,
incarceration), we can and do provide for his security (among other
things); we keep him under direct and relatively constant supervision, and
enforce finite boundaries on his movements and activities.  When we release
him from "official custody", we basically tell him, "You're on your own
now."  We relieve ourselves of the responsibility to provide for his
personal security.  It seems philosophically inconsistent to deny him (and
others of his "subclass") this one right that can be most vital to his very
survival.
        -jc-
 
... RAM = Rarely Adequate Memory
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.12 OS/2
1:147/390)
---------------