SG>MO>I don't have any problem with suspending
SG>MO>a convicted felons rights even after
SG>MO>he's been released from jail.  That's
SG>MO>still part of the penalty he or she
SG>MO>pays for the crime.  It just happens that
SG>MO>he or she is no longer incarcerated.
SG>If that's made an official part of their sentence, sure. If they're
SG>sentence is only supposed to be, say, eight years, then after 8 years
SG>they should have all rights restored. IMHO.
But it IS part of their sentence, no?
I assume that the restrictions regarding
convicted felons and firearms possessions
are written in state or federal laws,
thus making it part of the penalty for
having been convicted of a felony --
doesn't have to be in the US Constitution.
Remember, the US Constitution gives the
states the rights to pass laws like those
that keep firearms out of the hands of
convicted felons.
SG>But once sentence has been served, it should be finished. If the decreed
SG>punishment was a maximum of 8 years (the number I used earlier), then
SG>unless and until he breaks the law again, he should have all the same
SG>rights as everyone else. Including firearms ownership, voting, or
This is where we disagree.  Incarceration
is not the only form of punishment, and
I do not find most other restrictions to
be cruel and unusual punishment, and I doubt
many other citizens do either.
I will however admit that I am not familiar
with the laws regarding firearm ownership by
ex-cons...  All I'm saying is that if there
is a law that makes their ownership illegal
for convicted felons for a "probationary"
time period, that's okay by me -- it's
the law.  Of course, the length of the time
period is by nature arbitrary.
--mark.
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Comic art & music at: http://grove.ufl.edu/~milkbaby
---------------