4 ms·

I know people that committed crimes in the 60s-70s-80s and were convicted but no one would ever know because the record keeping at the time was temporal. My on

I know people that committed crimes in the 60s-70s-80s and were convicted but no one would ever know because the record keeping at the time was temporal. My one felony from 12 years ago for smoking pot in public has cost me more money/jobs/promotions/relationships from Google searches and background checks than anything imaginable [in my opinion]. I believe that many criminals simply go back to crime since they're unhireable now that information is at everyone's fingertips. Debt to society is never paid anymore. We have the Chinese "social credit system" in the U.S.; it's simply not announced the way theirs is.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
alangibson 7y ago
What state? Look in to asking/applying for a pardon if it really was just possession.
- drefanzor 7y ago
  Arizona; they do not pardon felonies. They will let you "restore your rights" after a number of years; which I have done, but it was expensive and required representation. I can vote, but I can't do much else.
  - pbourke 7y ago
    Why is it not unconstitutional in the US to disenfranchise those with a criminal record who have served out their sentence?
    - krapp 7y ago
      <IANAL> The wording of the second clause of the 14th Amendment implies that states are permitted to disenfranchise their citizens in cases of rebellion or crime, as it requires those states to adjust their allotment of representatives when they do. Also, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that citizens shall maintain or regain voting rights after having served their time, nor does it forbid disenfranchisement of voting rights, so the power to do so devolves to the states. </IANAL>
    - zcid 7y ago
      The disenfranchisement is seen as part of the sentence. Traditionally, the crimes deserving of this were very serious such as murder, rape, felony robbery, etc. The people committing these crimes were considered as having violated the social contract in such a manner that society could no longer trust them. Unfortunately, many less serious offences have been classified as more serious in order to be "hard on crime" leading to many generally trustworthy citizens losing rights.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

alangibson 7y ago

What state? Look in to asking/applying for a pardon if it really was just possession.

drefanzor 7y ago
Arizona; they do not pardon felonies. They will let you "restore your rights" after a number of years; which I have done, but it was expensive and required representation. I can vote, but I can't do much else.
- pbourke 7y ago
  Why is it not unconstitutional in the US to disenfranchise those with a criminal record who have served out their sentence?
  - krapp 7y ago
    <IANAL> The wording of the second clause of the 14th Amendment implies that states are permitted to disenfranchise their citizens in cases of rebellion or crime, as it requires those states to adjust their allotment of representatives when they do. Also, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that citizens shall maintain or regain voting rights after having served their time, nor does it forbid disenfranchisement of voting rights, so the power to do so devolves to the states. </IANAL>
  - zcid 7y ago
    The disenfranchisement is seen as part of the sentence. Traditionally, the crimes deserving of this were very serious such as murder, rape, felony robbery, etc. The people committing these crimes were considered as having violated the social contract in such a manner that society could no longer trust them. Unfortunately, many less serious offences have been classified as more serious in order to be "hard on crime" leading to many generally trustworthy citizens losing rights.