4 ms·

As they should be! If someone pays their debt to society all their rights should be restored. (Gun rights being the acception, in certain cases, IMHO).

Teknoman117 7y ago
I mean I don't like the idea of people who committed a violent crime having legal access to firearms either, but if we truly believed our "justice" system reformed people, why would they need to have their rights restricted following their release? I mean I know our justice system is busted and you'd have to be insane to say it actually reformed people instead of just locking them away because we don't give a shit about doing anything else, but either way...
- toredash 7y ago
  Would you say the same thing if a former convict of child abuse wanted to work closely with your kinds in school, sports or other arenas? I for sure would not be happy with it. Certain things are not a right to have, e.g. driving license or be working in a specific profession. Firearms in the US is special but the use of firearm in the US is a topic for itself.
  - serf 7y ago
    > Would you say the same thing if a former convict of child abuse wanted to work closely with your kinds in school, sports or other arenas? I for sure would not be happy with it. 'what about the children?' it's a tired argument that always has the same answer : some people would care, some wouldn't care, but the phrasing of your prompt provides a moral imperative to agree, no matter the question. you'll never get honesty that way, you'll only hear what you phrase the question to hear : in this case no one is going to dare say "Let's have the child abusers in school.".
    - Teknoman117 7y ago
      Just like how the MPAA/RIAA couldn't get SOPA or PIPA passed so they slapped some "protect children from sex explotation" language on it so it would be politically difficult to oppose.
    - toredash 7y ago
      I think it is a matter of risk. Would I risk a hiring a shoplifter in my store? Yes. Would I let a person who commited fraud to work with money ? Yes. What they do isn't something that could not be "repaired". Buy you raise very valid views, thanks for that
  - Teknoman117 7y ago
    It's more of a comment on how we spin the justice system. We say things like "they're sent to prison so they can be reformed," But if we _really_ believed that, why are we restricting their behaviors post release? (past some period of observation) The truth is that it's a punitive system, rather than trying to do anything productive about it.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  > instead of just locking them away because we don't give a shit about doing anything else, Why society locks people away is not just about trying to change them (that's a case by case assessment whether it can be done or not) but to simply protect normal citizens from them - and in most cases "aging someone in prison" is good enough to make them less of a criminal (at least for violent crimes).
lucb1e 7y ago
But then, guns seem to be disproportionately dangerous to the owner as well as the general public and shouldn't be a right in the first place, so that kinda makes sense. In general, rights should be restored, yes. There should only be exceptions if there is reason, which the judge judges. The judge may rule that an attempted suicide bomber doesn't get to work with bombs in mining operations, or someone who repeatedly caused fatal accidents not get a new driver's license (though I guess that might be an issue in the USA, I hear it's necessary for normal life there, but it's about the example), or someone who committed voting fraud doesn't get to run a place where people vote during elections, etc., but otherwise I don't see how it shouldn't be equal for everyone.

Teknoman117 7y ago

I mean I don't like the idea of people who committed a violent crime having legal access to firearms either, but if we truly believed our "justice" system reformed people, why would they need to have their rights restricted following their release? I mean I know our justice system is busted and you'd have to be insane to say it actually reformed people instead of just locking them away because we don't give a shit about doing anything else, but either way...

toredash 7y ago
Would you say the same thing if a former convict of child abuse wanted to work closely with your kinds in school, sports or other arenas? I for sure would not be happy with it. Certain things are not a right to have, e.g. driving license or be working in a specific profession. Firearms in the US is special but the use of firearm in the US is a topic for itself.
- serf 7y ago
  > Would you say the same thing if a former convict of child abuse wanted to work closely with your kinds in school, sports or other arenas? I for sure would not be happy with it. 'what about the children?' it's a tired argument that always has the same answer : some people would care, some wouldn't care, but the phrasing of your prompt provides a moral imperative to agree, no matter the question. you'll never get honesty that way, you'll only hear what you phrase the question to hear : in this case no one is going to dare say "Let's have the child abusers in school.".
  - Teknoman117 7y ago
    Just like how the MPAA/RIAA couldn't get SOPA or PIPA passed so they slapped some "protect children from sex explotation" language on it so it would be politically difficult to oppose.
  - toredash 7y ago
    I think it is a matter of risk. Would I risk a hiring a shoplifter in my store? Yes. Would I let a person who commited fraud to work with money ? Yes. What they do isn't something that could not be "repaired". Buy you raise very valid views, thanks for that
- Teknoman117 7y ago
  It's more of a comment on how we spin the justice system. We say things like "they're sent to prison so they can be reformed," But if we _really_ believed that, why are we restricting their behaviors post release? (past some period of observation) The truth is that it's a punitive system, rather than trying to do anything productive about it.
ekianjo 7y ago
> instead of just locking them away because we don't give a shit about doing anything else, Why society locks people away is not just about trying to change them (that's a case by case assessment whether it can be done or not) but to simply protect normal citizens from them - and in most cases "aging someone in prison" is good enough to make them less of a criminal (at least for violent crimes).

lucb1e 7y ago

But then, guns seem to be disproportionately dangerous to the owner as well as the general public and shouldn't be a right in the first place, so that kinda makes sense. In general, rights should be restored, yes. There should only be exceptions if there is reason, which the judge judges. The judge may rule that an attempted suicide bomber doesn't get to work with bombs in mining operations, or someone who repeatedly caused fatal accidents not get a new driver's license (though I guess that might be an issue in the USA, I hear it's necessary for normal life there, but it's about the example), or someone who committed voting fraud doesn't get to run a place where people vote during elections, etc., but otherwise I don't see how it shouldn't be equal for everyone.