Should a convicted non-violent felon get their Constitutional rights restored after time is served?
Yes
No
Not Sure
0voters
I saw this question floating around twitter last week. A lot of people have been talking about if ex-felons should be allowed to vote after serving their time. At first I thought this was a radical Idea but, doing some research Ex-Felons can have so many of their rights taken away. In some states they can’t get them expunged or worse it will cost them an arm and a leg in court fees just to plea with a judge. It’s got me wondering, Should non-violent felons who’ve served their time have their full rights restored?
Once the sentence is served, the entire sentence, including any probation, parole, monetary fines and restitution… they should be able to have their rights restored.
In some states it is automatic, in others they must petition the Governor to have their rights restored.
Even some ‘violent’ offenders (be careful what they consider violent) should be able to have their rights restored, though perhaps on a more thorough review.
I would vote yes on this. Depending on the crime committed, their life may be in danger from prison interactions and from the original crime itself (again all of this is assuming a non violent offender.)
One of my closest friends got into lots of trouble as a teenager & young adult. He did his time/paid his debt to “society.” In the last say 15-20 years, he has accepted CHRIST JESUS as his savior, gotten married, started a family, and has been called into ministry. He is currently starting a church in a nearby small town.
A few years ago, we had a conversation about the 2ND AMENDMENT & black gun ownership. He laments his poor decisions in the past that cost him his RIGHTS to VOTE & TO KEEP/BEAR ARMS. I was sad to learn that his wife cannot have any type of firearm in their home because of his felony past. I’m like “yall have 5 kids bro!?” Doesn’t matter!
My friend/brother is a perfect example of a CHANGED MAN. The MOST HIGH has turned him around. His is a true story of REDEMPTION!
To say his rights cannot be or shouldn’t be restored… Is that JUSTICE?
The operative words here are "non violent "…
Violent offenders should either have to go through a process to amend past behavior or never have rights to a firearm restored.
I know two people that talk about thair felony non violent conviction. One I am very upset that does not have the right to own a gun. The other I am relieved does not have a gun. Just depends on the person.
The restoration of a Right to Vote for a non-violent felon who has served all his or her time is one thing. This should not apply to gun ownership. That right was given up the day they committed the felony. It does not matter if they have been a model citizen moor 20 years, they should not have that right restored. The Right to Bear Arms is sacred and if a person forfeits that right by destroying societies trust; they forfeit the right forever.
ALL rights should be subject to restoration once the complete sentence is served, including any and all probation, parole and monetary fines or restitution.
Our founders did not prohibit the restoration of rights.
Depends on the state, but he may be able to petition to have his rights restored.
Some states do it automatically, others you must make the effort to request your rights be restored. If the sentence was paid, if the entire sentence was served, the rights should be restored.
Without meaning to, my comment may cause some blowback against me. In advance, I apologize.
There are laws in place that a. were drafted by the worst offenders within the legislative system. Said laws have been weaponized, and used to railroad innocent people into the system, and thereon denied their constitutional rights.“Review boards” are appointed, and oftentimes unqualified to make fair assessments.
Many innocent people have lost everything to injustice In a biased judicial system. There has to be a better way to assess recidivism, or non-recidivism; whether a violent crime did, or did not, take place. In too many cases,no actual initial complaints are investigated, and a mere complaint can destroy many innocent people.
Are there recidivist violent offenders? Yes there are. On the flipside, said offenders will resort to murder, making such lofty laws ineffective, to say the least. Meanwhile, an innocent person falsely accused, can do nothing; for any act of defensewill be viewed as violence, even without a weapon.
This issue is not a simple “yes” or “no” question. There are too many “gray areas.”
I agree. Not saying it is going to work out for the best every time, but the purpose of a sentence is not to handicap a person for life, it is to provide the victim and society with wholeness for the the wrong committed. If fulfilling the sentence is not punitive enough, change the sentence.
I will add a condition to this. I dont believe in reducing sentences without good reason, and as witnessed in today’s covid environment just letting people go outright. That is a dis-service to all.
I do not believe we should have legislated firm minimum sentences or sentence guidelines, I think it should be up to the court and jury, depending on the situation of each case… though I know why they did it, to try to stop the ‘slap on the wrist’ punishments that might be handed out, the problem is, they went too far.
When we have drunk drivers that get longer sentences than drug dealers who were on their third strike… we have a problem with sentencing guidelines.
I would like to see a way to clean up the corruption in the courts. We have had far too many innocent people convicted, and some sentenced to death, only to be proven innocent after their execution… when it is too late to say ‘sorry’.
It has been said ‘it is preferable that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent suffer’ (paraphrase). We do have some work to do to fix the judicial system, but it will not matter if they do not start enforcing the law and restore some law and order to these cities that look like third world banana republic regimes during armed conflict…
This appears to me to be another case of 2A rights being a second class right. No one (to my knowledge) is saying we should take away a felons right to free speech or religion etc so why is the second amendment any different ?
I have no problems with taking away their rights while they are serving their sentence but when their debt to society is paid then why are we going to put the burden of not being able to defend themselves or their family on someone who has paid for the wrongs
The question we might want to ask ourselves is with the number of DA’s wanting to make a name for themselves and politicians making laws that can be retroactive how do we know we won’t be oh their position and want our rights back
