States should lift life bans on voting for ex-felons: Attorney General

diehardbiker said:
I don't really want to derail this thread. My point is, since them boy scout had a jolly time and wasn't think anything serious and poses zero, I mean absolutely zero risk to anyone. They cared about everybody safety, how can a felon care about everybody's safety? It also was their first offense, they may not realize, regardless of boy scout oath they took. The best, cheapest and smart thing is punish them with community service, nothing more. Its like killing two birds with one stone,. they learned their lesson, and educate others about respect at same time… Can Felony punishment do this way? I don't think so! On other hand, if it were their second offense, and had a downright evil laughter thinking destruction is funny thing, just pure vandalism behavior, then I would agree as felony.

That concept applies on this thread because when we the people take away privilege as punishment, if the crime isn't severe enough but yet a felony charge and they HAVE served their sentence, then voting privilege should be restored. If one decided go down at a huge stadium somewhere with full of fans, sprayed machine gun at everybody, that felony, I would agree a LIFETIME loss of privilege on voting. Its like, if a felon learned a valuable lesson, showed it all the way, served the sentence, why continue bar the privilege? Those who sprayed lead at everybody, is definitely out of mind and permanent felony.

I believe in second chance, we all are humans by nature.
Click to expand...

again.... what punishment have they actually received? have they been convicted yet?

but I agree with the part about community service. judge has every discretion to do this however if the law doesn't allow him to do that... damn what a damn shame.
 
Again, I ALREADY answered your question and I am not going to repeat the answer I gave to you. LOOK at my answer right after your first post with that question!

Jiro said:
again.... what punishment have they actually received? have they been convicted yet?

but I agree with the part about community service. judge has every discretion to do this however if the law doesn't allow him to do that... damn what a damn shame.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Again, I ALREADY answered your question and I am not going to repeat the answer I gave to you. LOOK at my answer right after your first post with that question!
Click to expand...

last time I recalled - they were charged but not convicted yet unless they're convicted already. have they been convicted yet? if so - what did they receive?
 
And?

What does the "Juror has not reached verdict yet" means to you? Thats the answer I gave to you! :roll:

Jiro said:
last time I recalled - they were charged but not convicted yet unless they're convicted already.
Click to expand...
 
MMMMWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!! Oh man! You are so funny!

Jiro said:
therefore.... you haven't answered my question.

why are you getting all hot and angry when they haven't been convicted yet? they haven't lost their rights yet!
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
jury hasn't reached a verdict yet? uh.... what trial?????
Click to expand...

They have been puished
Their lives are different now then prior. Regardless of what the courts will decide
Its called dumping your ass in the system. Its used allot. Innocence or guilf regardless. The system itselfpunishes you untill your lucky enough to beat the charges
Bieng convicted in the press and the web is a different monster then bieng convicted in courts
 
I agree that people with felonies, if they have completed their sentence, should be allowed to vote. Keeping that from them is a punitive measure that accomplishes nothing positive for society, and in fact it causes harm which is the opposite it is meant to do.
 
When the Jury have not reach the verdict, there is NO sentence (punishment) hand down to one being charged for. That is simple, my issue here is the idea of charging these two guys with felony in Utah rock incident is excessive. If they had charged with misdemeanor then I would be OK with it. It is because with Felony, two things happens, their record will be permanently ruined for rest of life, secondly it requires prison time which I utterly disagreed with.

In Mexico, one is automatically guilty when caught, and to prove one's innocent have to go though court to prove it. I am not sure about the rest of countries. This is one I like about American justice, your innocent until your proven guilty in the court of law.

hoichi said:
They have been puished
Their lives are different now then prior. Regardless of what the courts will decide
Its called dumping your ass in the system. Its used allot. Innocence or guilf regardless. The system itselfpunishes you untill your lucky enough to beat the charges
Bieng convicted in the press and the web is a different monster then bieng convicted in courts
Click to expand...
 
Have a friend...who has a felony on his record....it was reduced to a desmeanor......but for "some reason" the felony charge is still there...he says he'll have to pay to get it expunged.... (taken off)....
 
diehardbiker said:
When the Jury have not reach the verdict, there is NO sentence (punishment) hand down to one being charged for. That is simple, my issue here is the idea of charging these two guys with felony in Utah rock incident is excessive. If they had charged with misdemeanor then I would be OK with it. It is because with Felony, two things happens, their record will be permanently ruined for rest of life, secondly it requires prison time which I utterly disagreed with.

In Mexico, one is automatically guilty when caught, and to prove one's innocent have to go though court to prove it. I am not sure about the rest of countries. This is one I like about American justice, your innocent until your proven guilty in the court of law.
Click to expand...

as far as I'm concerned.... they're currently innocent.
 
Back
Top