http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_771db279-34d6-5a3d-9557-a417a8afb212.html
Obama won VA twice, Hillary wins it, its all over without winning OH and FL.
Actually, I don't really have a problem with this. If they have done their full time and paid their debt to society, why shouldn't they be able to vote?
And I consider myself semi conservative.
I have no problem with felons as long as it's non violent ones. Murderers and rapists should never be allowed to vote.
Quote from: Wolfie on April 22 2016 09:15:11 PM MDT
I have no problem with felons as long as it's non violent ones. Murderers and rapists should never be allowed to vote.
Murderers and rapist shouldn't even be getting out.....EVER!
Quote from: gandog56 on April 26 2016 07:34:33 AM MDT
Quote from: Wolfie on April 22 2016 09:15:11 PM MDT
I have no problem with felons as long as it's non violent ones. Murderers and rapists should never be allowed to vote.
Murderers and rapist shouldn't even be getting out.....EVER!
See, I have an issue with this for a couple of reasons.
1. Many, perhaps even a majority, of the "rapists" in prison in many states are not violent predatory rapists. They are young men who had sex with their girlfriend on their birthday, just like last Friday, only today they turned 18 (or 19 or 21 depending on the state). They just didn't realize that on their birthday it put them on the wrong side of a math equation and made them a rapist (statutory rape). These guys, IMHO, shouldn't even be in prison, let alone have their ability to parole or expire out jeopardized due to political wrangling.
2. Likewise, "Murder" is not a uniform crime. In some states the legal definitions include negligent homocide and manslaughter in this scope. I am not sure a young man or woman should be condemned to spend the rest of their lives in prison because experience had not yet taught them to pull over while they tried to figure out their MP3 player and car stereo sync.
3. Statistically the most dangerous prisoners to deal with for corrections officers are those serving life without the possibility of parole. Even death row inmates are better behaved.
I also think we need to de-criminalize behaviors that do not directly interfere with the rights of another. If you haven't damages my person or property, they it should be an infraction, not a criminal offense.
Quote from: sqlbullet on April 26 2016 08:09:04 AM MDT
I also think we need to de-criminalize behaviors that do not directly interfere with the rights of another. If you haven't damages my person or property, they it should be an infraction, not a criminal offense.
It shouldn't even be an infraction, and those people should simply be left alone. Rights should be unlimited, right until someone else is harmed. That is common law.
Greg
Quote from: sqlbullet on April 26 2016 08:09:04 AM MDT
See, I have an issue with this for a couple of reasons.
1. Many, perhaps even a majority, of the "rapists" in prison in many states are not violent predatory rapists. They are young men who had sex with their girlfriend on their birthday, just like last Friday, only today they turned 18 (or 19 or 21 depending on the state). They just didn't realize that on their birthday it put them on the wrong side of a math equation and made them a rapist (statutory rape). These guys, IMHO, shouldn't even be in prison, let alone have their ability to parole or expire out jeopardized due to political wrangling.
You talking about rape, or stautory rape? Big difference. I'm talking violent she didn't want to do it rape. Not she was 17 and decided she wanted to have sex.
I know you were. But legally many states don't differentiate.
And that is the problem I have with blanket statements. They don't account for differences in legal definition or perception.
Quote from: sqlbullet on April 27 2016 10:03:19 AM MDT
I know you were. But legally many states don't differentiate.
And that is the problem I have with blanket statements. They don't account for differences in legal definition or perception.
Really? I think you would get a much stiffer sentence for a violent rape than one for underage consensual sex. Heck, most states probably wouldn't even enforce it if the girl was near legal age. Now a 12-13 year old girl, slam him!
Oh, there are a lot of states that dearly love to convict on statutory rape as an egregious felony. (It gains them matching Federal funding). Believe me, Washington County, Oregon views this as a "cash cow" and has for 20 years.
Quote from: gandog56 on April 27 2016 10:34:37 AM MDT
Quote from: sqlbullet on April 27 2016 10:03:19 AM MDT
I know you were. But legally many states don't differentiate.
And that is the problem I have with blanket statements. They don't account for differences in legal definition or perception.
Heck, most states probably wouldn't even enforce it if the girl was near legal age.
Having worked as a corrections officer in my state, I can tell you that 90% of the sex offenders are young men who had sex with their girlfriends shortly after a birthday. Utah has since altered it's law to allow the age "ratio" to make a bit more sense, but the reality my 17 year old son could consent to sex with a 24 year old, but not a 25 year old. So, if his hypothetical girlfriend had her birthday two days before his, there would be a two day window in which she was "raping" him.
Which, to my mind, makes no sense.