How about if a person successfully and fully completes their sentence associated with the felony(s) that they were charged with the felony is removed from their record.
We as a country have decided that certain punishments are meted out for certain crimes. If the person serves the punishment that we the people have decided is appropriate then why are they still saddled with the sentence of their former crime after the punishment is served?
Reductio ad absurdum: Felony conviction for child molestation. Removed from record. Should they have free reign to be able to apply for any job, even if it might involve children?
You are talking about the conviction, I am talking about the punishment. We the people of this country decide what the punishments are for crimes.
So in the case of a murder conviction it maybe decided that this person has to be incarcerated for 20 years. They do their time and released. They did the punishment We decided as appropriate for the crime. They are done.
In your example again We the people get to decide the punishment. It could be (and probably is) part of the punishment that a convicted child molester can never have a job working with people under a certain age. Maybe in this case the punishment can never fully be carried out so they always carry the moniker of felon/child molester.
All I’m saying is that for those crimes that have a definitive start and end point for the punishment there should be a qualifying start and end point for the title of felon.
I find your distinction to be arbitrary. You could argue that punishment for child sex abuse should have a beginning and an end, or you can argue that the punishment for a felony conviction does not end when you get out of prison.
I work in finance, and I certainly would not want to bring on someone who was convicted of felony security fraud working for the firm, because it ours everything in jeopardy.
I’m not arguing how we punish people I’m arguing why do we punish people What’s the point of putting a person in jail or prison for some length of time if, when the get out they are still saddled with their crime?
Hey, listen, I’m all for not punishing people and instead letting the victim take vengeance as they deem appropriate. It doesn’t warm my heart that the drunk driver that ran over my grandma got 5 years parole, I’d much rather carve out various parts of the fucker, cook them, make him eat them, and then force him to guess what part he ate. But violence is a state-controlled monopoly, and the state gets pissy when others realize monopolies are destroying the market and bring only downsides to us regular buyers.
Also, some shithead said at some point “an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind” without realizing that once we finish the initial “eye for an eye” scenario justice has been met and we don’t need to continue ad infinitum, and for some reason a bunch of cretins who want to hold onto their eyes agreed with him and now Hammurabi would shit upon our flawed society and its insane rules.
As an aside, I was looking into Hammurabi’s code of laws while writing this, and the man seems to have been both just and metal as fuck. Here are some snippets I’d prefer to live my life by:
If a man breaks into a house, they shall kill him and hang him(?) in front of that very breach. (21)[80]
Like, fuck yeah - fuck around, find out.
If a man accuses another man and charges him with homicide, but cannot bring proof against him, his accuser shall be killed. (1)
More of the same, yes please.
If a man has a debt lodged against him, and the storm-god Adad devastates his field or a flood sweeps away the crops, or there is no grain grown in the field due to insufficient water—in that year he will not repay grain to his creditor; he shall suspend performance of his contract [literally “wet his clay tablet”] and he will not give interest payments for that year
Pay your insurance premium? No thanks, I don’t need it, it’s included in THE FUCKING LAW.
If a builder constructs a house for a man but does not make it conform to specifications so that a wall then buckles, that builder shall make that wall sound using his own silver. (233)[85]
Great. Fuck civil court where the builder’s army of lawyers can bully my $5/h law student cause that’s all I can afford while also rebuilding my house
If an ox gores to death a man while it is passing through the streets, that case has no basis for a claim. (250)
Fair. Why the fuck are you next to the goddamn ox, dipshit?
If a slave should declare to his master, “You are not my master”, he [the master] shall bring charge and proof against him that he is indeed his slave, and his master shall cut off his ear.
Yeah maybe some of them need some work, but fuck if most aren’t perfectly reasonable.
So I go back to my question…does a convicted child molester finish their jail sentence and the can go and work around children? Or do we also accept that maybe, even after the person has finished their sentence, that the “punishment” continues to protect society?
If the latter, then the question becomes when this is appropriate, and not if it is ever appropriate.
Yes. Go back to my previous post I mention that in some cases maybe the punishment never ends due to the crime committed. But not all crimes deserve life long punishment. But I’m not arguing sentencing guidelines really, What I want to know is if someone is convicted of a felony, completes the punishment given to them, should they still be called a felon?
So the current position is that felony convictions stay on your record forever and individuals can decide whether or not to do business with these people.
You’re saying that the current system is bad…but only for some crimes.
I’m pointing out that your argument as to why is arbitrary… Just “what we decide” as a society, and the current decision is that felonies, no matter what, stick around.
Yes. Why wouldn’t they? By the same logic, people who killed somebody shouldn’t be allowed to interact with people, and arsonists shouldn’t be allowed in buildings.
How about if a person successfully and fully completes their sentence associated with the felony(s) that they were charged with the felony is removed from their record.
We as a country have decided that certain punishments are meted out for certain crimes. If the person serves the punishment that we the people have decided is appropriate then why are they still saddled with the sentence of their former crime after the punishment is served?
Reductio ad absurdum: Felony conviction for child molestation. Removed from record. Should they have free reign to be able to apply for any job, even if it might involve children?
You are talking about the conviction, I am talking about the punishment. We the people of this country decide what the punishments are for crimes.
So in the case of a murder conviction it maybe decided that this person has to be incarcerated for 20 years. They do their time and released. They did the punishment We decided as appropriate for the crime. They are done.
In your example again We the people get to decide the punishment. It could be (and probably is) part of the punishment that a convicted child molester can never have a job working with people under a certain age. Maybe in this case the punishment can never fully be carried out so they always carry the moniker of felon/child molester.
All I’m saying is that for those crimes that have a definitive start and end point for the punishment there should be a qualifying start and end point for the title of felon.
I find your distinction to be arbitrary. You could argue that punishment for child sex abuse should have a beginning and an end, or you can argue that the punishment for a felony conviction does not end when you get out of prison.
I work in finance, and I certainly would not want to bring on someone who was convicted of felony security fraud working for the firm, because it ours everything in jeopardy.
I’m not arguing how we punish people I’m arguing why do we punish people What’s the point of putting a person in jail or prison for some length of time if, when the get out they are still saddled with their crime?
Hey, listen, I’m all for not punishing people and instead letting the victim take vengeance as they deem appropriate. It doesn’t warm my heart that the drunk driver that ran over my grandma got 5 years parole, I’d much rather carve out various parts of the fucker, cook them, make him eat them, and then force him to guess what part he ate. But violence is a state-controlled monopoly, and the state gets pissy when others realize monopolies are destroying the market and bring only downsides to us regular buyers.
Also, some shithead said at some point “an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind” without realizing that once we finish the initial “eye for an eye” scenario justice has been met and we don’t need to continue ad infinitum, and for some reason a bunch of cretins who want to hold onto their eyes agreed with him and now Hammurabi would shit upon our flawed society and its insane rules.
As an aside, I was looking into Hammurabi’s code of laws while writing this, and the man seems to have been both just and metal as fuck. Here are some snippets I’d prefer to live my life by:
Like, fuck yeah - fuck around, find out.
More of the same, yes please.
Pay your insurance premium? No thanks, I don’t need it, it’s included in THE FUCKING LAW.
Great. Fuck civil court where the builder’s army of lawyers can bully my $5/h law student cause that’s all I can afford while also rebuilding my house
Fair. Why the fuck are you next to the goddamn ox, dipshit?
Yeah maybe some of them need some work, but fuck if most aren’t perfectly reasonable.
So I go back to my question…does a convicted child molester finish their jail sentence and the can go and work around children? Or do we also accept that maybe, even after the person has finished their sentence, that the “punishment” continues to protect society?
If the latter, then the question becomes when this is appropriate, and not if it is ever appropriate.
Yes. Go back to my previous post I mention that in some cases maybe the punishment never ends due to the crime committed. But not all crimes deserve life long punishment. But I’m not arguing sentencing guidelines really, What I want to know is if someone is convicted of a felony, completes the punishment given to them, should they still be called a felon?
So the current position is that felony convictions stay on your record forever and individuals can decide whether or not to do business with these people.
You’re saying that the current system is bad…but only for some crimes.
I’m pointing out that your argument as to why is arbitrary… Just “what we decide” as a society, and the current decision is that felonies, no matter what, stick around.
Yes. Why wouldn’t they? By the same logic, people who killed somebody shouldn’t be allowed to interact with people, and arsonists shouldn’t be allowed in buildings.