• cumskin_genocide@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Yes and when I win the presidency in November I will force you to make ghost buster movies until you die. The best part is that no one will ever believe you when you tell them the that.

  • Beaver @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    2 days ago

    Same should go for voting. Felons deserve to vote as well not just run for presidency.

  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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?

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      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?

      • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        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.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          22 hours ago

          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.

          • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            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?

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              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.

            • Skates@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              17 hours ago

              why do we punish people

              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.

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        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.

  • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    I agree, but we all know the state and landlords won’t do that. It’s us vs the rich. The rich want the poor to be good brainwashed workers, and if you did anything the state said is now illegal (being homeless) then you deserve zero of your constitutional rights!

    Just dumb founding that Trump can just walk around freely and raise more money from his crimes, and yet people are arrested for shoplifting needed supplies, and squater’s rights are removed on empty yet perfectly fine private property.

    • redisdead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Felon = already shown they aren’t normal human beings fit for society. I’m not going to trust my property to a known criminal, when I can easily get someone who’s normal.

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        That’s a free-rider problem. As an individual, you don’t want to rent to a convicted criminal. But as a society, we want criminals that served their time to be able to rent, because if they can’t they’ll be forced to squat, which will increase the probability they’ll continue to do more crimes (they already broke the law by squatting), so we do want people to rent to them.

        • redisdead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          If society wants to host convicted felons then society can pay for it.

          I’ll be more than willing to host them if I am guaranteed the refund of any and all damage they create, and the ability to remove them from my property whenever I want.

          In the meantime, as long as I’m on the hook for damages caused by a bad tenant and I don’t have the legal right to evict a bad tenant on a moment’s notice, then I will filter out convicted felons, and other risky tenants.

          It’s easy to say ‘you should do this thing’ when you have no skin in the game.

  • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Sounds good. And Congress should be paid minimum wage (meaning that minimum wage needs to be raised).