From: Peter on
"Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> news:4be308a5$0$27760$8f2e0ebb(a)

>> If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why should
>> they not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.
> I agree. For example, some felons have committed violent crimes and it is
> reasonable to restrict them permanently from gun ownership when they're
> released from prison. Other felons have committed only non-violent crimes
> and may never have threatened anyone with violence in their lives, and
> there doesn't seem to be any good reason to use the same restriction
> against them.

You have just illustrated the difficulty wiith pigeon holing a person. Your
response is considered by many to be a "liberal" concept. :-)


> Quite right, budget should not be an excuse. But I do think the right to
> vote or sit on a jury should not be given back too easily.

Sitting on jury is an obligation, not a right. The reason for not allowing
felons to sit on a jury is that a prior conviction would automatically
entitle a defendant to a pre-emptory challenge and the felons presence in
the jury pool would just be a waste of resources.

> As for public office, I suppose we already have so many crooks in office
> I'm not sure how much difference it would make, and I assume that varies
> by state anyway, doesn't it? I believe some felons have run for office
> after getting out of prison, maybe even while still in prison.


From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> I have an idea....

Beginners luck. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn in the woods.


From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
> On Thu, 6 May 2010 23:50:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>
> wrote:
>>>>> I don't agree there, either. A person is, or is not, a convicted
>>>>> felon. Certain crimes are designated as felonies. We don't need
>>>>> another layer of government to decide if this convicted felon should
>>>>> or should not be treated differently from that convicted felon.
>>>>If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why should
>>>>not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.
>>> 1. Who is going to decide?
>>> 2. The sentencing is set before the felon goes to jail. Any
>>> restoration of privileges has be determined after the felon is
>>> released and is off parole and probation and based partially on the
>>> person's behavior while incarcerated and on parole or probation. This
>>> means the setting up of some sort of review board that does not
>>> presently exist.
>>I should think at least the preliminary work could be done as part of the
>>parole process. Whatever they need to consider during that, should have
>>bearing on the question of restoration of rights later.
> You can't add to the workload without adding to the work staff.
> Prisons are presently over-crowded and understaffed.

I wonder how many are in prision because of the marijuana and/or the
Rockefeller drug laws.
Wouldn't reformation of those laws lighten the work load?

Perhaps we should consider revising exactly what is a crime together with
sentencing guidelines. It seems to me that violent criminals get lighter
sentences than marijuana sellers.

In ssme States, such as Pennsylvania prison is a major emplooyer. It may not
be politically feasible to revise the laws.

>>>>> Most states are having trouble with the current budget in providing
>>>>> court personnel. There's no room in the budget to hire people to
>>>>> evaluate convicted felons about whether or not they get the vote,
>>>>> right to sit on a jury, or ability to run for public office.
>>>>I don't see budget as an excuse.
>>> Of course it is. I don't know about your state, but my state is
>>> cutting back vital services because of budget problems. Everything
>>> from schools to the court system to emergency services is being cut
>>> back because of budget problem.
>>Unless your state is very unusual, I'll bet there's still an awful lot of
>>waste after all the cutbacks.
> True, but any state that frees up budget by eliminating waste has
> other areas that are more deserving of budget increases.
>>> The last thing we want to do is add a government department to review
>>> the voting rights status of ex-felons. There is a system already in
>>> place whereby the convicted felon can apply for reinstatement. Let
>>> the felon initiate the process instead of making the government handle
>>> it.
>>I agree with that, but if the felon initiates the process the government
>>still has to "handle it," doesn't it?
> They only have to handle the submissions made. If he felon doesn't
> submit an application, nothing has to be done. An automatic review
> would require that all released felons would have to be reviewed.
> Most felons don't seem to be interested in regaining their voting
> rights. Less than half of the people in any state vote anyway.


From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> On 2010-05-07 06:23:00 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)> said:
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>> news:BeSdndx9Bcxw-n7WnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d(a)
>>> This is why I moved to Oregon as soon as I could after I retired, and I
>>> am now thinking seriously of moving to Arizona.......
>> How about Sudan or Somalia where there is no effective government. then
>> you won't have to pay for one and we won't have to pay for the benefits
>> you don't want and do not want to pay for.
> The vision of "Pirate Bill" is just too much this early in the morning.

He does claim to have an extensive gun collection.


From: Neil Harrington on

"Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
> news:0PidnfYBjd7ycX_WnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
>> news:hrudm3$638$1(a)
>> Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty Dumptyism
>> (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which effectively amounts
>> to the same thing), they will not.
> Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?

Obviously, Sotomayor.

> Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee do you
> object to?

Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on purely
racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in favor of
discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was of course
overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of that court, which is
bad news for anyone who cares about justice.

The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her own. She
has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own political agenda,
rather than to support the Constitution as it stands. She made a joke of it
on at least one occasion.