|
Edited on Fri Feb-12-10 06:15 AM by Euromutt
I've been of the opinion for quite some time that I don't care much care for limitations placed on the freedom of ex-convicts that extends beyond the completion of their sentence. Notionally, once you've served your debt to society, that should be the end of it, without being further deprived of the right to vote, being listed in sex offender registries, and yes, being deprived of the right to keep and bear arms.
However, we have the problem that the American criminal justice system is, by and large, not particularly interested in rehabilitating offenders (to a large extent because the voters don't seem to be), and focused almost wholly on punishing them. There's only so much punishment we can give for most offenses before it becomes disproportionate, and thus "cruel and unusual," so the offender is going to have to be released at some point, and in all likelihood (barring minimum-security types), what he's going to be most suited for is resuming or even redoubling criminal activity.
And so we have ex-convicts on the street, many of whom still cannot be trusted not to re-offend. So there is a case to be made for preventative measures in the interest of public safety. In my view, depriving ex-cons of the vote isn't one of them, and sex offender registries don't do much good either (rearrest data indicates some 65% of sex offenders are extremely unlikely to reoffend, some 30% might reoffend, and about 5% could reasonably be described as dangerous; even then, only about 1/10 of the last group, about 0.5% of the total, are classed as "predators," i.e. compulsive offenders). Prohibiting those convicted of violent felonies, felonies involving firearms, and gang-related offenses* from possessing firearms, on the other hand, seems reasonable, as these would seem to be people at high-risk not just of reoffending, but of reoffending with a firearm. There have been a few too many mass shootings committed by people who, under the law, could have been deprived of their firearms before they committed the mass shooting, but for various reasons were not (including managing to plead a firearm-related felony down to a misdemeanor).
Come to think of it, better add burglars to the list; burglars are the group of offenders most likely to reoffend; something in the order of 70-80% get rearrested within three years. Precisely the kind of people we don't want to have thinking about eliminating witnesses.
That said, I'm not against having an appeals process, whereby after a probationary period of, say, five or ten years, the former offender could have his rights restored if he's managed to keep his nose clean in the interim.
* - Even non-violent gang-related offenses, since drug gang members frequently move up the ranks from being lookouts, runners, etc. to becoming muscle.
|