Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rights Of Convicted Felons

Rate this topic


skap35

Recommended Posts

So I just learned that my former room mate is a convicted felon. As bad as that sounds he is really not a bad guy and you would never think that by talking to him.

(although, had I known that I probably wouldn't have lived with him...)

After hearing this it got me to thinking. Even though he served his time in prison, and paid his debt to society, he has permanently lost certain rights. The two main ones that come to mind are voting and owning a gun, but I'm sure there are other rights he has lost.

Personally I don't agree with these rules at all. If he paid his debt then why should he lose certain constitutional rights? What is the Objectivist argument for or against this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't agree with these rules at all.  If he paid his debt then why should he lose certain constitutional rights?  What is the Objectivist argument for or against this?

I suppose you have to look at it like losing those rights are PART of the "debt" he has to "repay."

Also, if punishment of crimes is supposed to protect us from future crime by the perpetrators, then forcing them to surrender some rights would be just in order to achieve a greater degree of safety from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't agree with these rules at all.  If he paid his debt then why should he lose certain constitutional rights?  What is the Objectivist argument for or against this?
Let's set aside the immorality of punishing a person for the simple commission of a felony, and suppose that he had violated someone's rights (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he's a typical felon and therefore was convicted on a drug charge). Punishments are decided in a court of law, and therefore if any abrogation of rights is to be objectively justified (as opposed to the way it is under the current system), it must be made part of the sentencing procedure, to be determined according to the facts decided by the jury and following the law. There is no objective justification for abrogating the right to vote (and convicted felons can have their voting rights restored). There is a marginal element of objective justification for felon in possession laws, but again only for certain kinds of felonies, namely those involving violence (and not, for example, gun smuggling as befell poor Mr. Small). The point is that there needs to be compelling evidence that the person is a dangerous criminal who would likely use the weapon to violate someone's rights. The deterrent function of punishment should be fulfilled by the jail time: if criminals need more deterring, the proper way to do this is by increasing the jail time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After hearing this it got me to thinking.  Even though he served his time in prison, and paid his debt to society, he has permanently lost certain rights.  The two main ones that come to mind are voting and owning a gun, but I'm sure there are other rights he has lost.

Here are some sample punishments which could be given to criminals:

"You lose your right to liberty for 5 years while we imprison you"

"You lose your right to own a gun for 20 years"

"You lose the use of your left hand for the rest of your life because we're going to cut it off"

"You lose your right to life forever because we're going to kill you"

"You lose your right to liberty for 5 years while we imprison you, and your right to own a gun for the rest of your life"

None of these punishments seem inherently wrong (although their appropriateness will depend on the crime), but from your post it seems like you will have a problem with the last one. Why? The only difference is that it seems to 'combine' 2 different punishments - one lasting 5 years, and one lasting the rest of the criminals life. But I dont think theres any theoretical objection to this - suppose a punishment involved jailing a prisoner for 2 years then monitoring his activities for a further 2 years after he is released from prison. This is a similar idea, and it seems ok.

edit: "We're going to fine you $5000 and jail you for 6 months".

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that there needs to be compelling evidence that the person is a dangerous criminal who would likely use the weapon to violate someone's rights. The deterrent function of punishment should be fulfilled by the jail time: if criminals need more deterring, the proper way to do this is by increasing the jail time.

Why is jail an objectively better punishment than house arrest, public lashing, limb amputation, slavery in service of the victim, exile to a deserted island, or loss of the right to vote? (Perhaps in the case of limb amputation you could argue its a bad idea because its irreversible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two main ones that come to mind are voting and owning a gun, but I'm sure there are other rights he has lost.

I'd like to expand on my above post and say that although I dont have an intrinsic problem with people being freed but losing certain rights for the rest of their life, I think that denying them these particular rights is silly. Why would you deny someone the use of a gun? The most obvious answer is 'because you think they are dangerous'. But if they are dangerous, they shouldnt be let out of jail in the first place. And if they arent dangerous, whats wrong with them owning a gun?

Denying people the right to vote seems utterly pointless. Noone is going to hesitate over committing a crime because of fear they wont be able to vote in an election. Perhaps this might be a worthwhile punishment if individual voting was actually important - if elections were smaller scale and one vote had the power to make an impact. Or maybe it would work in a society like Heinlein's Starship Troopers, where people take their citizenship very seriously and being denied the right to vote would be a huge dishonour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is jail an objectively better punishment than house arrest, public lashing, limb amputation, slavery in service of the victim, exile to a deserted island, or loss of the right to vote? (Perhaps in the case of limb amputation you could argue its a bad idea because its irreversible).
House arrest is probably too comfortable to actually constitute a punishment (as opposed to being an annoyance). Slavery in service of the victim is not a punishment, it's compensation, so it's a separate category. First the victim should be compensated; second, the evil doer should be prevented from doing more evil; third, he should be punished to prevent repeat offences. The forced labor option is appropriate but primarily in service of the goal of compensating the victim. OTOH over-compensation is a good idea, since it combines the primary goal of making the victim whole with the tertiary goal of deterrence (simple restitution makes crime a profitable enterprise). In contrast, merely abrogating the rights of the criminal does not compensate the victim in any way. Exile serves the second function, of exclusion from society, and would be especially appropriate when meaningful compensation is impossible and/or the criminal is a repeat offender. Anyhow, an actual desert island exile is just a variant of life in prison. As long as jail time isn't fun (so the Finnish model of jails is a bad idea frm the standpoint of punishment), incarceration would suffice to provide the deterrent function of punishment, hence torture is not necessary. Punishment should involve the least violation of rights which still does what a punishment should do. Loss of the right to vote is ineffective as a deterrent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if they are dangerous, they shouldnt be let out of jail in the first place. And if they arent dangerous, whats wrong with them owning a gun?

If a convicted felon wants to commit a gun crime, the "no guns for felons" rule certainly will not stop them from getting a gun anyway. If they are determined to commit the crime, one little gun law is not going to stop anyone. If they are too dangerous to own a gun, they should just not be allowed out of prison.

The whole idea (in theory anyway) of prison is that a person can be reformed. I think that basically these types of rules are saying that any convicted felon can never be reformed since they will be punished for the rest of their lives. If the courts decide that you can't be reformed, then that is what a life sentence is for.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he's a typical felon and therefore was convicted on a drug charge.
Actually that's accurate. He was selling ecstasy if that has any effect on your opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loss of the right to vote is ineffective as a deterrent.

The idea being that it's just stupid and petty to hand out "punishments" that don't do anything, because the end result is a bunch of bureaucracy to track these felons to make certain they DON'T vote, and extra bureaucracy generally just punishes all the upstanding citizens, because they have to PAY for it. :)

David, what's a rational basis for the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor? I am not certain that making the victim whole is the primary purpose of judicial action, as in some cases this is outright impossible. I also don't think that exacting punishment from someone will somehow make the victim feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, what's a rational basis for the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?  I am not certain that making the victim whole is the primary purpose of judicial action, as in some cases this is outright impossible.  I also don't think that exacting punishment from someone will somehow make the victim feel better.
The basic idea is to distinguish serious crimes from not-so-serious crimes. The problem with the distinction is the nature of crime. It is a misdemeanor to not have a dog license on your dog at all times (ORC 955.10 & 955.99), as is growing MJ under 100 grams (ORC 2925.04). But, if the amount is 200 grams or more and is "in the vicinity of a school", it is a felony. Stealing from a vending machine is a misdemeanor (ORC 2911.32) unless this is a second offense in which case it's a felony (but there is no general "second offenses are felonies" rule). Helping a person run their business, if they have sex for money, is a felony (ORC 2907.22). Once you eliminate victimless crimes, some of the stupidity can be eliminated. I am not persuaded that there is an objective justification for making just a two-way distinction between rights violations, so the felony / misdemeanor distinction serves no useful purpose, IMO. What does make sense to me is to directly looking at the nature of the specific offense: the harm caused, and the "willfulness" of the act (e.g. premeditated serial murder is more serious than punching a person in the nose during a bar fight).

You are absolutely right that the legal system has relatively little interest in making the victim whole: the primary purpose of the existing judicial system is to prevent offenses against the state (given the state's interest in "public order"). Hence a victim has no legal right to determine how a prosecution is carried out -- or whether it is carried out. This is the consequence of the Roman thread in our judicial system, whereas the Anglo-Saxon view was very much oriented towards righting the wrong done to the victim. It is true that a wrong can never be fully reversed, but it's better that some attempt be made rather than making no attempt. I've been told that there are books that tell you the standard price of a finger. About $35,000 for the middle finger I guess; your little toe would be worth half that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole idea (in theory anyway) of prison is that a person can be reformed.

I think the idea of prison is to protect the citizen's individual rights by removing the rights-violator from society. Prison is thus the last step in the use of retaliatory force to protect our rights.

My understanding is that the permanent loss of some rights (the so called "civil rights") for certain crimes is intended not to deter crime, but to provide additional protection of the law-abiding citizen's rights.

Losing the right to vote eliminates a convicted felon's participation in representative government. Once out of jail, the convicted felon cannot become an elected official -- where he might seek to influence legislation in favor of criminals -- nor can he vote for a candidate who might do the same. He has zero influence over the selection of those that make the laws that govern us.

The ban on firearm ownership is also intended as an additional protection of our rights. Granted, a determined individual can probably still get a gun, but the law against gun ownership by convicted felons does make it more difficult. They cannot simply walk into a local gun store, purchase a pistol and start holding up liquor stores. They must first commit another crime, which creates an additional opportunity for the police to catch them. It also becomes an additional basis for prosecution and punishment of a repeat offender.

Admittedly, it is difficult to determine which crimes should result in a permanent loss of some rights. I would not advocate a permanent loss of civil rights for someone convicted of shoplifting, for example.

I would advocate the permanent loss of civil rights for any individual that knowingly and deliberately initiates the use of (potentially) deadly force -- such as a mugger with a knife, a bank robber with a gun, a murderer, a rapist. Such an individual is willing to violate the most fundamental of rights. No matter how long he stays in jail, he can never be fully trusted again.

If they are too dangerous to own a gun, they should just not be allowed out of prison.
The only problem with this argument is that the criminal justice system can make mistakes. Putting a time limit on imprisonment is one of the ways we mitigate the error of imprisoning the wrong man; a wrongly convicted man does not suffer forever.

Whether or not the extra protection provided by these measures is worth the cost is another question -- and a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would advocate the permanent loss of civil rights for any individual that knowingly and deliberately initiates the use of (potentially) deadly force -- such as a mugger with a knife, a bank robber with a gun, a murderer, a rapist.  Such an individual is willing to violate the most fundamental of rights.  No matter how long he stays in jail, he can never be fully trusted again.
I could support this, with some important clarifications. First what exactly do you mean by "civil rights"? The right to live, to hold a job and support yourself that way, the right to own property (real and personal), the right to make contracts, the right to criticise the government, are all rights. Which specific ones are the civil rights that should be lost because of the commission of such a crime? If you argued that, specifically, the right to own a weapon should be abrogated because the person has shown that they are not trustworthy enough to be allowed access to a weapon, then there's a clear connection between the punishment and the cause. I just think that "civil rights" is too open-ended. In addition, judicial absolutes are a bad idea -- leopards cannot change their spots, but man is a volitional being. That doesn't mean that the presumption of reform should be dealt out freely, but it should not be barred a priori as impossible.

Given that you're referring to the most fundamental of rights, I think this means that if a person intends to use deadly force, then this loss of rights should follow, but if for example they just plan to hurt without killing, then they should not meet up with this permanent loss of rights. OTOH, if you didn't mean specifically deadly force, would you support termination of rights for all acts of violence (that would leave the stealthy thief with his rights intact, in contrast to the barroom brawler)?

The only problem with this argument is that the criminal justice system can make mistakes. Putting a time limit on imprisonment is one of the ways we mitigate the error of imprisoning the wrong man; a wrongly convicted man does not suffer forever.
That would equally argue for limits on the duration of loss of rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I offer a suggestion as to a rational method of delineating between felonies and misdemeanors?

It's a felony if the victim(s) of the crime was physically injured or directly threatened with personal physical injury.

It's a misdemeanor if personal physical injury was not at issue.

So, felons would be murderers, rapists, muggers, holdup men, car hijackers, etc.

Misdemeanor-perpetrators (ugh what an unwieldy term) would be embezzlers, hackers, defrauders, etc.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is jail an objectively better punishment than house arrest, public lashing, limb amputation, slavery in service of the victim, exile to a deserted island, or loss of the right to vote? (Perhaps in the case of limb amputation you could argue its a bad idea because its irreversible).

Um, because the point isn't to cater to sadists?

Let's consider an example from reality here. In the medical profession there are specialized nurses that work in burn wards. Their typical tenure in the job is six months. Few last longer than two years.

Why? Burn debridements. As I was told by a coworker who has experienced this firsthand: "A burn debridement is probably about the most painful thing you could ever live through. They can't give you enough pain medication. Usually the burn victims are so out of it that they don't know what's going on. But if they aren't . . . you can hear them screaming all through the building. It's horrible." And these are people that are working in a benevolent profession, HEALING.

What sort of human being would apply for a job lashing people and cutting their arms off? Hm? Is that the kind of human being you'd want in charge of the administration of justice? The desire for the job would disqualify them from holding it! And how on earth could you get someone that doesn't want to do that to do it!? The psychological toll extracted would be criminal! At least with humane forms of punishment they can tell themselves that it has to be done and it's being done in the best way possible.

Serving in the military, you can legitimatize dealing out death, destruction, and mayhem because there is no choice; it's fight or die. But a civilian, faced with a defenseless human being? That's just sick. You wouldn't treat a DOG like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, felons would be murderers, rapists, muggers, holdup men, car hijackers, etc.

Misdemeanor-perpetrators (ugh what an unwieldy term) would be embezzlers, hackers, defrauders, etc.

That's the clearest and best basis I can see for making the distinction, if one needs to be made. However, it would not be a good idea to let this dichotomy control the justice system too closely. If somebody punches me in the nose, they deserve some punishment, but if a person steals the life's savings of 10,000 elderly victims (can you hear the violins?), that shouldn't be seen as "the same category" as typical punk teenage shoplifting, deserving less punishment (this us for those days when I don't think that shoplifting should be a capital crime). But the basis for the disctinction is surely right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loss of the right to vote is ineffective as a deterrent.

The way I see it, it protects us from former criminals. By actually having once been a criminal, it demonstrates they hold no respect for the laws of our nation. Why then should they be given the ability to affect those laws in the future, possibly to the detriment of everyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, it protects us from former criminals. By actually having once been a criminal, it demonstrates they hold no respect for the laws of our nation. Why then should they be given the ability to affect those laws in the future, possibly to the detriment of everyone else?
Given that, why should they be allowed to affect law abiding citizens by unleashing them on the pupulation at all? And the same considerations hold of people who haven't been convicted of crimes, like people on welfare, religious fanatics, those who advocate socialism and altruists in general. Now, if you were proposing that elegibility to vote should be more broadly restricted, for example you have to pass a certain kind of citizenship test and you have to prove that you are a productive member of socierty, then you'd have a point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as they live within the law, then they should be allowed to leave if that is the judgement of the courts.

But that doesn't mean they deserve the added privelage of SHAPING the laws.

A dictator could make so many things felonies that only he and a few other can vote. Think of all the smugglers through history that would have voted for leaders that advocated free trade policies?

Or viewing this point darwinistically: A positive feedback loop is setup that excludes from voting those people that violate certain laws, the remaining voters by definition have not broken these laws. Since these laws are not being broken by the voters, the laws must not cramp their style too much, and therefore they are less motivated to change the law (since the status quo works for them).

Darwinistically, this would not be considered and evolutionary stable setup, and in the long-term must result in the elimination of all voters.

I seriously doubt this would happen (or is happening), but it made me go, "hmmmmm..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dictator could make so many things felonies that only he and a few other can vote.  Think of all the smugglers through history that would have voted for leaders that advocated free trade policies?

If this is meant as a counter-point, it wouldn't be a reason against disenfranchising felons, it would be a reason against making all laws felonies, or all felonies grounds for disenfranchisement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as they live within the law, then they should be allowed to leave if that is the judgement of the courts.

But that doesn't mean they deserve the added privelage of SHAPING the laws.

What if they are convicted of something that shouldn't be a crime in the first place? Shouldn't they have the ability to shape those laws into something that doesn't violate the rights of the people?

One of the basic ideas of this country is that all citizens have the right to vote. Felons may be criminals, but they are still citizens. Voting is a privilege that should be enjoyed be all citizens. There should be no exception to that, under any circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the basic ideas of this country is that all citizens have the right to vote.  Felons may be criminals, but they are still citizens.  Voting is a privilege that should be enjoyed be all citizens.  There should be no exception to that, under any circumstances.

I have no opinion on this issue, and I'm interested to hear some good arguments. Skap, I do not find this offering very convincing because it is conclusory.

Your first sentence is a generally correct historical fact (since the 20s anyway). But that only shows us what the idea is and has been, not whether it is correct. Same situation in the second sentence. It is true, but does not give us the "should" part. Your third sentence gives your conclusion, and your fourth sentence restates it.

What are your supporting arguments, particularly for your assertion that voting should be enjoyed by all citizens?

A couple brief suggestions for making your argument:

1. You use "privilege" and "right." Your argument suggests that you mean "right." Choose between these words carefully.

2. Are you sure you mean all citizens? Are you including, say, the very young, the retarded, the insane?

I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that doesn't mean they deserve the added privelage of SHAPING the laws.
The fundamental question is who does deserve to shape the laws of the country, and where do they get that right from? Do you oppose significantly toughening the requirements for voting, so that fools and idiots don't have the automatic right to vote?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if they are convicted of something that shouldn't be a crime in the first place?  Shouldn't they have the ability to shape those laws into something that doesn't violate the rights of the people?

What if...

Like I said, it wouldn't be a reason against disenfranchising felons, it would be a reason against making all laws felonies, or all felonies grounds for disenfranchisement.

One of the basic ideas of this country is that all citizens have the right to vote.
This is not a basic idea of the country. It's not even a basic idea of Rand. Voting is a consequence, not a primary, of a free society.

Felons may be criminals, but they are still citizens.  Voting is a privilege that should be enjoyed be all citizens.  There should be no exception to that, under any circumstances.

All citizens...except those who lose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could support this, with some important clarifications. First what exactly do you mean by "civil rights"? The right to live, to hold a job and support yourself that way, the right to own property (real and personal), the right to make contracts, the right to criticise the government, are all rights. Which specific ones are the civil rights that should be lost because of the commission of such a crime?

Civil rights are the right to vote, the right to sit on a jury, the right to hold public office and the right to possess a firearm.

In addition, judicial absolutes are a bad idea -- leopards cannot change their spots, but man is a volitional being. That doesn't mean that the presumption of reform should be dealt out freely, but it should not be barred a priori as impossible.
I agree. There will always be a need for judgment. Some states have an appeals process wherein a convicted felon can petition to have his civil rights restored, and I agree there should be such a process.

In other states, the loss of civil rights is only for a specified time.

Given that you're referring to the most fundamental of rights, I think this means that if a person intends to use deadly force, then this loss of rights should follow, but if for example they just plan to hurt without killing, then they should not meet up with this permanent loss of rights. OTOH, if you didn't mean specifically deadly force, would you support termination of rights for all acts of violence (that would leave the stealthy thief with his rights intact, in contrast to the barroom brawler)?
Good question. I used the phrase "initiate (potentially) deadly force" to identify individuals willing to threaten your life in the commission of a crime. Your question is should this be expanded to include all acts of violence, including those that are not lethal.

I don’t think we can automatically include all acts of violence. I think it has to be judged case-by-case. Shoving someone to the sidewalk is an act of violence, but one that probably won't do much harm and is not life threatening. Shoving someone into traffic may also do no harm but is obviously more dangerous and may well be life threatening. We would need the full context, including the pusher’s knowledge and state of mind, to determine whether there was a deliberate attempt to threaten the victim's life or merely do non-lethal harm.

The only problem with this argument is that the criminal justice system can make mistakes. Putting a time limit on imprisonment is one of the ways we mitigate the error of imprisoning the wrong man; a wrongly convicted man does not suffer forever. 

That would equally argue for limits on the duration of loss of rights.

Good point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...