Florida restores rights of ex-convicts

motivez · 06-18-2008, 08:33 AM

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - More than 115,000 former felons who completed their sentences have had their civil rights restored since a new state rule went into effect 14 months ago, Gov. Charlie Crist said.

The rule by the Board of Executive Clemency, which Crist chairs, restored rights almost automatically, ending a policy of requiring the panel to act individually on every restoration of rights request. The rights include voting and the ability to get state and local licenses for certain types of jobs.

"Once somebody has truly paid their debt to society, we should recognize it," Crist said Tuesday. "We should welcome them back into society and give them that second chance. Who doesn't deserve a second chance?"

The 115,000 former felons Crist cited account for more than half of all former felons in the state who have had their rights restored during the last 14 years, according to the governor.

The governor made the announcement at a two-day summit of state officials, lawmakers, community activists, prison ministers and others to brainstorm ideas for keeping former inmates from returning to crime after their release.

At Crist's urging, the clemency board approved the rule change in April 2007. Before then, Florida was among a handful of states that refused to automatically restore felons' rights after they completed their sentences.

Only about 7,000 released felons had their rights restored annually under the old rule that required individual hearings and board action. Besides Crist, the board is made up of the state's three elected Cabinet members.

Corrections Secretary Walt McNeil said he hoped the summit would help find alternatives to building more prisons to house repeat offenders. About a third of more than 11,000 inmates released annually are back in prison after three years.

"We simply can't continue to keep doing the same old thing the same old way expecting we're going to have some different outcomes," McNeil said.

He said it will take courage for lawmakers to shift funding from prison building to providing inmates more drug and alcohol abuse treatment, education and training need to find jobs after they are released so they won't return to crime.

"There are some who say that you're either going to work for it, beg for it or steal it," McNeil said.

My Way News - New rule restores rights to 115,000 Fla. ex-felons

Cool development I think, I remember us talking about this in the past. I agree completely that once someone serves their time their debt to society should be done with and they should have full rights restored to them..

I don't really understand how it's legal for states to decide otherwise really.

Stylerod · 06-18-2008, 03:37 PM

I pretty much agree. But I do think if they commited a crime with a firearm they should not be allowed to own one again, but that probably wouldn't stop a criminal from finding one anyway. Also a repeat drunk driver that killed someone while drunk should be reviewed before automatically giving them their license back.

Voting after they get out? Sure, why not.

lew · 06-18-2008, 03:51 PM

Good.

But I still hate Crist.

6SpeedTA95 · 06-18-2008, 08:03 PM

With rare exception this is how it should be.

motivez · 06-18-2008, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

With rare exception this is how it should be.

What exceptions should there be?

6SpeedTA95 · 06-18-2008, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

What exceptions should there be?

If someone shoots someone in the comission of the crime regardless of whether or not the person dies and the person gets out of jail I do not feel they should own a gun again. I go back adn forth on that...

If a sexual predator gets let out of jail, they have no business living or working around schools regardless of whether or not they finished their sentence.

motivez · 06-18-2008, 11:01 PM

I thought you were talking about their right to vote rather than own a gun

And, what part of the "shall not be infringed" would let the government prevent citizens who've served their time own a gun?

Doesn't it follow the same logic of people who want to use a gun for criminal purposes will have one anyway, so by preventing them from being allowed to have one is really only preventing people who want it for legitimate purposes?

lew · 06-19-2008, 09:05 AM

Yeah, I don't have a problem with ex-cons have guns.

Kytro · 06-19-2008, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Yeah, I don't have a problem with ex-cons have guns.

I have issue with this. I have an issue with criminals with guns

lew · 06-19-2008, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I have issue with this. I have an issue with criminals with guns

ibWhenGunsAreOutlawedOnlyOutlawsWillHaveGuns

Kytro · 06-19-2008, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by lew

ibWhenGunsAreOutlawedOnlyOutlawsWillHaveGuns

Damn my beer inspired typing. I meant no issue !

7960 · 06-19-2008, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I have issue with this. I have an issue with criminals with guns

I was under the assumption that criminals went to jail/prison to pay their debt to society. When they get out and their sentence (including parole) is complete, why are they required to continue paying?

Stylerod · 06-19-2008, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I was under the assumption that criminals went to jail/prison to pay their debt to society. When they get out and their sentence (including parole) is complete, why are they required to continue paying?

I don't think you can make a blanket statement about this. If someone uses a gun in a crime, does 5 years, gets out and purchases a gun legally (or illegally) and commits another crime with that gun then I would think his right to own after he gets out a 2nd time should be taken away. He has shown that he can't be trusted in society with a firearm.

JaJae · 06-19-2008, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I was under the assumption that criminals went to jail/prison to pay their debt to society. When they get out and their sentence (including parole) is complete, why are they required to continue paying?

Pay their debts to society is just a saying. Technically there is nothing that says the courts can't keep someone on parole for the rest of their lives if they wanted to. The same as keeping them on probationary status to prevent them from owning a gun. The voting laws followed that mentality. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can understand how the laws were rationalized.

There are some instances where people leaving prison should continue to lose some rights. Whether their voting privilege should continue to be permanently revoked for every felon is debatable. I wouldn't mind if some felons couldn't vote, but others I think should (depending on crime). So I guess I'm in favor of this. If I can have an either or, I'd probably prefer this decision by Florida.

Kytro · 06-19-2008, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I was under the assumption that criminals went to jail/prison to pay their debt to society. When they get out and their sentence (including parole) is complete, why are they required to continue paying?

I have a problem with criminals having guns, but they will get them anyway - having a committed a crime does not forever make you a criminal the way I see it (active criminal behaviour does).

7960 · 06-19-2008, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I have a problem with criminals having guns, but they will get them anyway - having a committed a crime does not forever make you a criminal the way I see it (active criminal behaviour does).

active criminal behavior should land you in jail. Once you're out, IMO, you've paid your debt and should get your rights back so you're no longer a "criminal" unless (until?) you commit a crime again.

Kytro · 06-22-2008, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

active criminal behavior should land you in jail. Once you're out, IMO, you've paid your debt and should get your rights back so you're no longer a "criminal" unless (until?) you commit a crime again.

Yes, this is what I was attempting to say