NationStates Jolt Archive

Bet those are words you never would have imagined you'd see me write, and yes, it is still me, The Nazz. I haven't been possessed by aliens or undergone a brain transplant or anything. I just really like what I've seen out of my Republican Governor, Charlie Crist.

He's already pressured his party to put up money to replace electronic voting machines in the state (it's not a done deal yet, as the legislature is balking), and today, he pushed through a major change in felon voting rights (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-45felonrights,0,5726258.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines). We're not quite as backward as we were yesterday.
TALLAHASSEE -- Most Florida felons who complete their sentences will have their voting and other civil rights more quickly restored under a rule approved Thursday by Republican Gov. Charlie Crist and the state clemency board.

All but the most violent felons would avoid the need to get on a long list for a hearing before the board, which sometimes takes years. The board voted 3-1 on the immediate change, which also requires felons to pay all court-ordered restitution to their victims before becoming eligible to get their rights back.

Attorney General Bill McCollum, another Republican, strongly objected to altering the Jim Crow-era ban on felons automatically getting their rights back once they finish their sentences.

But Crist was emphatic: "I believe in simple human justice and that when somebody has paid their debt to society, it is paid in full. There's a time to move on, a time to give them an opportunity to have redemption, to have a chance to become productive citizens again.''

The change doesn't affect the right to have a firearm, which still wouldn't be automatically restored. It does let felons more quickly get a license for many Florida occupations, a key concern of activists who say that is one of the largest obstacles for people trying reintegrate into society.
If Crist keeps this kind of stuff up, I may find myself voting for him when he runs for re-election. Of course, if he keeps this up, he may find himself in a primary with someone like that douchebag McCollum. But I'll take what I can get.

Crist and Ahnuld are proof that not all Republicans are Bushevik cocksuckers.

Crist and Ahnuld are proof that not all Republicans are Bushevik cocksuckers.

And if they can wrest control of their party back from said Busheviks, the country as a whole will be a lot better off.

Sounds like someone well deserving of the right to call themselves a public servant. It takes a lot of guts to stand up for felons, especially If you're a Republican. I'm glad that he's addressing the issue at all.

When I lived in Florida, spent 12 years in Miami, it was with Jeb Bush as Governor. I'm a Libertarian, but I have a conservative lean so I tend to side with conservatives and Republicans on most issues but I did not like Jeb Bush at all. He got some respect with the whole Terri Shivio (spelling?) thing as he tried to stop it. And I did enjoy not having to pay State Income Taxes.

I never got a chance to live under this new guy. Over all how is he doing?

When I lived in Florida, spent 12 years in Miami, it was with Jeb Bush as Governor. I'm a Libertarian, but I have a conservative lean so I tend to side with conservatives and Republicans on most issues but I did not like Jeb Bush at all. He got some respect with the whole Terri Shivio (spelling?) thing as he tried to stop it. And I did enjoy not having to pay State Income Taxes.

I never got a chance to live under this new guy. Over all how is he doing?

Terri Shiavo was a vegetable, with no actual brain mass that actually meant anything. The only part left was merely the part which monitors body function, and that is it. The rest was jelly. Not only that, but I am fairly certain that the husband is considered next of kin, and can decide to pull the plug or not. As such, the husband, after nearly a decade of seeing that his wife was indeed not going to return to consciousness(This wasn't a simple coma-this was a full blown brain dead person, there was no chance, ever, of her "waking up", in any conscious form, not even with severe mental retardation. Ever. There is a huge difference between comatose and brain dead.)

The only reason, at all, that it got it's huge spin was that the religious right played on people's emotions. I remember the kid who tried to bring her food and water, and turned away by the doctors, getting his own interview on bloody Faux News. Of course, they spinned it emotionally, but didn't tell that had they tried to force-feed water or food down her throat, it would have likely "killed" her(She was already dead, the only thing that would have happened is that the body would then die), or at the very least severely damaged the body.

That's all I have to say.

I've always wondered what's up with convicted felons not being able to vote. What, are they afraid that someone who'll legalize murder or pardon everyone in prison or something will get elected?


Also, does it mention if "felons" will be allowed to vote in the next election? This is Florida, so it's kind of important...

I've always wondered what's up with convicted felons not being able to vote. What, are they afraid that someone who'll legalize murder or pardon everyone in prison or something will get elected?


Also, does it mention if "felons" will be allowed to vote in the next election? This is Florida, so it's kind of important...

The way I read it, the people who are released from this point onward will pretty much get everything back quickly, except for some violent offenders. Those who have already gotten out will have to do some paperwork, but it won't be nearly as bad as it was under the old clemency board. I imagine the effect will be marginal for the 2008 elections.

But if I don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard will get into office!

a cookie (which because of my diet I can't eat) to whoever gets the reference.

Republicans aren't evil.

Republicans aren't evil.

Not all of them, but I disagree with enough of them on significant issues that it's nice when I can find common ground. It wasn't always so tough--it's only been in the last 12 years or so that it's gotten really bad.

But if I don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard will get into office!

a cookie (which because of my diet I can't eat) to whoever gets the reference.

"So long, and Thanks for all the Fish" :)

When I lived in Florida, spent 12 years in Miami, it was with Jeb Bush as Governor. I'm a Libertarian, but I have a conservative lean so I tend to side with conservatives and Republicans on most issues but I did not like Jeb Bush at all. He got some respect with the whole Terri Shivio (spelling?) thing as he tried to stop it. And I did enjoy not having to pay State Income Taxes.

I never got a chance to live under this new guy. Over all how is he doing?

So you're a Libertarian who supports government intervention into personal issues?:confused:

So you're a Libertarian who supports government intervention into personal issues?:confused:

I knew there was something really off about his statement. Couldn't point it out directly, but now that you mention it, it does seem extremely odd, and almost completely unlibertarian.

"So long, and Thanks for all the Fish" :)

*gives cookie*
Though the reason I made the reference is that I misread the title of this thread, and thought it was "I really like my Reptilian Governor"

*gives cookie*
Though the reason I made the reference is that I misread the title of this thread, and thought it was "I really like my Reptilian Governor"

So it should really be a David Icke reference.

Not bad for a guy who is really in the wrong party. After all, operaratives within his own party tried to play the "gay" card on him. Letting it somehow slip that they suspected good ol' Charlie was a closet case.

As a general principle I tend to like moderates in both parties. Charles Crist seems to be one of that species.

I'm glad things are going better in my old stomping grounds, Nazz.

So you're a Libertarian who supports government intervention into personal issues?:confused:

They starved her to death by pulling her feeding tube and that is wrong. I agreed with him butting in on that reason only. I would rather have had him offer an alternate method of giving the perverbial "Pulling the plug".

If they had let her go in a more resonable way and he tried to cut in I would have been against it as it is the husbands choice since she was nothing but a veggy.

Bet those are words you never would have imagined you'd see me write, and yes, it is still me, The Nazz. I haven't been possessed by aliens or undergone a brain transplant or anything. I just really like what I've seen out of my Republican Governor, Charlie Crist.

He's already pressured his party to put up money to replace electronic voting machines in the state (it's not a done deal yet, as the legislature is balking), and today, he pushed through a major change in felon voting rights (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-45felonrights,0,5726258.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines). We're not quite as backward as we were yesterday.

If Crist keeps this kind of stuff up, I may find myself voting for him when he runs for re-election. Of course, if he keeps this up, he may find himself in a primary with someone like that douchebag McCollum. But I'll take what I can get.


That all sounds good - as long as the state doesn't bring back butterfly ballots that old people can't figure out.

Oh, and what's his take on this?

http://www.local10.com/news/11346356/detail.html

Thats a sick relationship, but oh well. It'll get into the media and some words will be said and all that will result in one less gay hating gay republican in office...oh wait its not that kind of "Like" is it?

So you're a Libertarian who supports government intervention into personal issues?:confused:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory133.html

*nods*

They starved her to death by pulling her feeding tube and that is wrong. I agreed with him butting in on that reason only. I would rather have had him offer an alternate method of giving the perverbial "Pulling the plug".

If they had let her go in a more resonable way and he tried to cut in I would have been against it as it is the husbands choice since she was nothing but a veggy.

All the parts of her brain that correspond to sentience and awareness had been reduced to soup long ago so it's not like she'd have felt pain. The woman was for all intense purposes a zombie. And considering that euthanasia isn't legal in most parts of the United States, disconnecting life support is about the closest thing to a humane death allowed by law.

That all sounds good - as long as the state doesn't bring back butterfly ballots that old people can't figure out.

Oh, and what's his take on this?

http://www.local10.com/news/11346356/detail.htmlI don't know as of yet, but it's the expected outcome of a fucked up NIMBY attitude toward sex offenders, and it's a political bomb because no one wants to be on the side of pedophiles. My personal attitude is that if you want to restrict the movements of sex offenders, put them in jail for life with no parole. But to restrict them once they've served their sentences is to unfairly extend their sentences.

Bet those are words you never would have imagined you'd see me write, and yes, it is still me, The Nazz. I haven't been possessed by aliens or undergone a brain transplant or anything. I just really like what I've seen out of my Republican Governor, Charlie Crist.

He's already pressured his party to put up money to replace electronic voting machines in the state (it's not a done deal yet, as the legislature is balking), and today, he pushed through a major change in felon voting rights (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-45felonrights,0,5726258.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines). We're not quite as backward as we were yesterday.

If Crist keeps this kind of stuff up, I may find myself voting for him when he runs for re-election. Of course, if he keeps this up, he may find himself in a primary with someone like that douchebag McCollum. But I'll take what I can get.

I'm not surprised that you like the Governor down there. He's passing bad laws. Felons have put themselves in a unique position of having deprived someone of their own rights. At some point, these predators had to have deprived a peaceful, law-abiding citizen of their right to life, liberty, or property. That a person considers action like that acceptable, displays a terrible lack of conscience, not to mention a complete lack of understanding of what it means to live in a government of laws.

Now, they have paid their debts to society by serving a part of a prison sentence, but does that mean they are any more ready to act as citizens than they were before they committed their crime? I doubt it. And sane people should cringe at the thought of criminals shaping the government that takes more and more of our liberty. Hell, we have enough criminals serving...

I'm not surprised that you like the Governor down there. He's passing bad laws. Felons have put themselves in a unique position of having deprived someone of their own rights. At some point, these predators had to have deprived a peaceful, law-abiding citizen of their right to life, liberty, or property. That a person considers action like that acceptable, displays a terrible lack of conscience, not to mention a complete lack of understanding of what it means to live in a government of laws.

Now, they have paid their debts to society by serving a part of a prison sentence, but does that mean they are any more ready to act as citizens than they were before they committed their crime? I doubt it. And sane people should cringe at the thought of criminals shaping the government that takes more and more of our liberty. Hell, we have enough criminals serving...

So if you make a bad decision at 17, that means you never get a chance to change your life? I'd rather have a society that gives people not only a second chance, but a reason to take part in building a society instead of saying "society tossed me--why should I give a fuck now?" Must be nice to have never fucked up in your life--or rather, to have never been busted for it. Makes it easy to look down on everyone else from that lofty perch.

So if you make a bad decision at 17, that means you never get a chance to change your life? I'd rather have a society that gives people not only a second chance, but a reason to take part in building a society instead of saying "society tossed me--why should I give a fuck now?" Must be nice to have never fucked up in your life--or rather, to have never been busted for it. Makes it easy to look down on everyone else from that lofty perch.
Juveniles have special consideration under the law. Apparently they don't have the smarts to be held completely responsible for their actions. Barring that exception, though, no matter what age, if one demonstrates that he cannot accept the idea the a government depends on the lawful conduct of its citizens, he has forfeited his chance to participate in that government.

Remember our predator had to deprive a law-abiding citizen of life, liberty, or property in order to make it to prison. In what way does completion of a prison sentence demonstrate that one is now ready to participate? There is certainly no requirement for him to show remorse, regret, or to make any restitution to his victim. It is only required that he behave for a set number of years. The reason that our predator should "give a fuck" is that he doesn't want to go back to prison.

As far as your ad hominems, leave it alone. I have lived a life that is without felonious action. It can be done. It's immaterial to my objections, however.

Juveniles have special consideration under the law. Apparently they don't have the smarts to be held completely responsible for their actions. Barring that exception, though, no matter what age, if one demonstrates that he cannot accept the idea the a government depends on the lawful conduct of its citizens, he has forfeited his chance to participate in that government.

Remember our predator had to deprive a law-abiding citizen of life, liberty, or property in order to make it to prison. In what way does completion of a prison sentence demonstrate that one is now ready to participate? There is certainly no requirement for him to show remorse, regret, or to make any restitution to his victim. It is only required that he behave for a set number of years. The reason that our predator should "give a fuck" is that he doesn't want to go back to prison.

As far as your ad hominems, leave it alone. I have lived a life that is without felonious action. It can be done. It's immaterial to my objections, however.In a system like ours, where prosecutors have nearly unlimited discretion when it comes to deciding who gets charged with what, and where the quality of one's legal representation is directly related to their economic class, I have a problem with saying that a person who was convicted of a felony loses all their civil rights. We live in a system where there's a serious correlation between skin color and the severity of a crime with which an accused is charged and convicted--it's been shown in study after study. But that apparently doesn't factor into your decision.

But regardless, your position doesn't allow for rehabilitation. I think that's a sure-fire way to make sure that people who made mistakes in the past are never allowed to reintegrate into society. At least there's a chance they'll want to be a part of it. And for those who don't want to be a part of it, we haven't lost anything.

As to what you call the ad hominems, I was only paraphrasing the Bible--all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You're telling me you've never done anything that could have gotten you in some trouble? Had a little too much to drink and drove anyway? Gotten into a fight as a teenager that, had something been just a little different, could have wound up with someone seriously injured and you responsible for it? Nothing? I find that difficult to believe--and that's not an aspersion on you. That's a statement on human nature--everyone has bad judgment once in a while. Just not everyone goes to jail for it. We all skate on something once in a while.

Terri Shiavo was a vegetable, with no actual brain mass that actually meant anything. The only part left was merely the part which monitors body function, and that is it. The rest was jelly. Not only that, but I am fairly certain that the husband is considered next of kin, and can decide to pull the plug or not. As such, the husband, after nearly a decade of seeing that his wife was indeed not going to return to consciousness(This wasn't a simple coma-this was a full blown brain dead person, there was no chance, ever, of her "waking up", in any conscious form, not even with severe mental retardation. Ever. There is a huge difference between comatose and brain dead.)

The only reason, at all, that it got it's huge spin was that the religious right played on people's emotions. I remember the kid who tried to bring her food and water, and turned away by the doctors, getting his own interview on bloody Faux News. Of course, they spinned it emotionally, but didn't tell that had they tried to force-feed water or food down her throat, it would have likely "killed" her(She was already dead, the only thing that would have happened is that the body would then die), or at the very least severely damaged the body.

That's all I have to say.


*smashes Terry Shiavo topic into a puddle of goo* NO! No more! Or I'll be the one in a persistent vegetative state. :(

*smashes Terry Shiavo topic into a puddle of goo*

You mean like her brain was while Jeb kept arguing she "could wake up"? (Sorry, couldn't resist it.) :p

Myrmi, Myrmi, Myrmi... In almost all civilized countries, a person's sentence ends after said person leaves prison. And said countries remain civilized. Why don't you admit you only wish to see other people suffer under cover of law? It would save us a lot of trouble.

In a system like ours, where prosecutors have nearly unlimited discretion when it comes to deciding who gets charged with what, and where the quality of one's legal representation is directly related to their economic class, I have a problem with saying that a person who was convicted of a felony loses all their civil rights. We live in a system where there's a serious correlation between skin color and the severity of a crime with which an accused is charged and convicted--it's been shown in study after study. But that apparently doesn't factor into your decision.

But regardless, your position doesn't allow for rehabilitation. I think that's a sure-fire way to make sure that people who made mistakes in the past are never allowed to reintegrate into society. At least there's a chance they'll want to be a part of it. And for those who don't want to be a part of it, we haven't lost anything.

As to what you call the ad hominems, I was only paraphrasing the Bible--all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You're telling me you've never done anything that could have gotten you in some trouble? Had a little too much to drink and drove anyway? Gotten into a fight as a teenager that, had something been just a little different, could have wound up with someone seriously injured and you responsible for it? Nothing? I find that difficult to believe--and that's not an aspersion on you. That's a statement on human nature--everyone has bad judgment once in a while. Just not everyone goes to jail for it. We all skate on something once in a while.
You're right, I don't factor anything like color, background, class, or anything else into my determination that a felon should lose his voting rights. Regardless of how they are charged, I have enormous respect for the jury system to sort it out -- by and large, it's the best thing we have going.

You're wrong about them losing all their civil rights. Some of those rights are better protected, even in prison.

And rehab? Show me that they get rehab in prison and I'll re-consider how I view the restoration of their voting rights.

And rehab? Show me that they get rehab in prison and I'll re-consider how I view the restoration of their voting rights.

And yet you favor them NOT being rehabilitated in prison, rather you favor punishment. Catch-22, but still doesn't change the fact that former inmates get to vote in most civilized countries and said countries remain civilized, as I said.

You're right, I don't factor anything like color, background, class, or anything else into my determination that a felon should lose his voting rights. Regardless of how they are charged, I have enormous respect for the jury system to sort it out -- by and large, it's the best thing we have going.

You're wrong about them losing all their civil rights. Some of those rights are better protected, even in prison.

And rehab? Show me that they get rehab in prison and I'll re-consider how I view the restoration of their voting rights.

Just answer this: if a felon doesn't become a full citizen after release, after full completion of sentence, then has the sentence ever really ended? If you're not going to allow them to rejoin society, then why even let them out of jail?

Just answer this: if a felon doesn't become a full citizen after release, after full completion of sentence, then has the sentence ever really ended? If you're not going to allow them to rejoin society, then why even let them out of jail?

Actually, knowing Myrmi, he advocates quick death penalty for DUI... :rolleyes:

Actually, knowing Myrmi, he advocates quick death penalty for DUI... :rolleyes:

I know you're being hyperbolic here, but I don't think that of Myrmidonisia. But I could be wrong.

Just answer this: if a felon doesn't become a full citizen after release, after full completion of sentence, then has the sentence ever really ended? If you're not going to allow them to rejoin society, then why even let them out of jail?
That's a good question and it's exactly what the legislature should be asking. I guess it depends on the definition of sentence. If we define sentence to mean "full and complete punishment for committing a crime", then no, the sentence hasn't ended. If we define it simply as completion of incarceration, then sure, it's over when he steps out the door.

If you want to consider how we treat ex-cons, then how unfair is it that we continue to hound pedophiles after they leave prison? Do they deserve to participate fully in society? They did serve a legally proscribed period of incarceration. They should enjoy the same freedom of movement and association as the rest of us, shouldn't they? My answer is that they should be treated exactly as any other ex-convict.

I missed the part about the full restitution. That's a good requirement and maybe it's the break point between those that should be permitted to regain voting rights. I don't see how you can provide restitution for anything but crimes involving strictly property, however.

I know I'm in the minority on this. It appears that most states automatically restore rights to felons when they walk out the prison gate. So kudos to Florida to not giving in completely.

That's a good question and it's exactly what the legislature should be asking. I guess it depends on the definition of sentence. If we define sentence to mean "full and complete punishment for committing a crime", then no, the sentence hasn't ended. If we define it simply as completion of incarceration, then sure, it's over when he steps out the door.

If you want to consider how we treat ex-cons, then how unfair is it that we continue to hound pedophiles after they leave prison? Do they deserve to participate fully in society? They did serve a legally proscribed period of incarceration. They should enjoy the same freedom of movement and association as the rest of us, shouldn't they? My answer is that they should be treated exactly as any other ex-convict.

I missed the part about the full restitution. That's a good requirement and maybe it's the break point between those that should be permitted to regain voting rights. I don't see how you can provide restitution for anything but crimes involving strictly property, however.

I know I'm in the minority on this. It appears that most states automatically restore rights to felons when they walk out the prison gate. So kudos to Florida to not giving in completely.

You're perfectly aware that your being against voting rights to ex-felons is nothing but wanting them to suffer some more. It has squat to do with the "good of society", whereas the paedophile example you spuriously used DOES have.

I agree with Nazz.

Myrmi, what about non-violent drug offenders? Exactly from whom did they take away life, liberty, or anything else? Drug offenders are felons too, and as such also lose their rights. So you think if someone smokes a doobie at some college party, then gets busted for it, he or she should never be able to vote again? Even though others with the same behavior--for instance, Bush in his cokehead days--can take public office, even president? That's hardly equitable treatment, especially considering that it's the rich and white that get away with it most often *coughbushcough*.

Even for other felons, denying them rights even after they've done their sentence is not justice, it's just sadism, plain and simple. For one thing, even if they did deny someone else's rights--which isn't always the case--it couldn't have gone on for as long as their prison sentence, unless it was murder. Stealing someone's mail (a felony, regardless of the contents) is hardly tantamount to denying someone their civil rights for the rest of his or her life.

And as Nazz has pointed out, further disenfranchising ex-prisoners will not make them likely to reintegrate into society--making them more likely for recidivism. I, for one, would rather ex-prisoners become a functioning part of society, not predators on the edges of it.

Then, of course, there are the issues that Nazz pointed out that you really should take into account, but don't: selective prosecution, racism in charges and sentencing, classism in the same, and so on. The system is not a level playing field, and some people get much harsher treatment than they should. Such treatment should not continue even after they've done their time.

As for your attitude of "once a criminal, always a criminal"...just..no. No. I'm not the same person I was when I was 18. When you're 18, you're technically an adult, but you're really still just a kid, as far as maturity and grasp of consequences is concerned. Saying that someone who committed a felony when he was 18 is the same person, and has no remorse or has not improved by the time he is 50, is just baseless, and small-minded. If you just like the idea of overly-punishing someone, say so, but please don't try to couch it in the language of righteousness and propriety, because there's nothing righteous or proper about it.

If a child steals a cookie from the jar before dinner, you punish him. What you don't do is punish him and deny him cookies and tv privileges for the rest of his natural life. Kid's done his time. Let him have a damn cookie.

If you want to consider how we treat ex-cons, then how unfair is it that we continue to hound pedophiles after they leave prison? Do they deserve to participate fully in society? They did serve a legally proscribed period of incarceration. They should enjoy the same freedom of movement and association as the rest of us, shouldn't they? My answer is that they should be treated exactly as any other ex-convict.
I actually talked about this earlier in the thread, I believe, and mentioned it in another. I think it's bullshit what we do with sex offenders in this country--there's a big story right now about how the state of Florida has given permission to 4 released sex offenders to live under the Julia Tuttle Causeway in Miami because there's nowhere they can live that doesn't violate their probation that they can afford, and they can't leave the state because of their probation.

There are two major problems with sex offender law in the US right now. The first is that they largely treat all sex crimes the same as far as post-incarceration is concerned. Raping a kid is not the same as showing your ass in public, and we won't even get into the whole Romeo and Juliet situations. But they all fall under the same restrictions in most cases.

And secondly, if we're going to say that the punishment for offense x is 10 years in jail, then that's what it is. Once they're done, they're done. If you want to keep pedophiles out of your neighborhood, change the sentencing laws so that the penalty is life without parole. I'd be good with that, frankly, for cases like child rape. But it does no one any good to let these people out of jail and then make it impossible for them to get on with life.

Mutual suicide is a felony? :eek:

Shit. There went that. I'd better call my girl quick!

Heh. That's what they call the 18 year old boy with the 14 year old girlfriend situation. Well, they call the 18 year old stupid too, but that's another story.

and we won't even get into the whole Romeo and Juliet situations.

Mutual suicide is a felony? :eek:

Shit. There went that. I'd better call my girl quick!

And rehab? Show me that they get rehab in prison and I'll re-consider how I view the restoration of their voting rights.

Why should they have to be rehabed? They served their time, and that should be enough. If, indeed, some categories of criminals are not capable of fully rejoining society because their behavior is suspect then we need to address that (for example, life time probation/parole/license). But if someone is judged to have paid his debt to society, then he should be free and clear to rejoin the community as a full citizen, not some type of underclass perioici.

For many felonies, such as cheque fraud, auto theft - bad though they are, I can't condone the idea that someone doesn't deserve a second chance after they have served some hard time.

That said, I'd probably be much tougher on repeat offenders than most people would like.

I agree with Nazz.

Myrmi, what about non-violent drug offenders? Exactly from whom did they take away life, liberty, or anything else? Drug offenders are felons too, and as such also lose their rights. So you think if someone smokes a doobie at some college party, then gets busted for it, he or she should never be able to vote again? Even though others with the same behavior--for instance, Bush in his cokehead days--can take public office, even president? That's hardly equitable treatment, especially considering that it's the rich and white that get away with it most often *coughbushcough*.

Even for other felons, denying them rights even after they've done their sentence is not justice, it's just sadism, plain and simple. For one thing, even if they did deny someone else's rights--which isn't always the case--it couldn't have gone on for as long as their prison sentence, unless it was murder. Stealing someone's mail (a felony, regardless of the contents) is hardly tantamount to denying someone their civil rights for the rest of his or her life.

And as Nazz has pointed out, further disenfranchising ex-prisoners will not make them likely to reintegrate into society--making them more likely for recidivism. I, for one, would rather ex-prisoners become a functioning part of society, not predators on the edges of it.

Then, of course, there are the issues that Nazz pointed out that you really should take into account, but don't: selective prosecution, racism in charges and sentencing, classism in the same, and so on. The system is not a level playing field, and some people get much harsher treatment than they should. Such treatment should not continue even after they've done their time.

As for your attitude of "once a criminal, always a criminal"...just..no. No. I'm not the same person I was when I was 18. When you're 18, you're technically an adult, but you're really still just a kid, as far as maturity and grasp of consequences is concerned. Saying that someone who committed a felony when he was 18 is the same person, and has no remorse or has not improved by the time he is 50, is just baseless, and small-minded. If you just like the idea of overly-punishing someone, say so, but please don't try to couch it in the language of righteousness and propriety, because there's nothing righteous or proper about it.

If a child steals a cookie from the jar before dinner, you punish him. What you don't do is punish him and deny him cookies and tv privileges for the rest of his natural life. Kid's done his time. Let him have a damn cookie.

Quite a hand you've got there. o_O

Quite a hand you've got there. o_O

I'm not sure what that means...but I'm gonna say thanks anyway. :)

If you're saying I'm long-winded, well...guilty, at times.

I'm not sure what that means...but I'm gonna say thanks anyway. :)

If you're saying I'm long-winded, well...guilty, at times.

Er, I tried to mean you argue well. ^_^

Oh, well, I like that much better. I'll go with that. :D

Given the autopsy you just performed on Myrm...

Er, I tried to mean you argue well. ^_^

Oh, well, I like that much better. I'll go with that. :D

Deep-fried and dipped in ketchup. :D

Bet those are words you never would have imagined you'd see me write, and yes, it is still me, The Nazz. I haven't been possessed by aliens or undergone a brain transplant or anything.

*raises eyebrow*

What did you do with the real Nazz? :confused:

j/k

*raises eyebrow*

What did you do with the real Nazz? :confused:

j/k

Frankly, with this guy as governor, I'm worried that some conservative Republican will try to primary him in 2010, some asswipe like Bill McCollum, the opposition on the Clemency Board. It's a ways off, but I see Crist, if he keeps this up, being abandoned by his own party.

Frankly, with this guy as governor, I'm worried that some conservative Republican will try to primary him in 2010, some asswipe like Bill McCollum, the opposition on the Clemency Board. It's a ways off, but I see Crist, if he keeps this up, being abandoned by his own party.

Don't worry about it. I'm sure he'll do something in the interim to piss you off.

Srsly, they all do.

Don't worry about it. I'm sure he'll do something in the interim to piss you off.

Srsly, they all do.
True true, and there's a move in the Republican controlled legislature that Crist has said he's against, but that he might not be able to stop to severely slash property taxes and replace them with a 3.5 cent sales tax. Allowing that would seriously piss me off.

True true, and there's a move in the Republican controlled legislature that Crist has said he's against, but that he might not be able to stop to severely slash property taxes and replace them with a 3.5 cent sales tax. Allowing that would seriously piss me off.

Ah, well you don't have a state income tax down there do you? Up here I'm running at about 11% in state and local income and have a 8.75% sales tax.

It's all part of becoming a 'big' state.

Though I heard that the property taxes and insurance is going to kill south Florida.

Ah, well you don't have a state income tax down there do you? Up here I'm running at about 11% in state and local income and have a 8.75% sales tax.

It's all part of becoming a 'big' state.

Though I heard that the property taxes and insurance is going to kill south Florida.
The property tax situation will solve itself as property values fall, but don't tell the property owners that--they want to believe that their $150K house is still worth 3 times that, but don't want to pay the taxes on a house worth that much. Insurance is a problem, though, because the state doesn't force national insurance companies to share risk throughout their national pool. We get national companies who just come in and insure Florida only, and our rates go nuts when there are claims. If it keeps up, you may see the country's very first single payer, universal coverage state property insurance system. And as long as they keep national companies from coming in and cherry-picking the houses they want to cover, it just might work. The state doesn't want to do it, but they might wind up with no choice.

And yes, we have no state income tax, but I'd rather see us adopt one than go the sales tax route. It's regressive, and it overwhelmingly hits the people who are already struggling down here.

The property tax situation will solve itself as property values fall, but don't tell the property owners that--they want to believe that their $150K house is still worth 3 times that, but don't want to pay the taxes on a house worth that much. Insurance is a problem, though, because the state doesn't force national insurance companies to share risk throughout their national pool. We get national companies who just come in and insure Florida only, and our rates go nuts when there are claims. If it keeps up, you may see the country's very first single payer, universal coverage state property insurance system. And as long as they keep national companies from coming in and cherry-picking the houses they want to cover, it just might work. The state doesn't want to do it, but they might wind up with no choice.

And yes, we have no state income tax, but I'd rather see us adopt one than go the sales tax route. It's regressive, and it overwhelmingly hits the people who are already struggling down here.

Now here I heard that Florida's government had put itself in the re-insurance game which was apparently going to put the insurance down for all of you.

Nah, I'm being flip. As the property values fall, the insurance cost will too. But it's always going to be more expensive to insure down there than my house simply because I have less risk.

To be honest though, south florida is becoming a metropolitan area and as such you have to pay more taxes for it because you get more services and such. It's just part of life. I mean, I hate my local taxes, but I love living in the city so what am I going to do? It's all part of living in a blue state.

Now here I heard that Florida's government had put itself in the re-insurance game which was apparently going to put the insurance down for all of you.

Nah, I'm being flip. As the property values fall, the insurance cost will too. But it's always going to be more expensive to insure down there than my house simply because I have less risk.

To be honest though, south florida is becoming a metropolitan area and as such you have to pay more taxes for it because you get more services and such. It's just part of life. I mean, I hate my local taxes, but I love living in the city so what am I going to do? It's all part of living in a blue state.

I agree. I have no problems paying a bit more to live in a city--the benefits are worth it to me. I just want to make sure that the tax burden is on those most able to pay it, and that means that I'd rather not have a higher sales tax. I would like to have a more metropolitan feel to the city--this is a very sprawly place. I'd like to have a working transit system--I'm going to give the Tri-Rail a shot this summer and see how doable it is. I have my doubts.

I agree. I have no problems paying a bit more to live in a city--the benefits are worth it to me. I just want to make sure that the tax burden is on those most able to pay it, and that means that I'd rather not have a higher sales tax. I would like to have a more metropolitan feel to the city--this is a very sprawly place. I'd like to have a working transit system--I'm going to give the Tri-Rail a shot this summer and see how doable it is. I have my doubts.

Yah, I can see that. Maybe a little income tax and more transit services would make sense for you perhaps.

I think part of the growing pain for florida right now is that is on the verge of having to become a 'blue' state in principle and probably a lot of the old timers and florida establishment can't handle it.

Not to mention that it can't go on being a retirement home with the number of people who live there.

That's funny. I hate mine. Ah well. Go figure.

(Mitch Daniels, from Indiana, in case you were wondering.)

Yah, I can see that. Maybe a little income tax and more transit services would make sense for you perhaps.

I think part of the growing pain for florida right now is that is on the verge of having to become a 'blue' state in principle and probably a lot of the old timers and florida establishment can't handle it.

Not to mention that it can't go on being a retirement home with the number of people who live there.

That's certainly part of it, and the restoration of voting rights to former felons will certainly hasten the blueness of the state in all likelihood. Part of the problem also has to do with the divide between the northern and southern parts of the state. The southern part of the state, with the notable exception of the Cuban community, is fairly liberal. The northern part of the state is a lot like Georgia and Alabama. But in the legislature, they have more seats even though they have less population.

As far as it being heaven's waiting room, that's changing already, because it is too expensive to move down here. They're apparently going to North Carolina.

Meh. He's still a politician.

Meh. He's still a politician.

Hang him.

;)

That's certainly part of it, and the restoration of voting rights to former felons will certainly hasten the blueness of the state in all likelihood. Part of the problem also has to do with the divide between the northern and southern parts of the state. The southern part of the state, with the notable exception of the Cuban community, is fairly liberal. The northern part of the state is a lot like Georgia and Alabama. But in the legislature, they have more seats even though they have less population.

As far as it being heaven's waiting room, that's changing already, because it is too expensive to move down here. They're apparently going to North Carolina.
How does that work, out of interest?

So, I get my forum account (along with my post count) completely buggered up, and then jolt fiddles with my account name?

*Scratches head*

Jon Huntsman (http://www.utah.gov/governor/education.html) is the governor of my home state. :(

Newer Burmecia;12523157']How does that work, out of interest?

Gerrymandering, so far as I can tell.

Gerrymandering, so far as I can tell.
Stinks, whatever it is. I forgot that gerrymandering is a problem in the States, which iskind of ironic for a government that lectures everybody about representative deomcracy.