Upon paying one’s debt
Wikimedia Commons
Are we, as the governor says, a people who believe in second chances? Here’s lawmakers’ chance at redemption.
Those who break Virginia’s laws continue to pay for their crimes long after their sentences are served, their fines paid, their restitution made. Only the governor can restore their right to fully rejoin their communities as citizens.
Gov. Bob McDonnell, who now holds the distinction of restoring civil rights to more former felons than any Virginia governor, understands that he alone should not hold that power.
January 11, 2013 - 6:19 AM
I beleive in restoring felons rights, but only on a case by case basis.
I agree with this editorial, though I will ask why not allowing released felons to own guns doesn’t qualify as a civil right? I’m not advocating it, to be clear, just curious as to where the RTEB draws the line. I certainly think the idea of a list of offenders that have paid their dues to society (such as a a sex offenders registry) violates those rights.
89Hoo, the rationale for the Sex Offender Registry List is that statistics show nearly 90% of sex offenders repeat their behaviors, even after conviction and incarceration, and even with counseling/therapy. Therefore, the communities in which they live have a right to know if such predators are living among them. They have violated another citizen’s most sacred right, to be secure in their physical person, and so extraordinary measures should be taken to protect those around them in the future from such violations.
As for gun ownership…if one is convicted of a violent crime in which a gun was used, they lose the right to legally posses a gun after their conviction (having violently violated the Social Contract). That is a bit of a stretch, I feel; however, the rate of violent crime committed with guns has risen to a level where some action has to be taken to indicate that we, as a society, cannot and will not condone such violence.
That may indeed have been the well intentioned “rationale” for the Sex Offender Registry, but it has morphed into a list that is easy to get onto and it is ruining lives of people who are in way shape or form “sexual predators” at all.
The bottom line with guns is that in the end, we are all on our own. Any way you slice it, more guns means more guns for the bad guys. Less gun control means less control on the bad guys. Free ranging rights for gun owners means more carnage for society. It just does. It is purely the price we are expected to pay.
Funny how even most ardent gun advocates freely recognize that a felon should lose their right to self defense but other regulations are unacceptable.
3 – e william: re the sex offender registry: if there is a 90% chance a pedophile will commit a crime again (and I have no doubt that number is true), then he shouldn’t be out of prison in the first place.
Releasing him breaks the contract the government has to protect the public, implying that he is rehabilitated or cured, or undergone enough punishment to ensure that he won’t commit the crime again. The registry is a cop-out in my mind, to absolve the authorities of their obligations.
I think pedophiles – like the dirtbag that assaulted that little girl in Roanoke – should be in jail for the rest of their lives, with NO HOPE of parole.
And by the same token, if someone is on the registry because as an eighteen year-old he was caught having sex with a sixteen-year old, it unfairly labels him for an act that, let’s be honest, hardly necessarily labels him as a sexual predator.
And I understand your point on the gun ownership, and again, am not advocating for violent felons to be allowed to own guns, but it is a grey area for me. But I could see a compelling argument to the contrary as well. Maybe it falls under the same category as the above…if we are concerned they will commit more crimes, we make their punishment more stringent.
4 – Funny how even most ardent gun advocates freely recognize that a felon should lose their right to self defense but other regulations are unacceptable.
Why does that strike you as odd? Guns don’t kill people, people do.
#5, just to clarify: not only pedophiles (or to be more specific, pederasts) bit sex offenders in general. Many labeled such have perpetrated crimes against adults.
#4, Sandi, I agree. There are many cases where a person who is an “adult” has been charged with and convicted of a “sex crime” against a person who is a “minor,” served time and placed on the Sex Offender Registry and wherein closer examination shows the “adult” was 18 and the “minor” was 17 and they were in a committed relationship, but the minor’s parent objected and filed charges. In many states the the law does not differentiate between a repeat offender, serial rapist, and someone in the above situation; the law needs to do so.
oops, “but”
It strikes me as odd that felons lose their sacred right to self defense with nary a whimper from the gun advocacy crowd, but taking a dangerous gun off the market is just wrong to the same folks.
I’m sorry, but in any realm of reality, it is just not true that the “rights to vote and serve on juries” is what keeps felons from being or becoming “fully engaged, or invested, in their communities” and if you believe that, you need to get out more.
Being a felon or on the “Sex Offender” registry, is a “for life” sentence and it strips them of so much more than the right to vote or serve on a jury (which 70% of people not felons try to get out of doing or bitterly complain about), that it is hard to consider this a credible gesture on anyone’s part. For all practical purposes of life, employment, housing, volunteering, social activities and self defense, nothing is in here to actually and literally help any felon that was not already easily available.
I am not only not going to applaud it for any more than a political stunt, I am going to call you out for helping him pull it off.
7 – thank you. Yes, sexual predators do not prey exclusively on children. And all should be in prison for the rest of their lives.
8 – well, I can’t speak for all 2nd Amendment advocates, but I do see a grey area for refusing released felons the right to own guns (as I said in two other posts above). Is that what you mean by “nary a whimper”?
I think this is a good thing. My father became a felon in the early 80s because of some half-dead pot plants. He served time in jail and has not had even a parking ticket since. But he cannot vote or find a good job over 20 years later. Once people run a background check, they see “felon”, and toss his application or resume. He was an outstanding father, provider, and a great example to me. He cannot own a gun to protect his property. I do believe they need to allow people the option of restoring certain rights. Not everyone convicted of a crime is a criminal for life.
Sandi, you must be the only liberal who finds fault with pardoning specific felons. Heck even the ACLU approves of it as do most of the state delegation on both sides of the aisle.
Don’t misunderstand what I am saying “watchdog”. I am all for “pardoning” felons. But let’s not pretend that it does anywhere near what is required to have society agree they have “paid their debt” or that it lets them be “fully engaged, or invested, in their communities”. It makes what has become perfunctory routine. “Non-violent” (which is also a very much over used term that is not what it appears) felons such as the ones McD is capitalizing on, have not had to “fight” overly hard to be restored to voting rights and jury duty since Governor Warner. Of course, maybe he too is worried that Cuccinelli will become the next governor.
Kim raises an excellent question, does this remove that “felon” label from background checks or in any way flag that person as having those two rights restored? I doubt it does.
The restoration of civil rights by the governor returns the right to serve on a jury, run for office, vote or become a notary.
It does not grant a pardon or expunge a criminal record. One remains a convicted felon with a record of such offense.