Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (684054)	11/9/2012 11:42:54 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1583492

You have stood tall against this crooked administration to this point I-node, but to me you make no sense at all on this argument. It EXACTLY justifies the position if society deems it so. Want to legalize the private use of pot, fine, I have no problem with that, even though it is a gateway drug. Well, not to get off into the drug argument but it is a gateway drug only because it is illegal which is the reason I support legalization. The ONLY reason. But that's beside the point. BUT, if one commits a crime that IS a felony, I don't care what it is, there should be dire consequences even if his/her "debt" is paid. If you daughter is dead in the grave, does any decent human being believe that the drug dealer back on the street has "paid his debt" to society. I ain't buying it. You're taking the most extreme cases. There are tons of lesser felonies -- for example, "copyright infringement". There is no compelling reason that a person guilty of this crime should permanently give up his or her right to vote. Perjury, same thing. This is not being soft on crime; no one would suggest I'm that. It is just a matter of what is or is not a right, and whether we should make it impractical to change laws that shouldn't be on the books. The drug crimes are a convenient example, since the idiocy of them is so obvious. But if you look at Prohibition -- one of the worst criminal laws ever put on the books in this country -- it would NEVER have been changed without people breaking the laws. I cannot see any reason that persons who broke the Prohibition law should have lost their voting rights. In the same way, I may be one of the few people that believe that if you are ,by state standards, legally drunk and cause an accident involving a fatality, one should be charged with first degree murder. Choices my friend....choices. My brother was brutally murdered by a drunk driver. It wasn't mere "drunk driving" -- the may got out of the truck, realized he had run over my brother, then proceeded to back over him in the truck. Yes, he should have been convicted of murder and put away for good. He served 3 years, the same amount of time someone might have gotten for possession of some drug in my state. It is absurd. But the voting rights are another issue. If you want to take away voting rights of violent criminals, fine -- lock them up for good. But there are tons of felonies that don't justify it.