CDZ My gun control plan that will stop 95-99% of gun crime and murder in the U.S.

[Slade3200]

Who do you consider a “criminal”?

For the sake of this thread, anyone who uses a gun to commit a violent felony.....or a previously convicted felon who is caught in possession of an illegal gun.

Again, a nurse with a legal gun going from one state to another is not a gun criminal, and someone who forgets to renew a CCW isn't a criminal either.......

Per your plan the criminals would be in jail for life, right? So nobody living amongst the public would be eligible for “criminal” status to be banned from buying a gun under your rules. Is that correct?

Criminals who use a gun... per the thread. Felons would be banned...those who committed crimes that rose to the level of felonies.....and if my law were in effect, they would be using knives and bats.....and attacking in groups.... that wouldn't get the gun for life sentence.....

And if you haven't committed a crime now, why would you be banned from owning a gun?

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

DUI isn't necessarily a felony

Well when it is bucko. You get my point

 

[Slade3200]

Who do you consider a “criminal”?

For the sake of this thread, anyone who uses a gun to commit a violent felony.....or a previously convicted felon who is caught in possession of an illegal gun.

Again, a nurse with a legal gun going from one state to another is not a gun criminal, and someone who forgets to renew a CCW isn't a criminal either.......

Per your plan the criminals would be in jail for life, right? So nobody living amongst the public would be eligible for “criminal” status to be banned from buying a gun under your rules. Is that correct?

Criminals who use a gun... per the thread. Felons would be banned...those who committed crimes that rose to the level of felonies.....and if my law were in effect, they would be using knives and bats.....and attacking in groups.... that wouldn't get the gun for life sentence.....

And if you haven't committed a crime now, why would you be banned from owning a gun?

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

 

[2aguy]

For the sake of this thread, anyone who uses a gun to commit a violent felony.....or a previously convicted felon who is caught in possession of an illegal gun.

Again, a nurse with a legal gun going from one state to another is not a gun criminal, and someone who forgets to renew a CCW isn't a criminal either.......

Per your plan the criminals would be in jail for life, right? So nobody living amongst the public would be eligible for “criminal” status to be banned from buying a gun under your rules. Is that correct?

Criminals who use a gun... per the thread. Felons would be banned...those who committed crimes that rose to the level of felonies.....and if my law were in effect, they would be using knives and bats.....and attacking in groups.... that wouldn't get the gun for life sentence.....

And if you haven't committed a crime now, why would you be banned from owning a gun?

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

 

[Slade3200]

Per your plan the criminals would be in jail for life, right? So nobody living amongst the public would be eligible for “criminal” status to be banned from buying a gun under your rules. Is that correct?

Criminals who use a gun... per the thread. Felons would be banned...those who committed crimes that rose to the level of felonies.....and if my law were in effect, they would be using knives and bats.....and attacking in groups.... that wouldn't get the gun for life sentence.....

And if you haven't committed a crime now, why would you be banned from owning a gun?

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Oh ok got it. Gun crime is life and violent non gun crime 30 years. Sorry, that makes sense

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Criminals who use a gun... per the thread. Felons would be banned...those who committed crimes that rose to the level of felonies.....and if my law were in effect, they would be using knives and bats.....and attacking in groups.... that wouldn't get the gun for life sentence.....

And if you haven't committed a crime now, why would you be banned from owning a gun?

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Oh ok got it. Gun crime is life and violent non gun crime 30 years. Sorry, that makes sense

My plan on page 3 would work a lot better

 

[2aguy]

Criminals who use a gun... per the thread. Felons would be banned...those who committed crimes that rose to the level of felonies.....and if my law were in effect, they would be using knives and bats.....and attacking in groups.... that wouldn't get the gun for life sentence.....

And if you haven't committed a crime now, why would you be banned from owning a gun?

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Oh ok got it. Gun crime is life and violent non gun crime 30 years. Sorry, that makes sense

Not quite...again, my focus is on gun crime.....if you commit a rape, robbery or murder with a knife, you get whatever the low, standard sentence is.....likely a year or two depending on the democrat judge you get on your case......

The thing that gives you 30 years under my plan is being a prohibited person, a felon, who cannot currently buy, own or carry a gun....which is already a crime and you can be jailed for it, and simply increasing the sentence to 30 years.....

You guys can haggle over the sentences for non gun crime.....I'm all for long sentences for violent crime...

 

[2aguy]

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Oh ok got it. Gun crime is life and violent non gun crime 30 years. Sorry, that makes sense

My plan on page 3 would work a lot better

I would have to disagree......if you don't commit a murder or attempted murder, I don't believe in the death penalty...... murder or attempted murder....? Sure, the death penalty, but just felony crimes without attempted or actual murder.....no death penalty.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Oh ok got it. Gun crime is life and violent non gun crime 30 years. Sorry, that makes sense

My plan on page 3 would work a lot better

I would have to disagree......if you don't commit a murder or attempted murder, I don't believe in the death penalty...... murder or attempted murder....? Sure, the death penalty, but just felony crimes without attempted or actual murder.....no death penalty.

My plan gives a person a second chance. If the government allows you out of prison and said you paid your debt you get all your rights back. But you commit a second felony you get death with no appeal. No repeat offenders and and fewer people in prison

 

[Slade3200]

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Oh ok got it. Gun crime is life and violent non gun crime 30 years. Sorry, that makes sense

Not quite...again, my focus is on gun crime.....if you commit a rape, robbery or murder with a knife, you get whatever the low, standard sentence is.....likely a year or two depending on the democrat judge you get on your case......

The thing that gives you 30 years under my plan is being a prohibited person, a felon, who cannot currently buy, own or carry a gun....which is already a crime and you can be jailed for it, and simply increasing the sentence to 30 years.....

You guys can haggle over the sentences for non gun crime.....I'm all for long sentences for violent crime...

Right got it. Your plan makes sense.

I personally would worry about what the increase in life sentences would do to our prison culture which is already horrible. Might as well execute them. I also personally believe in retribution. An 18 year old kid who got wrapped up with a group who robbed a store with a gun, I don’t think should spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

[2aguy]

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Oh ok got it. Gun crime is life and violent non gun crime 30 years. Sorry, that makes sense

Not quite...again, my focus is on gun crime.....if you commit a rape, robbery or murder with a knife, you get whatever the low, standard sentence is.....likely a year or two depending on the democrat judge you get on your case......

The thing that gives you 30 years under my plan is being a prohibited person, a felon, who cannot currently buy, own or carry a gun....which is already a crime and you can be jailed for it, and simply increasing the sentence to 30 years.....

You guys can haggle over the sentences for non gun crime.....I'm all for long sentences for violent crime...

Right got it. Your plan makes sense.

I personally would worry about what the increase in life sentences would do to our prison culture which is already horrible. I also personally believe in retribution. An 18 year old kid who got wrapped up with a group who robbed a store with a gun, I don’t think should spend the rest of his life in prison.

We can tinker with it......but sadly, that 18 year old will likely go on to actually kill another innocent human...and with my notification plan, listed in the first thread...word would get around the criminal community pretty quickly.....

Don't forget this.....

Man, released from prison after being deemed too old to be a threat, convicted in another killing

A man who served decades in prison for stabbing his wife 14 times in front of her daughter was convicted Wednesday in a nearly identical crime — stabbing a woman at least 11 times while her twin children watched.

Albert Flick, 77, whom a judge previously deemed too old to be a threat, was convicted in the 2018 death of Kimberly Dobbie. Jurors deliberated less than an hour before reaching the guilty verdict.

Both the attack, which was in front of a laundromat in broad daylight, and Flick's purchase two days earlier of two knives, were caught on surveillance video.

Prosecutors say Flick was infatuated with Dobbie, 48, and followed her around and dined at the homeless shelter where she was staying. They knew one another, witnesses said, but were not in a relationship.

---

Flick has a long history of violence against women. In 1979, he was sentenced to prison and served 25 years for stabbing his then-wife. more than a dozen times in front of her daughter.
----

In 2010, he was sentenced again for assaulting another woman. The judge at the time ignored the recommendation of the prosecutor for a longer sentence, saying Flick would not be a threat because of his age and it didn't make sense to keep him incarcerated. He was released and moved to Lewiston in 2014.

 

[Slade3200]

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Oh ok got it. Gun crime is life and violent non gun crime 30 years. Sorry, that makes sense

Not quite...again, my focus is on gun crime.....if you commit a rape, robbery or murder with a knife, you get whatever the low, standard sentence is.....likely a year or two depending on the democrat judge you get on your case......

The thing that gives you 30 years under my plan is being a prohibited person, a felon, who cannot currently buy, own or carry a gun....which is already a crime and you can be jailed for it, and simply increasing the sentence to 30 years.....

You guys can haggle over the sentences for non gun crime.....I'm all for long sentences for violent crime...

Right got it. Your plan makes sense.

I personally would worry about what the increase in life sentences would do to our prison culture which is already horrible. I also personally believe in retribution. An 18 year old kid who got wrapped up with a group who robbed a store with a gun, I don’t think should spend the rest of his life in prison.

We can tinker with it......but sadly, that 18 year old will likely go on to actually kill another innocent human...and with my notification plan, listed in the first thread...word would get around the criminal community pretty quickly.....

Don't forget this.....

Man, released from prison after being deemed too old to be a threat, convicted in another killing

A man who served decades in prison for stabbing his wife 14 times in front of her daughter was convicted Wednesday in a nearly identical crime — stabbing a woman at least 11 times while her twin children watched.

Albert Flick, 77, whom a judge previously deemed too old to be a threat, was convicted in the 2018 death of Kimberly Dobbie. Jurors deliberated less than an hour before reaching the guilty verdict.

Both the attack, which was in front of a laundromat in broad daylight, and Flick's purchase two days earlier of two knives, were caught on surveillance video.

Prosecutors say Flick was infatuated with Dobbie, 48, and followed her around and dined at the homeless shelter where she was staying. They knew one another, witnesses said, but were not in a relationship.

---

Flick has a long history of violence against women. In 1979, he was sentenced to prison and served 25 years for stabbing his then-wife. more than a dozen times in front of her daughter.
----

In 2010, he was sentenced again for assaulting another woman. The judge at the time ignored the recommendation of the prosecutor for a longer sentence, saying Flick would not be a threat because of his age and it didn't make sense to keep him incarcerated. He was released and moved to Lewiston in 2014.

I agree that the criminal justice system needs dramatic improvements. Many criminals get sucked right back into the violent environment that got them locked up in the first place after they get out. The question is do you think our prisons are meant to keep criminals off the streets or institutions for rehabilitation? If we want to work on the recidivism rate then rehab, training, opportunity and most importantly making sure they are released into a healthy environment with opportunity is key. But we need the political will to make these changes if we want them to happen.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Per your plan the criminals would be in jail for life, right? So nobody living amongst the public would be eligible for “criminal” status to be banned from buying a gun under your rules. Is that correct?

Criminals who use a gun... per the thread. Felons would be banned...those who committed crimes that rose to the level of felonies.....and if my law were in effect, they would be using knives and bats.....and attacking in groups.... that wouldn't get the gun for life sentence.....

And if you haven't committed a crime now, why would you be banned from owning a gun?

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Here is what is wrong with your presupposition:

Unalienable Rights cannot be taken away, bought, sold, traded, etc. Once a person is released from prison, we're saying they have paid their debt to society.

It is better to begin with prevention and, if a person goes to prison, they are then rehabilitated or kept behind bars. Once you turn them loose back into society without rehabilitation, with or without a gun, they are dangerous.

 

[Slade3200]

Criminals who use a gun... per the thread. Felons would be banned...those who committed crimes that rose to the level of felonies.....and if my law were in effect, they would be using knives and bats.....and attacking in groups.... that wouldn't get the gun for life sentence.....

And if you haven't committed a crime now, why would you be banned from owning a gun?

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Here is what is wrong with your presupposition:

Unalienable Rights cannot be taken away, bought, sold, traded, etc. Once a person is released from prison, we're saying they have paid their debt to society.

It is better to begin with prevention and, if a person goes to prison, they are then rehabilitated or kept behind bars. Once you turn them loose back into society without rehabilitation, with or without a gun, they are dangerous.

People get released from prison and are on parol/probation to make sure they are not a risk to society. This parol involves limits on their rights and freedoms. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So let’s say a college kid gets a DWI. That’s a felony, right? Would that kid never be allowed to own a gun? And if they were found with a gun they would go away for life?

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Here is what is wrong with your presupposition:

Unalienable Rights cannot be taken away, bought, sold, traded, etc. Once a person is released from prison, we're saying they have paid their debt to society.

It is better to begin with prevention and, if a person goes to prison, they are then rehabilitated or kept behind bars. Once you turn them loose back into society without rehabilitation, with or without a gun, they are dangerous.

People get released from prison and are on parol/probation to make sure they are not a risk to society. This parol involves limits on their rights and freedoms. Nothing wrong with that.

After that person has repaid their debt to society they should return to being a normal citizen. I have a prison reform bill that covers all of that. In the alternative, however, people on parole or probation could carry special ID until they have completed their sentences.

But, yeah, I see the criticisms coming. That is why I wrote a complete prison reform bill.

 

[Slade3200]

As far as I know, he can right now. I would reserve the life sentence for violent criminals caught with guns....I am not looking to punish normal people who are not a danger to society. So if a DWI doesn't prevent you from owning a gun now, it wouldn't under my idea. And as far as I am concerned, if you have a non-violent felony, you shouldn't lose your gun rights at all.......and I am also fine with someone convicted of a felony eventually getting all of their Rights restored.....

But if someone commits a rape, robbery or murder with a gun.... then life. If they are a violent felon, convicted of any of the above and are caught with an illegal gun.....30 years.

This would dry up gun crime.

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Here is what is wrong with your presupposition:

Unalienable Rights cannot be taken away, bought, sold, traded, etc. Once a person is released from prison, we're saying they have paid their debt to society.

It is better to begin with prevention and, if a person goes to prison, they are then rehabilitated or kept behind bars. Once you turn them loose back into society without rehabilitation, with or without a gun, they are dangerous.

People get released from prison and are on parol/probation to make sure they are not a risk to society. This parol involves limits on their rights and freedoms. Nothing wrong with that.

After that person has repaid their debt to society they should return to being a normal citizen. I have a prison reform bill that covers all of that. In the alternative, however, people on parole or probation could carry special ID until they have completed their sentences.

But, yeah, I see the criticisms coming. That is why I wrote a complete prison reform bill.

How do you address recidivism? And reentry back into society?

 

[2aguy]

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Oh ok got it. Gun crime is life and violent non gun crime 30 years. Sorry, that makes sense

Not quite...again, my focus is on gun crime.....if you commit a rape, robbery or murder with a knife, you get whatever the low, standard sentence is.....likely a year or two depending on the democrat judge you get on your case......

The thing that gives you 30 years under my plan is being a prohibited person, a felon, who cannot currently buy, own or carry a gun....which is already a crime and you can be jailed for it, and simply increasing the sentence to 30 years.....

You guys can haggle over the sentences for non gun crime.....I'm all for long sentences for violent crime...

Right got it. Your plan makes sense.

I personally would worry about what the increase in life sentences would do to our prison culture which is already horrible. I also personally believe in retribution. An 18 year old kid who got wrapped up with a group who robbed a store with a gun, I don’t think should spend the rest of his life in prison.

We can tinker with it......but sadly, that 18 year old will likely go on to actually kill another innocent human...and with my notification plan, listed in the first thread...word would get around the criminal community pretty quickly.....

Don't forget this.....

Man, released from prison after being deemed too old to be a threat, convicted in another killing

A man who served decades in prison for stabbing his wife 14 times in front of her daughter was convicted Wednesday in a nearly identical crime — stabbing a woman at least 11 times while her twin children watched.

Albert Flick, 77, whom a judge previously deemed too old to be a threat, was convicted in the 2018 death of Kimberly Dobbie. Jurors deliberated less than an hour before reaching the guilty verdict.

Both the attack, which was in front of a laundromat in broad daylight, and Flick's purchase two days earlier of two knives, were caught on surveillance video.

Prosecutors say Flick was infatuated with Dobbie, 48, and followed her around and dined at the homeless shelter where she was staying. They knew one another, witnesses said, but were not in a relationship.

---

Flick has a long history of violence against women. In 1979, he was sentenced to prison and served 25 years for stabbing his then-wife. more than a dozen times in front of her daughter.
----

In 2010, he was sentenced again for assaulting another woman. The judge at the time ignored the recommendation of the prosecutor for a longer sentence, saying Flick would not be a threat because of his age and it didn't make sense to keep him incarcerated. He was released and moved to Lewiston in 2014.

I agree that the criminal justice system needs dramatic improvements. Many criminals get sucked right back into the violent environment that got them locked up in the first place after they get out. The question is do you think our prisons are meant to keep criminals off the streets or institutions for rehabilitation? If we want to work on the recidivism rate then rehab, training, opportunity and most importantly making sure they are released into a healthy environment with opportunity is key. But we need the political will to make these changes if we want them to happen.

I'm good with keeping violent offenders locked up...... as for non-violent offenders, sure, let's try to help them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

But you see where your plan catches right? If your giving life to those that commit violent crimes with guns then they are in jail for life. There would be no situation where a felon could earn their gun rights back or get the 30 year sentence because they would all be in jail and not on the streets ineligible from having a gun. Right?

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Here is what is wrong with your presupposition:

Unalienable Rights cannot be taken away, bought, sold, traded, etc. Once a person is released from prison, we're saying they have paid their debt to society.

It is better to begin with prevention and, if a person goes to prison, they are then rehabilitated or kept behind bars. Once you turn them loose back into society without rehabilitation, with or without a gun, they are dangerous.

People get released from prison and are on parol/probation to make sure they are not a risk to society. This parol involves limits on their rights and freedoms. Nothing wrong with that.

After that person has repaid their debt to society they should return to being a normal citizen. I have a prison reform bill that covers all of that. In the alternative, however, people on parole or probation could carry special ID until they have completed their sentences.

But, yeah, I see the criticisms coming. That is why I wrote a complete prison reform bill.

How do you address recidivism? And reentry back into society?

Thank you for the most well thought question I've ever been asked on USM.

In my home state, they claim the recidivism rate is 30 percent. I don't know how they arrive at their figures. Some people are revolving door, high miles fliers as they are known. The problem for most is that once they're let out, they have a criminal record, still no skills, no support system... What do you think is going to happen to them?

So, my proposal is that when a judge sentences a person to a stint in prison they have two options:

1) Do the entire stint in less than ideal conditions OR

2) Accept a program of rehabilitation.

Let us suppose that an individual gets a 10 year sentence. In Georgia, due to overcrowding and too damn many laws, some people can do as little as 6 weeks and that's it. If I were in charge, an inmate would walk in the door and do the entire 10 years OR do the following:

A) Get a GED. That would knock of 20 percent of the sentence

B) Undergo drug rehabilitation (if applicable.) That would knock off 15 percent of their sentence once successfully completed

C) Learn some transferable job skills. This could be worth 10 to 20 percent of their sentence time (depending on the skill set's difficulty and worth in the job market)

D) Take a series of seminars on how to apply for a job, balance a checkbook, handle family arguments, and apply for / use credit along with seminars in housekeeping, budgeting their time, financial planning, and understanding insurance. Of course each seminar would come with testing

Ideally the inmate could reduce their sentence by a maximum of 75 percent.

AFTER that individual is let out, the state should rent warehouses and run buses. Businesses could get incentives to give these transitional inmates a job and buses would take them to and from work areas. AFTER the inmate secures a job and puts in a 90 day probationary period, they should have saved enough money to get some kind of housing. If they're proven they have the education and skill sets to do the job; that they budgeted their money and have secured housing; that they can show a financial plan, then you release them.

If an inmate wants to take the hard route, they do the entire stretch. While in prison, you take away their coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cake, ice cream and cookies. They will not be allowed a tv, radio, computer, and very limited recreational time. Anyone caught doing an illegal act would get an automatic 10 percent added onto their sentence.

For those who take the rehabilitation program, they are allowed to drop out one time and / or get caught doing something illegal, then after that, it is back to the full term pods.

These are but mere highlights, but you get the drift.

 

[Slade3200]

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Here is what is wrong with your presupposition:

Unalienable Rights cannot be taken away, bought, sold, traded, etc. Once a person is released from prison, we're saying they have paid their debt to society.

It is better to begin with prevention and, if a person goes to prison, they are then rehabilitated or kept behind bars. Once you turn them loose back into society without rehabilitation, with or without a gun, they are dangerous.

People get released from prison and are on parol/probation to make sure they are not a risk to society. This parol involves limits on their rights and freedoms. Nothing wrong with that.

After that person has repaid their debt to society they should return to being a normal citizen. I have a prison reform bill that covers all of that. In the alternative, however, people on parole or probation could carry special ID until they have completed their sentences.

But, yeah, I see the criticisms coming. That is why I wrote a complete prison reform bill.

How do you address recidivism? And reentry back into society?

Thank you for the most well thought question I've ever been asked on USM.

In my home state, they claim the recidivism rate is 30 percent. I don't know how they arrive at their figures. Some people are revolving door, high miles fliers as they are known. The problem for most is that once they're let out, they have a criminal record, still no skills, no support system... What do you think is going to happen to them?

So, my proposal is that when a judge sentences a person to a stint in prison they have two options:

1) Do the entire stint in less than ideal conditions OR

2) Accept a program of rehabilitation.

Let us suppose that an individual gets a 10 year sentence. In Georgia, due to overcrowding and too damn many laws, some people can do as little as 6 weeks and that's it. If I were in charge, an inmate would walk in the door and do the entire 10 years OR do the following:

A) Get a GED. That would knock of 20 percent of the sentence

B) Undergo drug rehabilitation (if applicable.) That would knock off 15 percent of their sentence once successfully completed

C) Learn some transferable job skills. This could be worth 10 to 20 percent of their sentence time (depending on the skill set's difficulty and worth in the job market)

D) Take a series of seminars on how to apply for a job, balance a checkbook, handle family arguments, and apply for / use credit along with seminars in housekeeping, budgeting their time, financial planning, and understanding insurance. Of course each seminar would come with testing

Ideally the inmate could reduce their sentence by a maximum of 75 percent.

AFTER that individual is let out, the state should rent warehouses and run buses. Businesses could get incentives to give these transitional inmates a job and buses would take them to and from work areas. AFTER the inmate secures a job and puts in a 90 day probationary period, they should have saved enough money to get some kind of housing. If they're proven they have the education and skill sets to do the job; that they budgeted their money and have secured housing; that they can show a financial plan, then you release them.

If an inmate wants to take the hard route, they do the entire stretch. While in prison, you take away their coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cake, ice cream and cookies. They will not be allowed a tv, radio, computer, and very limited recreational time. Anyone caught doing an illegal act would get an automatic 10 percent added onto their sentence.

For those who take the rehabilitation program, they are allowed to drop out one time and / or get caught doing something illegal, then after that, it is back to the full term pods.

These are but mere highlights, but you get the drift.

I like everything you’ve laid out. It’s the fact that so many are let out with nothing, can’t get work, and often have nowhere else to go except back into the same environment that got them arrested in the first place. That’s why a stable job, transitional housing, and opportunity to positively engage with the community is crucial. My cousin is a captain at a maximum security prison and she started a dog program where inmates would train dogs that had behavioral issues and the program has had extraordinary success both for the dogs and for the inmates. There are many out of the box things that we can do to improve the criminal justice situation. Thanks for sharing some of your ideas.

 

[Blues Man]

Not quite true.....a felon who used a knife to commit an armed robbery wouldn't get the "Life Sentence for Gun Crime,".....he would get the standard 1-2 years, and come out a felon..... then, if he was caught with an illegal gun, he would go away for 30 years....

A felon who beat a senior citizen in a strong arm robbery would be a felon, but would not go away for 30 years, would come out after a year or 2, depending on the democrat judge, and be a felon....if they bought, owned or carried a gun and got caught....30 years...or, if they rehabilitated themselves and a law was passed, they could get all of their Rights back....

If they were an embezzler....who was a felon... it the a law was passed giving them back their Rights....to vote, or own a gun, they could own a gun.

Here is what is wrong with your presupposition:

Unalienable Rights cannot be taken away, bought, sold, traded, etc. Once a person is released from prison, we're saying they have paid their debt to society.

It is better to begin with prevention and, if a person goes to prison, they are then rehabilitated or kept behind bars. Once you turn them loose back into society without rehabilitation, with or without a gun, they are dangerous.

People get released from prison and are on parol/probation to make sure they are not a risk to society. This parol involves limits on their rights and freedoms. Nothing wrong with that.

After that person has repaid their debt to society they should return to being a normal citizen. I have a prison reform bill that covers all of that. In the alternative, however, people on parole or probation could carry special ID until they have completed their sentences.

But, yeah, I see the criticisms coming. That is why I wrote a complete prison reform bill.

How do you address recidivism? And reentry back into society?

Thank you for the most well thought question I've ever been asked on USM.

In my home state, they claim the recidivism rate is 30 percent. I don't know how they arrive at their figures. Some people are revolving door, high miles fliers as they are known. The problem for most is that once they're let out, they have a criminal record, still no skills, no support system... What do you think is going to happen to them?

So, my proposal is that when a judge sentences a person to a stint in prison they have two options:

1) Do the entire stint in less than ideal conditions OR

2) Accept a program of rehabilitation.

Let us suppose that an individual gets a 10 year sentence. In Georgia, due to overcrowding and too damn many laws, some people can do as little as 6 weeks and that's it. If I were in charge, an inmate would walk in the door and do the entire 10 years OR do the following:

A) Get a GED. That would knock of 20 percent of the sentence

B) Undergo drug rehabilitation (if applicable.) That would knock off 15 percent of their sentence once successfully completed

C) Learn some transferable job skills. This could be worth 10 to 20 percent of their sentence time (depending on the skill set's difficulty and worth in the job market)

D) Take a series of seminars on how to apply for a job, balance a checkbook, handle family arguments, and apply for / use credit along with seminars in housekeeping, budgeting their time, financial planning, and understanding insurance. Of course each seminar would come with testing

Ideally the inmate could reduce their sentence by a maximum of 75 percent.

AFTER that individual is let out, the state should rent warehouses and run buses. Businesses could get incentives to give these transitional inmates a job and buses would take them to and from work areas. AFTER the inmate secures a job and puts in a 90 day probationary period, they should have saved enough money to get some kind of housing. If they're proven they have the education and skill sets to do the job; that they budgeted their money and have secured housing; that they can show a financial plan, then you release them.

If an inmate wants to take the hard route, they do the entire stretch. While in prison, you take away their coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cake, ice cream and cookies. They will not be allowed a tv, radio, computer, and very limited recreational time. Anyone caught doing an illegal act would get an automatic 10 percent added onto their sentence.

For those who take the rehabilitation program, they are allowed to drop out one time and / or get caught doing something illegal, then after that, it is back to the full term pods.

These are but mere highlights, but you get the drift.

I would never hire anyone with a criminal record

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Here is what is wrong with your presupposition:

Unalienable Rights cannot be taken away, bought, sold, traded, etc. Once a person is released from prison, we're saying they have paid their debt to society.

It is better to begin with prevention and, if a person goes to prison, they are then rehabilitated or kept behind bars. Once you turn them loose back into society without rehabilitation, with or without a gun, they are dangerous.

People get released from prison and are on parol/probation to make sure they are not a risk to society. This parol involves limits on their rights and freedoms. Nothing wrong with that.

After that person has repaid their debt to society they should return to being a normal citizen. I have a prison reform bill that covers all of that. In the alternative, however, people on parole or probation could carry special ID until they have completed their sentences.

But, yeah, I see the criticisms coming. That is why I wrote a complete prison reform bill.

How do you address recidivism? And reentry back into society?

Thank you for the most well thought question I've ever been asked on USM.

In my home state, they claim the recidivism rate is 30 percent. I don't know how they arrive at their figures. Some people are revolving door, high miles fliers as they are known. The problem for most is that once they're let out, they have a criminal record, still no skills, no support system... What do you think is going to happen to them?

So, my proposal is that when a judge sentences a person to a stint in prison they have two options:

1) Do the entire stint in less than ideal conditions OR

2) Accept a program of rehabilitation.

Let us suppose that an individual gets a 10 year sentence. In Georgia, due to overcrowding and too damn many laws, some people can do as little as 6 weeks and that's it. If I were in charge, an inmate would walk in the door and do the entire 10 years OR do the following:

A) Get a GED. That would knock of 20 percent of the sentence

B) Undergo drug rehabilitation (if applicable.) That would knock off 15 percent of their sentence once successfully completed

C) Learn some transferable job skills. This could be worth 10 to 20 percent of their sentence time (depending on the skill set's difficulty and worth in the job market)

D) Take a series of seminars on how to apply for a job, balance a checkbook, handle family arguments, and apply for / use credit along with seminars in housekeeping, budgeting their time, financial planning, and understanding insurance. Of course each seminar would come with testing

Ideally the inmate could reduce their sentence by a maximum of 75 percent.

AFTER that individual is let out, the state should rent warehouses and run buses. Businesses could get incentives to give these transitional inmates a job and buses would take them to and from work areas. AFTER the inmate secures a job and puts in a 90 day probationary period, they should have saved enough money to get some kind of housing. If they're proven they have the education and skill sets to do the job; that they budgeted their money and have secured housing; that they can show a financial plan, then you release them.

If an inmate wants to take the hard route, they do the entire stretch. While in prison, you take away their coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cake, ice cream and cookies. They will not be allowed a tv, radio, computer, and very limited recreational time. Anyone caught doing an illegal act would get an automatic 10 percent added onto their sentence.

For those who take the rehabilitation program, they are allowed to drop out one time and / or get caught doing something illegal, then after that, it is back to the full term pods.

These are but mere highlights, but you get the drift.

I would never hire anyone with a criminal record

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Lots of people won't hire someone with a criminal record. So the recidivism rate stays high and, because of people like you, we have career criminals. Once they've been let out, they have to do SOMETHING. The drug trade pays the bills. So, maybe if a child becomes a doper, think about it. We may have saved the child by giving the guy with a criminal record a second chance... especially if he fulfilled the rehabilitation program I described.