OhioPaints wrote:I agree. A juvenile mistake should not take away fundamental rights for a lifetime.
Should a 60 year old woman not be able to defend herself and her grandkids because of a mistake she made 45 years ago?
Do we take away a felon's freedom of religion or freedom of speech after they have served their sentence?
Of course, during their sentence, they do lose most rights, as is reasonable and proper. And that is the situation here, she was was on probation and serving a suspended sentence. If you don't like the terms of a suspended sentence, stay in jail and serve your time.
Ken
Ken, respectfully, could she be serving a suspended sentence, free in society, and have her 4th Amendment Right to illegal Search and Seizure suspended during that time? Perhaps her 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination? Shall her church be dictated to her? Shall she be required to quarter troops?
Understanding how much of a broken record I am on this matter...The BOR and other Rights are unalienable, they cannot be removed from a person and have that person be a human. If a person is actively incarcerated, we all agree that the punishment should fit the crime and that one of the proper functions of government is to punish injustice in such a way to deter future lawlessness.
9.
Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.
It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.
The silly way that the MJ case was prosecuted and the silly connection to this silly notion of "prohibited person"-hood makes this case very silly indeed.
If a person is properly incarcerated, of course their Liberties are restricted. However, this concept that they're free in society, but cannot own certain property, much less use that property to defend their own lives, is abhorrent.
Justice isn't a lukewarm, one foot in and one foot out, fence-riding concept. A person is free, or is incarcerated. Of course my negative rights are bounded by the negative rights of others, as is proper.
The injustices perpetrated against Noble continue, unabated.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798