I talk with AWA a lot about some pretty esoteric topics. Lately, talk has surrounded some of the 2A cases he’s been following, Rahimi in particular. It has really gotten me to thinking.
I believe originally (and this is opinion, as I really don’t know and I haven’t looked it up) jails were meant to be a place to stick someone when they did a bad thing. It was a punishment, a grown up version of time out. The greater the bad thing, the longer the jail time. Somewhere along the line, the goal became to rehabilitate prisoners into better people who wouldn’t be going out and committing more crimes. In general, I tend to agree with that idea, though I’m not certain it should be done while a prisoner is actually IN jail. But regardless, there are always going to be those people who simply cannot be rehabilitated. They will always pose an ongoing threat to free people. The Mansons of the world, as it were, should never be allowed out.
When it comes to the scary “big” criminals like Dahmer, Manson, Berkowitz, etc… it’s easy to look and say, “Yep, lock ’em up and throw away the key.” It’s also very easy to prove that they will never be able to safely walk among other human beings. Rahimi isn’t a Dahmer, though. He’s an average dirtbag. There’s no question he’s guilty of the crimes he committed. He’s trash. But the crimes he’s committed will likely land him somewhere between 2 and 20 years. Reading about the cases he’s accused of, it’s looking more like the lower number than the higher one. Regardless, it means he’ll be out on the street while still relatively young and vital. Yet, looking at his record, what assurance do We the People have that Mr. Rahimi won’t go out and shoot up another Whatsaburger, or cave in the head of his next girlfriend?
Should we be trying to rehabilitate people in jail? I think that largely depends on why they’re there. Someone in for a non-violent crime, or a so-called victimless crime, sure. The chance of recidivism is low, and the danger to the community is negligible. What about Rahimi, and his ilk, though? Someone who’s already been sentenced for violent crimes, who has a history of drug use and violence, is much more likely to commit similar crimes in the future. In many cases, criminals like Rahimi actually learn things about their chosen criminal profession while in custody, and take those skills out into the world when released. Jails and prisons seem to be making better criminals, not better people.
All of this leads me to the question: What do we do when we’re sure that someone’s going to continue violence if they’re released, but their jail term is over? It’s all well and good to say that we should give people back their gun rights when they are out of prison and have served out their entire time (something I do believe in), but there are some people who are just exceptions to that rule. What do we do with people who are too violent to allow to be free again, knowing that “free” means the right to keep and bear arms?
I find myself wondering, if someone is too violent to allow to have a firearm, then why the hell are we letting them out of prison in the first place? A rapist doesn’t need a firearm, right? Maybe the offender obeys the no-firearm rule (if there is one) and instead switches to a knife, or a box cutter, or even a pointed finger in a jacket. It doesn’t change their basic premise, though, which is to do violence.
How do we, as a free society, as a thinking and GOOD society deal with the people who simply aren’t safe to let go? How do we determine who’s actually safe to let back into society (with all the rights and privileges that come with free citizenship)? What do we do with the ones who fail the test? Removing their right to bear arms (of any kind) doesn’t make them less dangerous, and telling a criminal that it’s unlawful for him to do something generally doesn’t stop them anyhow. Criminals are… well, not truthful. You know, by nature.
We could create a tiered criminal justice system, I suppose. When someone convicted of a violent crime completes their jail sentence, they could then be moved to a half way house, where they would have to spend a proportional amount of time to their sentence, learning about the world they’ve been apart from, and where educated and trusted individuals could watch them and see whether recidivism is likely. If they’re on the right path, start allowing the occasional day pass, then weekend passes, and then a job outside the system. Make it a slow re-entry, so they have time to test their reaction to the outside reality of the world.
The problem is that it needs to be done RIGHT. While we all agree that there are times when it is necessary for the good of society as a whole to restrict the freedoms of a person, we must formulate rules that minimize the ability of those restrictions to be misused. Right now, incarceration is doing very little about the crime rate in America. We’re not a terribly criminal society, as a whole, but in our largest cities it is getting worse every year. How can we set up a system that actually holds onto the truly bad people, while allowing those who can move on with their lives to go free, truly free?
I don’t know the answer to this. I believe that it’s necessary for us all to work on finding the answer, though. What we’re currently doing does not work, very obviously.
Comments
14 responses to “Should He Be Free?”
How do “we” as a society know if someone is going to continue to commit crimes after they serve their term? We do not. Only time will tell.
Does someone deserve their right to possess a firearm after serving their time for whatever crime they were convicted of? Again, only time will tell.
My personal opinion. Possessing a firearm is a significant responsibility. It requires that the owner is law abiding and responsible, and they will use the firearm in a law abiding and responsible manner. Which is a bit of a problem when that individual has been convicted of a felony level crime. A felony level crime is a clear demonstration of irresponsibility, especially a violent crime. Automatically allowing you to possess firearms simply because you completed your term is not good enough for me. Sorry, but you do not get your gun rights back.
What is required is a demonstration of law abiding and responsible behavior. If you are a felon (reformed or not), sorry, but no gun for you until you prove responsible behavior. That is my stance.
Of course, my stance has a LOT of details that can really screw it up. As does any other on this issue. Who determines if you are now a responsible individual, and how is that determination made? If it is codified in law, the criminals intent on continuing to commit violent crimes will simply abide by the law enough to get guns. If it becomes the opinion of a judge, or a parole officer, well an anti-gun individual will never say a former felon is responsible. Perhaps is it as simple as five years (or some other scale based on the crime) without any interaction with the police. I do not know.
What I do know is a former felon, who as demonstrated they are responsible and law abiding should not be disallowed possession of arms. It is how that possession is legally returned to them that I have some pains with.
My problem is that the term “law abiding” becomes problematic. Which laws? As someone else pointed out, we’re all breaking laws, likely several a day, because our society is currently so litigious that we simply *cannot* know all the laws applying to us. The minute we make “law abiding” the statute, we set ourselves up for failure, because some dipwit will use it to take firearms away from jaywalkers.
I’d like to say “let’s not automatically give people their guns back.” That’s what my heart says. But legally, that’s a very shaky leg to stand on. The Constitution says, “…shall not be infringed…” and I believe in that, firmly. That must be our litmus test. If someone cannot be trusted to handle a firearm (because, let’s face it, criminals are going to find a firearm if they want one whether they’re “permitted to” or not) then they should not be running around free in society. And we all know the type of people we’re talking about here. Bloods and Crips and whatever other names the gangs are using (yeah yeah, I’m out of date), kids that are barely old enough to know their own mind, never mind be jailed for murder. We know damn well they’re going to get a gun again the second they’re out of jail. It doesn’t matter how many times you revoke their permits. Like a restraining order, it’s just paperwork. Not useful.
And to carry it further, what’s responsible? I know plenty of people that have never committed a crime, violent or otherwise, but I wouldn’t trust with a firearm. If “being responsible” was a guideline to follow, there are dozens of people out there who’ll never see the inside of a jail or prison who would be disarmed. And that’s also contrary to the Constitution.
I’m not commenting on all this to be a jerk, honest. This is all part of the inner conversation I’ve already had with myself. How do we, as a society, draw the line?
And… that is the crux of the problem right there.
Define responsible? What exactly is law abiding? And, who gets to decide?
Answer those questions, and we all win. But, there are no answers to those questions that will satisfy everyone.
I have known of three main paradigms for putting someone in prison:
1. Punishment (AKA/adult timeout)
2. Rehabilitation
3. Isolation (keeping the antisocial away from society)
The problem being that they try for all three at once (“split the baby”) so do none well. I’m partial to #3, but open to change my mind, however working for a law enforcement agency for 35 years, I kept seeing the failures of #1 and #2. Many of the “non-violent” offenders were actually charged with violent offenses, but pled down in a plea deal, offered because court time is a limited resource.
As to allowing “law abiding” citizens being the only ones to be allowed firearms, if you drive 30 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, can you be considered “law abiding”? I suspect that no one not in a coma can go for any amount of time without breaking one of the plethora of laws that infest our country. The fact that you don’t know you are breaking one is not a defense. If you limit it to “violent” offenders not being allowed firearms, then should, say, Hunter Biden be allowed to own a firearm?
IMHO the main benefit of punishment is not so much what it says to the criminal concerned, as what it says to other potential criminals. If it looks to them as though they can get away with anything, up to and including murder, why would they not? On the other hand if it seems that a life of crime includes a lot of thoroughly unpleasant jail time, maybe they will think about earning an honest living instead.
Keep the young potential criminals from getting started, reduce the number of active criminals, and eventually the problem of how to handle recidivists shrinks. It does not go away, but it becomes more manageable.
If you are trusted to walk free, you have an absolute right to have the means to defend yourself. We can spend days discussing different ways to divide the baby but the simple fact is if someone is not in jail, there is no way to keep them from getting a firearm. Instead of restricting their rights, it would make more sense to use the restoration as a litmus test on whether they should be released or not. If you can’t be trusted with a gun, you don’t get released.
^^ THIS ^^
Blogger David Codrea, over at the War on Guns blog, puts it: If you can’t be trusted with a gun, you can’t be trusted without a custodian.
If someone is too risky to have a gun, they’re too risky to walk free without supervision. If they shouldn’t have access to a gun, they shouldn’t have access to cars, gasoline, propane, matches, household chemicals, kitchen knives, baseball bats, hammers, or any of the million other unregulated everyday items people nevertheless use to hurt and kill each other, but which you can pick up for a few bucks at any retail store, no background check and questions asked.
As roy pointed out, there’s various levels of being “law abiding”. Given the vast number of laws and ordinances at the Federal, State and Local level, I’m sure we usually violate 3 – 10 per day.
As for how we address those who transgress the outer limits of basic humanity; that’s an issue. In WNY, a recent homicide was committed when a 14 yo and 16 yo shot a 3 yo and his 7 yo sister. The 3 yo died, the sister was wounded.
The discussion on today’s talk program was what would be an appropriate sentence for the shooters. They both were “poppin’ caps”. Given the heinous circumstances of this crime, I have no problem with lifetime confinement. These criminals exhibited such outstanding amoral behavior that segregation from civil society is quite appropriate. Will they become “rehabilitated”? Maybe.
At 14, I could shoot a handgun quite well; well enough to hit what I aimed at. I also knew that shooting guns at people was wrong and severe consequences were meted out for transgressing that rule. The ONLY allowable circumstance was in self-defense; even then, ONLY if someone was trying to kill me.
Restoring a felon’s right to bear arms should be a privilege granted only after serving their whole sentence and only to non-violent felons who have demonstrated their ability to peacefully, productivley and morally exist in society.
RE: “non-violent felons” — I despise this term, not for what it is, but that it exists at all.
Historically, a felony crime was a violent malum in se (wrong/bad in itself) offense against another person. There were and could be no “non-violent felons” because if their crime was non-violent, it was categorically not a felony.
The fact that so many non-violent offenses — including many that aren’t committed against individuals or are malum prohibitum (wrong/bad because it’s prohibited) offenses — have been “upgraded” to felony status is part of the story and scope of how off-the-rails the “justice” system has become.
“Non-violent felons” should not exist, because non-violent offenses simply should not be felonies.
My opinion has always been simple. No offender should have 2A rights if on parole (current). After that, non-violent offenders retain the 2A rights upon release; violent offenders do not until a specified period of good behavior on the outside.
NRA pushed the Three Strikes and You’re Out.
Very rarely, did it ensnare ‘non violent’ felons.
The libs had an absolute FIT, because it pretty well WORKED.
The bad folks re-offended, and were locked up for longer and longer times, up to the point that they started losing the vitality to continue on.
We need to revisit that, and perhaps not in exactly that particular way.
HOWEVER, when you have re-offenders with 15 to 20 VIOLENT felonies on their rap sheet, they either need to be turned into worm food, or die in prison.
“Three Strikes” is still the law in many places — and as you said, it did exactly what it was supposed to do: keep violent repeat offenders in prison for a long time — which I firmly believe is one reason Leftist DAs plead down so many violent crimes to misdemeanors: to keep from triggering “Three Strikes” provisions.
Consider the case of Michael Aaron Strickland in Portland, Oregon, 2016: He functioned as an independent video newsman during the time that ANTIFA was (and still is?) using Portland as a training ground for the whole country. Because Michael had previous experience with ANTIFA during which he was beaten and robbed he was legally open carrying a hand gun while covering one of their, many, protests downtown. When ANTIFA demonstrators(?) fanned out and appeared to be closing in on Michael he drew his handgun while backing away. ANTIFA backed off. Michael holstered his weapon and tried to go back to work. ANTIFA closed in again. Again, Michael drew his hand gun while backing away. ANTIFA backed off. Michael left the area.
Portland cops were about 2 blocks away and had a clear view of these proceedings. They did nothing at the time. One cop on scene was quoted as saying he didn’t see anything unlawful happening. Later Michael was arrested, then charged and convicted on 10 felony counts. The Oregon supreme court has affirmed his conviction.
Should Michael’s rights be considered for restoration under the law?
His youtube channel Laughing at Liberals has more information. The Oregon Firearms Federation has several posts on his case as well.
IIRC, Mr. Strickland was not required to serve jail time, but because the convictions were felonies, he was required to surrender his CHL and firearms.
Something in his case just screams, “We need to shut this guy down, so let’s make sure he can’t protect himself while filming us, and he’ll stop filming us.”
It’s a case that never should have been brought, and if brought anyway should have been quashed quickly (self-defense against a clear and imminent threat of death or serious harm is an affirmative defense in Oregon law — IOW, if you make the case that your actions were justified, that’s the end of the case — and the man had video evidence of the weapons they were swinging at him).
IMO, it wasn’t a criminal case, it was a political persecution.