Posted on 05/25/2016 10:22:01 AM PDT by reaganaut1
A federal judge in Brooklyn, in an extraordinary opinion that calls for courts to pay closer attention to the impact of felony convictions on people’s lives, sentenced a young woman in a drug case to probation rather than prison, saying on Wednesday that the collateral consequences she would face as a felon were punishment enough.
The judge, Frederic Block of Federal District Court, said that the broad range of such collateral consequences served no “useful function other than to further punish criminal defendants after they have completed their court-imposed sentences.”
The judge noted that there were nearly 50,000 federal and state statutes and regulations that impose penalties, disabilities or disadvantages on convicted felons.
Such consequences — the denial of government benefits, ineligibility for public housing, suspension of student loans, revocation or suspension of driver’s licenses — can have devastating effects, he wrote, adding that they may also be “particularly disruptive to an ex-convict’s efforts at rehabilitation and reintegration into society.”
The issue of collateral consequences and sentencing has been considered by other courts, but Judge Block’s 42-page opinion appears to be one of the most detailed examinations yet, combined with his call for reform.
He noted that the inability to obtain housing and employment stemming from a conviction often results in “further disastrous consequences, such as losing child custody or going homeless,” and leads to many ex-convicts “becoming recidivists and restarting the criminal cycle.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Well, I think that’s foolishness. If society deems you too dangerous to own a firearm, they should never let you out of prison in the first place, since you could easily just steal a firearm if you had bad intentions.
“Never mentioned is the damage done to the victim.”
What victim? She was convicted of trafficking in an unlawful good, not robbing, beating, raping, or killing someone.
“And right back to prison.”
Why are we even letting them out in the first place if we set up a system after release that encourages them to re-offend and go right back? Seems like an awful waste of public resources, at the least.
The judge is saying that simply having to live with the stigma of being a felon is punishment enough.
In the old days this was the sort of logic that only applied to politicians, who, when caught red handed in criminal acts, simple resigned and no charges were filed because simply being out of the club was punishment enough. Now ordinary criminals get that too! Hooray!
Scumbag felon should pay closer attention to not being a scumbag felon.
If you insist on parole, then a felon like set of restrictions should be in place for the duration of their original sentence. Once that's up, they are regular citizens again.
Just my opinion, don't think once you complete your sentence you should be forever left crawling in the mud unless you go back to crime, then a hammer comes down hard.
In Singapore they hang drug dealers. That would solve the dilemma.
In the Philippines, President elect (takes office in June) Duterte shoots them
Absolutely agree 100%.
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
Speaking of people being in prison because they broke a federal law, patriots need to address the following concern. How many people are in federal prison for possibly breaking a federal law that the states have actually never delegated to the corrupt feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to make?
They can also hang gun owners.
They can....Operative words.
Read them yourself.
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3A%227659a792-18f3-43d8-a6ac-463e3ff2453a%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0
I am sure our boys in the house will bring up impeachment hearings for failure to follow the law for this scum bag. Yeah right.
Of course, violating contraband law isn't a real crime in the first place: it's Tyrannical Law.
Nanny-state Drug War fascism is no solution...
This may be a stupid question, but can your wife or kids own one? I would assume they can’t take away someone else’s rights. If someone breaks in, you just have to make sure she takes out the perp, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.