Quote :

"Constitutional amendment providing that no person convicted of a felony may serve as Sheriff ( ) For ( ) Against"

Here is another thread that broaches the subject of felonies and elections (not the same as this by any means, but something to get one thinking):
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=579669

How do you plan to vote?

10/14/2010 8:12:20 AM

Against. (duh)


There are thousands of completely innocent, harmless, honest, and non-violent felons convicted on bogus drug or sex laws.

Anyone that supports this amendment is a clueless monster, or a evil shitstain.

10/14/2010 8:39:56 AM

Quote :

"N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.12(a)(1-5) The sheriff must deny the permit if certain prohibitions exist. The application must be denied if the applicant: 2. is under indictment or against whom a finding of probable cause exists for a felony, or has ever been adjudicated guilty in any court of a felony;"

So how's that supposed to work

10/14/2010 8:56:04 AM

The IndyWeekly has endorsed the pro-amendment position to ban felons from serving fwiw.

10/14/2010 10:37:33 AM

Quote :

"There are thousands of completely innocent, harmless, honest, and non-violent felons convicted on bogus drug or sex laws. "

you arent technically "innocent" if you have been convicted.

I dont want a convicted felon as a Sheriff. I certainly dont want one that has to pay for pussy or who has spent time pushing weight through JoCo.

10/14/2010 11:51:46 AM

Quote :

"you arent technically "innocent" if you have been convicted"

I'm talking about actual innocence, not technical. (duh)
Also, many actual guilty convicted felons are harmless, honest, and non-violent and shouldn't have any rights restricted.

Quote :

"I dont want a convicted felon as a Sheriff. I certainly dont want one that has to pay for pussy or who has spent time pushing weight through JoCo."

Then don't vote for one. But wanting to rob them of their rights is fucked up.

[Edited on October 14, 2010 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2010 11:58:22 AM

if you can't do the time don't do the crime.

I would like to see it broadened no convicted felon may hold any elected Government office.

of course that would pretty much clean out the entire NC General Assembly, plus the Governor's Mansion.

10/14/2010 12:12:47 PM

Quote :

"if you can't do the time don't do the crime"

I don't disagree, but that's not the issue here.
You all are wanting to worsen the "time" by robbing people of their rights. That's completely fucked up.

10/14/2010 12:17:59 PM

i don't understand the purpose of ammending the constitution in this case... if the people don't want a felon in office, they won't vote one in.

10/14/2010 12:22:44 PM

Quote :

"i don't understand the purpose of ammending the constitution in this case... if the people don't want a felon in office, they won't vote one in."

Quote :

"i don't understand the purpose of ammending the constitution in this case... if the people don't want a felon in office, they won't vote one in."

Quote :

"i don't understand the purpose of ammending the constitution in this case... if the people don't want a felon in office, they won't vote one in."

Quote :

"i don't understand the purpose of ammending the constitution in this case... if the people don't want a felon in office, they won't vote one in."

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!1


If 51% of voters want a felon in some elected office, what exactly is the problem?

Some 18-year-old who had 1.51 ounces of pot and plead guilty to possession with intent, but then went on to be an awesome person for 30+ years, SHOULD HAVE EVERY RIGHT AS THE NEXT GUY to run for office.

Quote :

"Anyone that supports this amendment is a clueless monster, or a evil shitstain."

10/14/2010 12:30:01 PM

I demand a more felonious sheriff.

10/14/2010 4:02:28 PM

Quote :

"i don't understand the purpose of ammending the constitution in this case... if the people don't want a felon in office, they won't vote one in."

how dare you come into this thread throwing around that fancy schmancy sound logic

10/14/2010 4:14:09 PM

So I don't wanna felon to be Sheriff, and Imma vote for the amendment in order to keep felons from being Sheriff.



Secondarily, does anyone really think this doesn't pass by a wide margin?

10/14/2010 4:43:55 PM

Quote :

"if you can't do the time don't do the crime"

for collateral consequences like this the "time" is forever, and I thought we had a concept of "paying off" debt to society

10/14/2010 4:56:19 PM

10/14/2010 5:16:15 PM

Quote :

" I thought we had a concept of "paying off" debt to society"

What gave you that idea?

Quote :

"There are thousands of completely innocent, harmless, honest, and non-violent felons convicted on bogus drug or sex laws. "

The problem isn't with keeping felons from being a sheriff, the problem is with what's counted as being a felony.

Drug and sex laws should be misdemeanors, not felonies if we're going to keep these things illegal.

You seem to have a very narrow view of what should be considered a felony charge, like murder, rape. Crimes that are particularly heinous in nature. But what about white collar crimes? Ones that aren't violent in nature? How about extortion, blackmail, money laundering? This type of stuff could potentially be easily hidden from public knowledge. And if they're in a district where NOBODY is running against them, it doesn't matter if it becomes public knowledge.

I guess nobody here has ever actually voted in local elections and noticed the amount of people who actually have no competition?

If anything, this type of ban keeps felons from serving as sheriff in the event that nobody runs against them.

[Edited on October 14, 2010 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2010 5:56:09 PM

yes, it might help avoid someone being elected with no competition, but if anyone does the legwork and says "fuck, this guy has a serious felony," then it seems that someone would get up and run against him. if it's a small enough town that no one does, then it's probably a small enough town not to matter

10/14/2010 6:26:23 PM

Question: If a person is not capable of being trusted with all the rights and privileges of a citizen of North Carolina, why are they not in jail?

10/14/2010 6:55:28 PM

Quote :

"The problem isn't with keeping felons from being a sheriff, the problem is with what's counted as being a felony"

Correct, so we can choose between:
1) Making drug and sex laws not felonies.
2) Not passing this popular amendment.

Which is more likely?

:/

10/14/2010 8:41:50 PM

Quote :

"if it's a small enough town that no one does, then it's probably a small enough town not to matter "

That's an awful view and nothing more than some lame copout. Not to mention that many people may not even be aware of who is running for a position until the day of election. People shouldn't have to suffer from a shitty corrupt sheriff simply because the position was uncontested.

Quote :

"If a person is not capable of being trusted with all the rights and privileges of a citizen of North Carolina, why are they not in jail?"

Overcrowding. Parole. Plea Bargains. Mercy. Sentencing. Do you really need a comprehensive list as to why we have violent ex-cons out on the street or unscrupulous people out on the street instead of in jail? Do you really want to take a position of willful ignorance in order to preserve your point? You know damn well that there's more than "a few" people who leave jail and go STRAIGHT back to doing what they did to get them into jail to begin with.

Quote :

"Correct, so we can choose between: 1) Making drug and sex laws not felonies. 2) Not passing this popular amendment. Which is more likely? :/"

So you would rather take some half-ass law that would allow people who you feel are justified in being eligible to run for sheriff but that could allow people who you don't feel are justified in running for sheriff to run for sheriff, instead of adjusting pre-existing laws that would allow people who you feel are justified to run for sheriff to be able to and keep people who you don't feel are justified in running for sheriff from being not being able, all on the basis of likelihood?

It's people with that fucking attitude who we DON'T need voting. Fuck a real change. Lets allow for some shit change that is capable of doing more harm than good.

10/14/2010 9:49:13 PM

i think i may only vote for felons for sheriff because they weren't smart enough to get away with one felony so they defiantly won't be able to get away with another. just cuz a guy doesnt have a felony conviction doesn't mean he didnt commit any felonies.. just never got caught.

10/14/2010 10:02:12 PM

Everyone commits felonies. Especially police officers.

10/14/2010 10:26:18 PM

Quote :

"Overcrowding. Parole. Plea Bargains. Mercy. Sentencing. Do you really need a comprehensive list as to why we have violent ex-cons out on the street or unscrupulous people out on the street instead of in jail? Do you really want to take a position of willful ignorance in order to preserve your point? You know damn well that there's more than "a few" people who leave jail and go STRAIGHT back to doing what they did to get them into jail to begin with. "

So then doesn't it seem that our resources and time are better spent fixing the broken justice system rather than patching the problems a broken justice system creates?

10/14/2010 11:10:53 PM

There are people serving as Sheriff which have never been convicted of a crime, but are far worse criminals than the people that would be blocked by this amendment. At least if the Sheriff started the job as a known felon, people might pay close enough attention.

10/14/2010 11:30:07 PM

Quote :

"So then doesn't it seem that our resources and time are better spent fixing the broken justice system rather than patching the problems a broken justice system creates?"

Certainly. But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't you all about personal responsibility? Don't you think people should be held responsible for their actions? Part of the punishment that comes with a felony conviction is the loss of certain privileges for life. I don't see a problem with that. If someone is an "honest" and good person 20 years after a conviction, it still doesn't expunge them of the crime that they did do.

Maybe you don't like that the loss of certain privileges for life is right. But quite frankly, I don't care what you feel is "right" by your opinion, just as you probably don't care about what I feel is "right" by my opinion.

Fact of the matter is that we don't need to make it easier for the position of sheriff to become more corrupt than it already is. We don't need to make it possible for gang members to become sheriff and use the position to their benefit. Remember, not every part of NC isn't middle-class or above. Not every part of NC has a high voter turn out or a high education. Just because people may not vote or want to be involved to the point of holding an actual position in the government or if they lack the means to do in-depth research on a candidate, doesn't mean that they should have to suffer through a corrupt system.

Quote :

"There are people serving as Sheriff which have never been convicted of a crime, but are far worse criminals than the people that would be blocked by this amendment."

True. Doesn't mean we should make the position easier for criminals to become sheriff.

Quote :

"At least if the Sheriff started the job as a known felon, people might pay close enough attention."

Doubt it. And if a person is uncontested, then it doesn't really matter what the people may want.

10/14/2010 11:42:40 PM

^ Better to have no Sheriff than one convicted of pot possession 20 years ago?

This amendment will do nothing to address the corruption of the system. Only one thing will: you getting off your ass and running for Sheriff!

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 12:25 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/15/2010 12:24:01 AM

Quote :

"Better to have no Sheriff than one convicted of pot possession 20 years ago?"

Possession of pot in NC is a misdemeanor. Intent to sell, that's different. Yes, some things shouldn't be a felony. But the problem doesn't lie in banning felons from being sheriff. The problem is what is classified as a felony.

Quote :

"you getting off your ass and running for Sheriff! "

When will you be running for sheriff?

10/15/2010 12:31:27 AM

Saw on News 14 last night, 7 felons ran for Sheriff in NC last go-round. They all lost.







http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/7497525/

10/15/2010 9:16:51 AM

Quote :

"People shouldn't have to suffer from a shitty corrupt sheriff simply because the position was uncontested."

Yes, because having a felony absolutely means you will be a shitty corrupt sheriff

10/15/2010 10:28:37 AM

^ It's far more likely to open to the door to a corrupt sheriff by allowing them to run. It's bad enough we get corrupt ones without felons.

10/15/2010 10:34:44 AM

Quote :

"When will you be running for sheriff?"

Why should I? Donnie Harrison is quite tolerable. The issue is intolerable people running for Sheriff in YOUR county. If it isn't your county, then you aren't even a voter, who are you to say who shouldn't be Sheriff?

The punishment of committing a crime should be prison time and fines, not second-class citizenship.

10/15/2010 10:35:01 AM

Quote :

"who are you to say who shouldn't be Sheriff?"

I don't know about you, but the actions of one county can definitely impact surrounding counties. And I don't know about you, but I certainly don't just stay in one county in NC ALL the time.

Quote :

"not second-class citizenship."

Why? That's what makes a felony different from a misdemeanor. Whether you like it or not, a felony can ban you from public office, strip your right to vote, ban you from jury duty, ban you from owning a gun (which is one of the reasons for this amendment proposal) and ban you from having certain licenses. Not to mention how private corporations treat felons too.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM. Reason : where]

10/15/2010 10:51:28 AM

That stupid shit is already happening does not make further stupid shit right.

10/15/2010 10:58:11 AM

^ They're not stupid. Again, it's part of the punishment.

10/15/2010 11:01:44 AM

Quote :

"It's far more likely to open to the door to a corrupt sheriff by allowing them to run. It's bad enough we get corrupt ones without felons."

do you have any proof for this assertion?

really? part of the punishment is being relegated to 2nd-class citizenship? but seriously, defend that they aren't stupid...

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 2:42 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 2:40:07 PM

Quote :

"^ They're not stupid. Again, it's part of the punishment."

When prostitution and non-violent drug crimes are felonies, this is stupid as shit.

10/15/2010 2:42:31 PM

I agree with indy's position but this argument is stupid:

Quote :

"You all are wanting to worsen the "time" by robbing people of their rights."

Obviously any punishment for crime is is going to involve robbing people of their rights, and I don't see why it's reprehensible to extend certain parts of that longer than others. Certainly in many other manifestations nobody minds it -- people released from jail on probation or parole, for instance, have restricted rights for longer than their prison term.

Mostly I am slightly against this amendment because the people should get who they want. If they want a felon, they deserve one.

I do wish there was a better way to break down crimes into categories. "Felon" is too broad. Do I care if you had a bunch of weed at your house? No. Do I care if you got busted for corruption, embezzlement, civil rights violations, or something else relevant to government office? You're goddamn right I do, and I might support the amendment if it were oriented that way.

Isn't the whole thing just an effort to keep Gerald Hege from getting elected and embarrassing the state again?

10/15/2010 2:47:23 PM

Quote :

"do you have any proof for this assertion?"

It's my opinion, just as it is your opinion in why you feel that a Sheriff convicted of a felony could be a good Sheriff. I really don't care about changing your opinion. I can't trust a past felon as being Sheriff, and because it's possible for that position to run uncontested, I don't think it's worth risking a past felon being given the position. Is that really such a far-fetched position? Not wanting a felon who runs uncontested for Sheriff to gain the position?

Quote :

" When prostitution and non-violent drug crimes are felonies, this is stupid as shit."

Then change the law of what constitutes a felony.

10/15/2010 4:24:12 PM

Quote :

"It's my opinion, just as it is your opinion in why you feel that a Sheriff convicted of a felony could be a good Sheriff."

not my opinion at all. I'm saying that a convicted felon should not automatically be disqualified from being sheriff. You asserted that a felon would be more likely to be corrupt, thus they he shouldn't be allowed to be sheriff. If there is no proof of such a charge, then you have no basis to bar him from running for sheriff. See how simple that is?

Quote :

"I can't trust a past felon as being Sheriff, and because it's possible for that position to run uncontested, I don't think it's worth risking a past felon being given the position. Is that really such a far-fetched position? Not wanting a felon who runs uncontested for Sheriff to gain the position?"

Then don't fucking vote for him! Really fucking simple? He's uncontested? Well, again, it's probably bum-fuck nowhere, then, and he can't do any harm anyway. Oh noes, he'll buy three bon-bons on the county dime! fuck noooooo!

It's a non-issue. In a big enough place, he's not going to run un-opposed, at which point his felony will be noted. If it's a small place, I'm talking 100-200 people, then people will know him anyway, and if they didn't like him, someone would stand up and run against him.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 4:28:12 PM

Quote :

"not my opinion at all. I'm saying that a convicted felon should not automatically be disqualified from being sheriff."

Then why does that read exactly like an opinion? Why shouldn't a convicted felon not be automatically disqualified from being sheriff?

Quote :

"You asserted that a felon would be more likely to be corrupt, thus they he shouldn't be allowed to be sheriff."

I sure did. You assert that they aren't likely to be more corrupt. There's something about a person convicted of fraud, extortion, money laundering, murder, ect that shows that these people are unscrupulous individuals, and as such-should be barred from public office. If someone has a criminal record that shows that they can't be trusted, they shouldn't be given the opportunity hold a public office. Power in and of itself has the tendency to corrupt people. Why elect people who have shown themselves as already given into that temptation? Why risk having these people in office?

Quote :

"If there is no proof of such a charge, then you have no basis to bar him from running for sheriff. See how simple that is?"

Similarly, if you can't prove that they are just as scrupulous as a non-felon, then you have no basis for allowing him to run for sheriff. See how simple that is?

Quote :

"Then don't fucking vote for him! Really fucking simple?"

Not the issue.

Quote :

"He's uncontested? Well, again, it's probably bum-fuck nowhere, then, and he can't do any harm anyway."

Here you go with this stupid shit again. People have a right to be protected from corruption and general maliciousness from their own government. It's a position of power. Whether there's a lot of people or not is irrelevant. He can still use that position to harm his constituents.

Quote :

"if they didn't like him, someone would stand up and run against him."

What makes you think that those people would be capable of running for sheriff? What makes you think they don't have other responsibilities, or if they even WANT the position? Why should it be up to the citizens themselves to protect themselves from corruption. That's the government's job.

10/15/2010 4:55:58 PM

Quote :

"Then why does that read exactly like an opinion?"

don't be obtuse. I didn't say a felon might be a good sheriff. That is what I was saying "wasn't my opinion." Really, you do that kind of shit all the time.

Quote :

"You assert that they aren't likely to be more corrupt."

False. Again, strawman. quit it.

Quote :

"If someone has a criminal record that shows that they can't be trusted, they shouldn't be given the opportunity hold a public office."

You do realize that many of the people in Congress today have criminal records, right? Some of them even, *gasp*, have felonies! There is a notion that people can reform. I do buy in to that notion. And I'd say, on the whole, that someone should not be released from prison until he has reformed. And, we should assume that he has reformed until proven otherwise. Yes, that's naive.

Quote :

"Similarly, if you can't prove that they are just as scrupulous as a non-felon, then you have no basis for allowing him to run for sheriff."

Ahhh. Well, I can't prove that you are a good person. Guess I shouldn't allow you to run for office, either, right? It doesn't work that way, buddy, and you know it.

Quote :

"Not the issue."

Actually, it's a great issue, because it's the simplest and least-invasive way to handle this situation. It accomplishes every aim that this misguided proposition has, and it does so without harming honest people who may have made a mistake earlier in their lives.

Quote :

"What makes you think that those people would be capable of running for sheriff? "

What makes you think there is no one else capable of doing so? Plenty of people can be Andy Taylor. You've got this insane notion that a felon is somehow more capable than any one else, even though he's evil. If that's the case, the town is pretty much fucked anyway

Quote :

"Why should it be up to the citizens themselves to protect themselves from corruption. That's the government's job."

The fuck? The citizens are the ultimate fucking check against a corrupt government, you dumbass.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 5:07:34 PM

Quote :

"Obviously any punishment for crime is is going to involve robbing people of their rights, and I don't see why it's reprehensible to extend certain parts of that longer than others."

I find it reprehensible to extend such punishments for life regardless of the time the spent in prison.

10/15/2010 5:20:08 PM

Quote :

"But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't you all about personal responsibility? Don't you think people should be held responsible for their actions? "

Absolutely they should. They should be locked away until such time as they have proven or demonstrated that they are capable of handling the responsibilities of living in a free society, at which point they should have their freedoms restored and released.

Quote :

"Just because people may not vote or want to be involved to the point of holding an actual position in the government or if they lack the means to do in-depth research on a candidate, doesn't mean that they should have to suffer through a corrupt system. "

Actually it does. Democracy is a garbage in, garbage out system, and no amount of legislation will fix that.

Quote :

"True. Doesn't mean we should make the position easier for criminals to become sheriff."

We're not making it easier. You're the one that wants to change the law.

Quote :

"Why? That's what makes a felony different from a misdemeanor. Whether you like it or not, a felony can ban you from public office, strip your right to vote, ban you from jury duty, ban you from owning a gun (which is one of the reasons for this amendment proposal) and ban you from having certain licenses. Not to mention how private corporations treat felons too. "

So you don't see a problem with having a class of citizens who, by virtue of a title given to them by the government, can be arbitrarily denied the rights and freedoms of any other citizen?

Quote :

"Certainly in many other manifestations nobody minds it -- people released from jail on probation or parole, for instance, have restricted rights for longer than their prison term."

Arguably, both probation and parole are limited time restrictions of rights in lieu of jail time, not in addition. Of course, our parole / probation system is just as much of a problem in failing to adequately protect society.

Quote :

"Then change the law of what constitutes a felony."

I've got an even better idea. We'll change the law of what constitutes a felony, and we'll also not create another stupid law that we don't need.

Quote :

"Why shouldn't a convicted felon not be automatically disqualified from being sheriff?"

Why shouldn't <insert voluntary class of citizens> not be automatically disqualified from <insert right or privilege of any other citizen>.

Do you not see a problem with this? Let's try a few:

Why shouldn't gay men not be automatically disqualified from marriage?

Why shouldn't muslims be automatically disqualified from voting?

Why shouldn't democrats be automatically disqualified from owning a firearm?

Why shouldn't anarchists be automatically disqualified from holding protests?


Look it's real simple, if we don't trust someone to have the rights of a free citizen, then they shouldn't be free. And arbitrarily changing the rules after the fact is both wrong, misguided and unconstitutional (hello "ex post facto" and incorporation, though I'm sure there's a similar clause in the NC constitution). Further, it only takes a riled up mob similar to the one that would pass this amendment to suddenly decide that some distasteful act (like being gay) is a felony to strip the right of hundreds or more citizens from controlling their government.

Our government is of, for and by the people, and the people unfortunately for you include felons.

10/15/2010 5:36:20 PM

Quote :

"don't be obtuse. I didn't say a felon might be a good sheriff."

Then please clarify what you really meant by this clearly sarcastic comment?

Quote :

"Yes, because having a felony absolutely means you will be a shitty corrupt sheriff "

Are you saying that a felon might really not be a shitty corrupt sheriff? Or are you saying that a felon might be a good sheriff? Come on. Clarify what you mean.

Quote :

"False. Again, strawman. quit it."

Your sarcasm certainly reads like an assertion. So are you now saying that a felon is more likely to be corrupt or are you asserting that they are less likely to be corrupt as a non-felon? No strawman here. You're just trying to dance around what you really fucking mean.

Quote :

"There is a notion that people can reform"

It's great that you buy that notion. But don't you, and other people, bitch about how corrupt Washington is? I don't think using Congressmen with felons as a reason to allow felons to be sheriffs, given how corrupt Congress is.

Quote :

"Yes, that's naive."

Very.

It's worth mentioning that if there was a system put in place to allow a person to gain back some or all of the rights lost as a felon, I would not object to allowing them to be eligible to run for sheriff. But the way the system is now, ANYONE can run for sheriff and potentially become sheriff.

Do you know the situation that really prompted this Referendum? A guy in prison wanted to run for Sheriff WHILE IN PRISON. The only reason he wasn't able to was because he couldn't leave to turn in the paperwork. He had it all filled out and everything. That's a scary thought. We have people on parole, people in half-way houses, ect, who are eligible for parole.

Quote :

"Ahhh. Well, I can't prove that you are a good person. Guess I shouldn't allow you to run for office, either, right? It doesn't work that way, buddy, and you know it."

You can't prove that I'm a bad person. I can prove that a felon committed a heinous act. I have evidence that they are unscrupulous. Again. It should be the governments job to protect the citizens from an unscrupulous system.

Quote :

"Actually, it's a great issue,"

What I meant was that I'm not interested in that issue. Notice. You're the one who brought it up. Not me. What you still fail to fairly address is felons who run in uncontested areas. There's nothing for me to address in the issue that you brought up. You've addressed my issue, but I dismissed your rebuttals. And yet you still leave me rebuttals unaddressed. Why?

You say it doesn't matter because it's in the middle of bumbfuck nowhere. That's a damned copout and you fucking know it. You know damn well that everyone matters, regardless of where they live.

Quote :

"What makes you think there is no one else capable of doing so?"

Oh... I don't know. Perhaps those people have JOBS, FAMILIES, or maybe they're unwilling to run for sheriff because they have no desire to be sheriff.

Quote :

"You've got this insane notion that a felon is somehow more capable than any one else"

No. What I'm saying is that a person who wants to run for sheriff is a felon. And with it being in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, it's very possible for nobody else to want to run for sheriff. There's nothing insane about that.

Quote :

"The fuck? The citizens are the ultimate fucking check against a corrupt government, you dumbass."

The Constitution (state or federal) is what protects the citizens from a corrupt government along with the accompanying laws. Why do we have a system of checks and balances? To ensure that one branch gets no more power over another. Why do we have a court system, police, DAs/prosecutors, investigators? All of them can and are used to help fight against corruption.

What happens with a public servant who's found to be committing extortion, fraud, and accepting of bribes? Do we wait until we can elect someone else into their place? NO! They're investigated, by the government, tried by the government, and sent to jail by the government. The only time the people really are able to get involved is during the trial, unless of course the person chooses a trial by judge instead of a trial by jury.

The citizens aren't much of a check against corruption, they're more of a check against a ineffective representative, or a representative that doesn't hold their own view.

Please. How did the citizens act as a check against Blago's corrupt actions? THEY FUCKING DIDN'T.

10/15/2010 5:37:50 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying that a felon might really not be a shitty corrupt sheriff? Or are you saying that a felon might be a good sheriff? Come on. Clarify what you mean."

I'm saying that a felony does not automatically mean you will be corrupt. That, however, is not the same as saying you will be a "good sheriff," unless you equate "good" with "not corrupt." I think there is more to being a "good sheriff" than just "not being corrupt."

Quote :

"You're just trying to dance around what you really fucking mean."

Not at all. You've just put words in my mouth. And I'm saying to stop it. If you are confused or unsure of something I've said, then ask. Don't just assign your own meaning to it. As you can see above, if you ask what I mean, then I'll clarify.

Quote :

"But don't you, and other people, bitch about how corrupt Washington is? I don't think using Congressmen with felons as a reason to allow felons to be sheriffs, given how corrupt Congress is."

Yes, you are correct. Would you also say that we should prevent any one who has a felony from running for any public office? I sure as fuck wouldn't. It does go back to the notion of reforming. It's naive, but I believe it is the proper way to treat people. Someone coming out of prison already has it bad enough. If they've served their time, then let's treat them with some respect and not make it harder than it needs to be. And, as someone else pointed out, if they can't be trusted, then why the fuck are they out of prison anyway?

Quote :

"Do you know the situation that really prompted this Referendum? A guy in prison wanted to run for Sheriff WHILE IN PRISON. The only reason he wasn't able to was because he couldn't leave to turn in the paperwork. He had it all filled out and everything. That's a scary thought. We have people on parole, people in half-way houses, ect, who are eligible for parole. "

And you REALLY think the people would be dumb enough to elect that guy?

Quote :

"You can't prove that I'm a bad person. I can prove that a felon committed a heinous act. I have evidence that they are unscrupulous."

No you don't. You have evidence that they committed a crime. That does not equate to "they will always be unscrupulous." I require a bit more evidence for that claim. And rightfully so.

Quote :

"What you still fail to fairly address is felons who run in uncontested areas."

Only I clearly have! If it's an uncontested race, it's bumfuck no-where. If it's bumfuck no-where, then the people already know if this guy would be a good sheriff, felony or not. And they will act accordingly!

Quote :

"Perhaps those people have JOBS, FAMILIES, or maybe they're unwilling to run for sheriff because they have no desire to be sheriff."

So, they have jobs and families, but they don't care if a terrible guy is gonna be sheriff? really? That's a bit out there, don't you think?

Quote :

"The Constitution (state or federal) is what protects the citizens from a corrupt government along with the accompanying laws."

No, it really isn't. Aren't you also the person who said that the Constitution shouldn't be the end-all, be-all for what the gov't can do? You show a clear lacking in what the Constitution does and what it is capable of doing. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the people to keep their government in check, because only they can do so. A corrupt government can be voted out or overthrown. A corrupt government, by definition, cannot keep itself in check. And no founding document could ever hope to do so. There's a great quote out there that speaks to this topic: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."

Quote :

"Please. How did the citizens act as a check against Blago's corrupt actions? THEY FUCKING DIDN'T."

I'm fairly certain that, upon learning of his actions, the citizenry would not have re-elected him. And if they did, that's their problem. They clearly didn't care that he was corrupt, and they then would get what they deserved and, ultimately, wanted.

Quote :

"What happens with a public servant who's found to be committing extortion, fraud, and accepting of bribes? Do we wait until we can elect someone else into their place? NO! They're investigated, by the government, tried by the government, and sent to jail by the government."

And what happens when the government will not do that? What, then? Does the government then magically sprout another self that will bring all the unrighteous men to their judgment? Of course not. The ultimate, as in "final", check, lies with the people. And it always will. We use the government to try to fix it as a first resort, not the last. That is what being the "ultimate check" means.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 5:54 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 5:51:56 PM

Quote :

"They should be locked away until such time as they have proven or demonstrated that they are capable of handling the responsibilities of living in a free society, at which point they should have their freedoms restored and released."

And how do we know when a felon is capable of living in a free society? I don't think I need to tell you how naive you sound.

Quote :

"Actually it does. Democracy is a garbage in, garbage out system, and no amount of legislation will fix that."

I'm just going to say "no." Maybe we could make the position of Sheriff a hired position instead of an elected one and allow someone else to look over the person's qualifications and determine if they are capable of the job and fire them when they show incompetence?

Quote :

"We're not making it easier. You're the one that wants to change the law."

Ok. You're not making it easier. I want to make it harder. A guy out on parole is capable of running for sheriff as it stands right now. The qualifications to run for sheriff should be changed IMO.

Quote :

"So you don't see a problem with having a class of citizens who, by virtue of a title given to them by the government, can be arbitrarily denied the rights and freedoms of any other citizen?"

It's not like the title was given to them arbitrarily. What about a dishonorable discharge from the military? That usually doesn't come with a prison term, yet they often lose many rights.

Quote :

"we'll also not create another stupid law that we don't need."

Quote :

"Why shouldn't gay men not be automatically disqualified from marriage?"

Does being gay and being allowed to marry affect me? No.

Quote :

"Why shouldn't muslims be automatically disqualified from voting?"

Does a Muslim voting affect me more than anyone else? No.

Quote :

"Why shouldn't democrats be automatically disqualified from owning a firearm?"

Does a democrat owning a gun affect me more than anyone else who legally owns a gun? No.

Quote :

"Why shouldn't anarchists be automatically disqualified from holding protests?"

It's against the law to be an anarchist. So if it's against the law to be an anarchist, technically they aren't qualified to hold a protest.

Here's one more:

Why shouldn't people younger than 35 be automatically disqualified from being President?

Oh wait. The Constitution.

Quote :

"Look it's real simple, if we don't trust someone to have the rights of a free citizen, then they shouldn't be free."

I trust them to be with their family, to work at McDonalds, hell, even to drive. I DON'T trust them in a position of power that can directly affect me.

Quote :

"And arbitrarily changing the rules after the fact is both wrong, misguided and unconstitutional"

We're changing the qualifications. If the Constitution was amended to making the age 40 to run for President, would that mean that anyone born before the amendment is still eligible at the age of 35? Nope.

Quote :

"Further, it only takes a riled up mob similar to the one that would pass this amendment to suddenly decide that some distasteful act (like being gay) is a felony to strip the right of hundreds or more citizens from controlling their government. "

Then that's a problem with the law. Similar to pot possession or prostitution.

Quote :

"Our government is of, for and by the people, and the people unfortunately for you include felons."

Felons voluntarily excluded themselves of the freedoms we enjoy by knowingly committing a felony. The punishment for doing so is the loss of some rights as they exhibited that they are incapable of being responsible with the rights taken away. They should still be allowed to say what they want, own a house, have a job, ect.

Now. I know you will disagree, so I'm just going to agree to disagree.

10/15/2010 6:03:09 PM

Quote :

"And how do we know when a felon is capable of living in a free society? I don't think I need to tell you how naive you sound."

Dude, I know it's naive. I have no problem admitting it, but I think it's the way we should treat people. It's rare that you can get to the core of something like this, but that's how I feel about it, and I don't think it's too irrational.

Quote :

"Does being gay and being allowed to marry affect me? No."

I'll never murder anyone, and I'll probably never be murdered by anyone, so I guess we don't need to worry about that either, right? Hey, I'm not a slave, so there is no need to ban slavery, right?

Quote :

"Then that's a problem with the law."

Yes, but is also a problem with the proposed amendment as well. Let's not compound one problem with another

Quote :

"They should still be allowed to say what they want, own a house, have a job, ect."

So they should be allowed to say what they want, but they should be allowed to want to protect people via being the sheriff? They shouldn't be allowed to say what they want as an elected representative of the people? They shouldn't be allowed to have a job protecting people or serving them in any way as, say, a way of them paying back society and clearing their own conscience if they so desire?

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 6:10 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 6:09:17 PM

Quote :

"That, however, is not the same as saying you will be a "good sheriff," unless you equate "good" with "not corrupt.""

I am equating "good" with "not corrupt." The ambiguity is my fault.

Quote :

"Would you also say that we should prevent any one who has a felony from running for any public office? I sure as fuck wouldn't."

Yes.

And just for clarification. States are allowed to make their own rules for their own qualifications as to who can hold public office for the state. They are capable of preventing a felon from running for public office. As such, there is nothing illegal with changing the qualifications of sheriff. You may think that it's "wrong," I think it is "right." On that aspect, I agree to disagree.

Quote :

" if they can't be trusted, then why the fuck are they out of prison anyway?"

I made a list of reasons above.

Quote :

"Overcrowding. Parole. Plea Bargains. Mercy. Sentencing."

Quote :

"And you REALLY think the people would be dumb enough to elect that guy?"

If he were the only one running, then it doesn't really matter how dumb the people are.

Quote :

"No you don't. You have evidence that they committed a crime. That does not equate to "they will always be unscrupulous." I require a bit more evidence for that claim. And rightfully so."

Yes, I have evidence that they committed a crime. While I can't say that it will equate to them always being unscrupulous, I can say that I can't trust them in a position of power.

Quote :

" If it's an uncontested race, it's bumfuck no-where. If it's bumfuck no-where, then the people already know if this guy would be a good sheriff, felony or not. And they will act accordingly!"

I could have sworn I addressed this. You have left my address to your address of my issue unaddressed.

I'll post it again for you:

Quote :

"People have a right to be protected from corruption and general maliciousness from their own government. It's a position of power. Whether there's a lot of people or not is irrelevant. He can still use that position to harm his constituents. ... What makes you think that those people would be capable of running for sheriff? What makes you think they don't have other responsibilities, or if they even WANT the position? Why should it be up to the citizens themselves to protect themselves from corruption. That's the government's job."

On the aspect of it being the government's job, you did address:

Quote :

"The fuck? The citizens are the ultimate fucking check against a corrupt government, you dumbass."

To which I rebutted as:

Quote :

"What happens with a public servant who's found to be committing extortion, fraud, and accepting of bribes? Do we wait until we can elect someone else into their place? NO! They're investigated, by the government, tried by the government, and sent to jail by the government. The only time the people really are able to get involved is during the trial, unless of course the person chooses a trial by judge instead of a trial by jury. The citizens aren't much of a check against corruption, they're more of a check against a ineffective representative, or a representative that doesn't hold their own view."

To which you rubutted:

Quote :

"A corrupt government can be voted out or overthrown."

LOL! That's funny. You really are naive.

Quote :

"I'm fairly certain that, upon learning of his actions, the citizenry would not have re-elected him. And if they did, that's their problem."

Somehow, other people's problems always ends up becoming other people's problems too... Funny how that seems to work out.

Quote :

"And what happens when the government will not do that?"

Typically they won't do it in the absence of evidence.

I find it funny how you are optimistic about society to the point of being naive, yet utterly pessimistic about the government to the point of being irrational.

Quote :

"The ultimate, as in "final", check, lies with the people."

To an extent. People in power are usually very good at keeping that power.

Quote :

"Dude, I know it's naive. I have no problem admitting it, but I think it's the way we should treat people. It's rare that you can get to the core of something like this, but that's how I feel about it, and I don't think it's too irrational."

If that's how you feel, then that's how you feel. I'll just agree to disagree.

Quote :

"I'll never murder anyone, and I'll probably never be murdered by anyone, so I guess we don't need to worry about that either, right? Hey, I'm not a slave, so there is no need to ban slavery, right?"

I'm pretty sure you missed what I was saying.

I was saying that gay marriage doesn't affect me. Obviously murder is very capable of affecting me, as is slavery. But still, none of that has anything to do with the point 1337 b4k4 was trying to make. His point was that arbitrarily banning people from doing something that others are allowed to do isn't right. Now, I don't agree with his point, as it's far too vague to the point of being irrelevant. But you seemed to have missed his point all together.

That, or I'm missing your point.

Quote :

"Yes, but is also a problem with the proposed amendment as well. Let's not compound one problem with another"

That's an excellent point. But until the law is changed, banning a few ex-drug dealers and ex-hookers from being sheriff isn't the worst compromise in protecting people from ex-cons who, IMO, can't be trusted.

Quote :

" but they should be allowed to want to protect people via being the sheriff"

Yup. You nailed it.

Quote :

"They shouldn't be allowed to say what they want as an elected representative of the people"

Yup. You nailed it.

Quote :

"They shouldn't be allowed to have a job protecting people or serving them in any way as, say, a way of them paying back society and clearing their own conscience if they so desire"

Yup. You nailed it.

If they want to pay back society, go do some lectures to middle school kids and pick up some trash on the side of the road.

10/15/2010 6:33:25 PM

Quote :

"I am equating "good" with "not corrupt." The ambiguity is my fault."

That's fine, but I would still assert that there is more to being a good sheriff than simply being "not corrupt," though the being latter certainly goes a long ways towards being the former.

Quote :

"If he were the only one running, then it doesn't really matter how dumb the people are."

If he were the only one running, someone would figure it out.

Quote :

"While I can't say that it will equate to them always being unscrupulous, I can say that I can't trust them in a position of power."

That's fine for you. Don't vote for them. But don't also completely prevent them from being able to run.

Quote :

"I could have sworn I addressed this."

You may have responded, but I have already rebutted your response. And well, might I add.

Quote :

"LOL! That's funny. You really are naive."

I'm not the one suggesting that a corrupt government will fix itself. you also did a damned good job of ignoring the rest of what I said after your long list of response and replies... And, in fact, you didn't even list my actual response to your last one. That's fucking dishonest, dude. Have the courage and intellectual honesty to actually address what I said, instead of rehashing the conversation and giving an alternate ending.

Quote :

"I find it funny how you are optimistic about society to the point of being naive, yet utterly pessimistic about the government to the point of being irrational."

And I find it equally funny how optimistic you are of government while being equally pessimistic about society.

Quote :

"To an extent. People in power are usually very good at keeping that power."

Yep. That's why the second option of revolt is the other half of the check.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure you missed what I was saying. I was saying that gay marriage doesn't affect me."

And I don't think you get mine. That something doesn't affect you is not a good reason to simply ignore it. If something is wrong, then it's wrong, whether it affects you or not. Such selfishness is extremely abhorrent.

Quote :

"But until the law is changed, banning a few ex-drug dealers and ex-hookers from being sheriff isn't the worst compromise in protecting people from ex-cons who, IMO, can't be trusted."

Actually, yes, it is. Two wrongs don't make a right. Three lefts do, but not two wrongs.

Quote :

"If they want to pay back society, go do some lectures to middle school kids and pick up some trash on the side of the road."

As long as that trash isn't violent criminals and as long as those lectures aren't done as a sheriff. You don't think that the story of a reformed criminal as sheriff might be extremely influential?

Quote :

"Yup. You nailed it."

You can't really say that without defending it. All of those statements make a damned good point, even if doing so under the surface.