This is kind of where I started to rethink this. If the person is so bad they should never be given rights back, why are they not still in prison? I am undecided on where I would draw that line.Pariah3j wrote:As I believe that bill of rights dictates natural rights that were imbued by God - I don't think man/the courts have the right to take away those rights permanently. There should be a cooling period, X number of years per the crime but after enough time they should be restored. Violet crimes should have a longer cooling period, and I could even see an argument given for those who repeatedly offend having extra time added to their sentence of removing their rights - this could be something like they are suspended during the parole period or work similarly to parole.
Remember the Bill or rights were put in place to prevent government abuse, if we allow the government to dictate how those rights to be stripped, it gives the government an avenue for abuse. Just my .02 cents.
I think what Mr. Cotton mentioned about an administrative procedure to restore rights later is a good idea. If someone has completed their prison sentence as well as parole then they should be able to get basic rights restored after some time period. At some point assuming no further criminal conduct, I think we can say they are good members of society.