TexasCHLforum.com

threoh8 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:They did their time and paid their debt.

They've done no such thing as simply by being behind bars. That euphemism has always bothered me.

There is a significant difference between consequence (time served) and restitution (paid their debt).

jordanmills wrote:They did their time and paid their debt. Would you prefer they stay homeless and jobless? Do you WANT to leave them no option for making in life than no crime?

Well, I think the system is pretty much designed to do just that --allow no option other than crime. The prisons are basically crime colleges and what kind of job is anyone going to get with a criminal record? So, I don't think it's a good system, but it's the system we have, and until it is changed we have to deal with the consequences it produces. OTOH, anyone capable of having options in life is intelligent enough to know that committing a felony is going to ruin their life, so they don't do things like rape women and rob liquor stores.

But let's challenge your fundamental assumption that by doing their "time" they "paid their debt." A guy robs three liquor stores and in the third robbery kills a customer --maybe he didn't intend to shoot anyone, but another customer bumped his arm and his gun went off. He pleads out and gets 10 years, and is paroled in 7. You see him as having paid some kind of "debt?" Would you consider his debt paid if that customer was your daughter or your wife?

Next, let's look at the odds this renter is not going to be a problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism). How many times do you read about some horrific crime and discover the perp was just paroled or released from prison? Here's some significant info on recidivism from the link:

First, where is the highest recidivism rate in the nation? It wouldn't happen to be in the People's Republic of California?

Seven out of ten prisoners in California return to jail or prison within three years. This is the highest recidivism rate in the nation.

Second, what kind of criminals are most likely to continue a life of crime?

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

So, you think property owners should be forced to rent apartments to criminals, like burglars and users of illegal weapons, who have a 70% chance of continuing their crimes? Are those the fellow renters you'd like to see if you were a resident of such apartments? And you should consider that in the People's Republic of California, property owners will probably be held to some kind of civil liability for failing to provide sufficient security after they've been forced by law to accept high risk renters.

threoh8 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:They did their time and paid their debt.

They've done no such thing as simply by being behind bars. That euphemism has always bothered me.

There are almost always fines on top of it. It tends to be literally true.

VMI77 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:They did their time and paid their debt. Would you prefer they stay homeless and jobless? Do you WANT to leave them no option for making in life than no crime?

So, you think property owners should be forced to rent apartments to criminals, like burglars and users of illegal weapons, who have a 70% chance of continuing their crimes? Are those the fellow renters you'd like to see if you were a resident of such apartments? And you should consider that in the People's Republic of California, property owners will probably be held to some kind of civil liability for failing to provide sufficient security after they've been forced by law to accept high risk renters.

I don't know where you're from, but where I come from, we only punish people for what they did. Not what they have a certain chance of doing in the future.

jordanmills wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:They did their time and paid their debt. Would you prefer they stay homeless and jobless? Do you WANT to leave them no option for making in life than no crime?

So, you think property owners should be forced to rent apartments to criminals, like burglars and users of illegal weapons, who have a 70% chance of continuing their crimes? Are those the fellow renters you'd like to see if you were a resident of such apartments? And you should consider that in the People's Republic of California, property owners will probably be held to some kind of civil liability for failing to provide sufficient security after they've been forced by law to accept high risk renters.

I don't know where you're from, but where I come from, we only punish people for what they did. Not what they have a certain chance of doing in the future.

Your first statement is false on its face in the US, so unless you don't come from the US, where you come from people do get punished for what they have a chance of doing in the future (and I suspect that outside the US it is even more likely for people to be so punished). As just one example, people are imprisoned without bail because a judge decides they pose a flight risk --in other words, because of what they have a chance of doing in the future. And certainly, if you consider it punishment to deny a convicted felon a rental opportunity, then you can't logically say that keeping someone in jail isn't punishment --someone who, btw, hasn't been convicted of anything, unlike the felons in question.

Also, since in your view a property owner deciding not to rent to a convicted felon is a "punishment," you logically must support renting to rapists and pedophiles, if they've served their time, because otherwise, they'd be punished only for what they have a certain chance of doing in the future. Even this misguided law doesn't go that far, but then politicians operate on expediency, not logic. I must assume then that you not only wouldn't mind having a couple of armed robbers living in the apartment next to yours (as long as they've done their time), but you also wouldn't mind a convicted rapist or child molester.

That's very liberal view but not one I subscribe too myself. The fact is, someone who gets a gun and robs a pharmacy or burglarizes a home is making a choice. He knows what the consequences are likely to be, and they include not being welcome among people who aren't criminals, even after he's served his time. That's the product of a choice he made. By this law the government seeks to protect criminals from the consequences of their actions at the expense of the rights of property owners and people who chose not to be criminals --and under circumstances where their predatory criminal behavior is much more likely than not to continue. This is very different from abridging property rights to protect people against discrimination on the basis of race --no one gets to choose their race.

threoh8 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:They did their time and paid their debt.

They've done no such thing as simply by being behind bars. That euphemism has always bothered me.

Very few actually pay to replace what they stole, pay for medical bills of people they hurt, and/or resurrect the people they killed. Those are necessary steps in truly paying their debt, but not the only steps.

VMI77 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:They did their time and paid their debt. Would you prefer they stay homeless and jobless? Do you WANT to leave them no option for making in life than no crime?

So, you think property owners should be forced to rent apartments to criminals, like burglars and users of illegal weapons, who have a 70% chance of continuing their crimes? Are those the fellow renters you'd like to see if you were a resident of such apartments? And you should consider that in the People's Republic of California, property owners will probably be held to some kind of civil liability for failing to provide sufficient security after they've been forced by law to accept high risk renters.

I don't know where you're from, but where I come from, we only punish people for what they did. Not what they have a certain chance of doing in the future.

Your first statement is false on its face in the US, so unless you don't come from the US, where you come from people do get punished for what they have a chance of doing in the future (and I suspect that outside the US it is even more likely for people to be so punished). As just one example, people are imprisoned without bail because a judge decides they pose a flight risk --in other words, because of what they have a chance of doing in the future. And certainly, if you consider it punishment to deny a convicted felon a rental opportunity, then you can't logically say that keeping someone in jail isn't punishment --someone who, btw, hasn't been convicted of anything, unlike the felons in question.


Also, since in your view a property owner deciding not to rent to a convicted felon is a "punishment," you logically must support renting to rapists and pedophiles, if they've served their time, because otherwise, they'd be punished only for what they have a certain chance of doing in the future. Even this misguided law doesn't go that far, but then politicians operate on expediency, not logic. I must assume then that you not only wouldn't mind having a couple of armed robbers living in the apartment next to yours (as long as they've done their time), but you also wouldn't mind a convicted rapist or child molester.

That's very liberal view but not one I subscribe too myself. The fact is, someone who gets a gun and robs a pharmacy or burglarizes a home is making a choice. He knows what the consequences are likely to be, and they include not being welcome among people who aren't criminals, even after he's served his time. That's the product of a choice he made. By this law the government seeks to protect criminals from the consequences of their actions at the expense of the rights of property owners and people who chose not to be criminals --and under circumstances where their predatory criminal behavior is much more likely than not to continue. This is very different from abridging property rights to protect people against discrimination on the basis of race --no one gets to choose their race.

As always, you are on point...the left LOVES to confuse things as much as possible, especially in regards to BEHAVIOR vs. things such as the color of skin...there are other arenas where this has been done recently that are beyond the scope of this forum, but that highlight this tactic. Our military services being used as a social experiment for one, and I will leave it at that. Interesting read, both of your major comments.

VMI77 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:They did their time and paid their debt. Would you prefer they stay homeless and jobless? Do you WANT to leave them no option for making in life than no crime?

So, you think property owners should be forced to rent apartments to criminals, like burglars and users of illegal weapons, who have a 70% chance of continuing their crimes? Are those the fellow renters you'd like to see if you were a resident of such apartments? And you should consider that in the People's Republic of California, property owners will probably be held to some kind of civil liability for failing to provide sufficient security after they've been forced by law to accept high risk renters.

I don't know where you're from, but where I come from, we only punish people for what they did. Not what they have a certain chance of doing in the future.

Your first statement is false on its face in the US, so unless you don't come from the US, where you come from people do get punished for what they have a chance of doing in the future (and I suspect that outside the US it is even more likely for people to be so punished). As just one example, people are imprisoned without bail because a judge decides they pose a flight risk --in other words, because of what they have a chance of doing in the future. And certainly, if you consider it punishment to deny a convicted felon a rental opportunity, then you can't logically say that keeping someone in jail isn't punishment --someone who, btw, hasn't been convicted of anything, unlike the felons in question.

Also, since in your view a property owner deciding not to rent to a convicted felon is a "punishment," you logically must support renting to rapists and pedophiles, if they've served their time, because otherwise, they'd be punished only for what they have a certain chance of doing in the future. Even this misguided law doesn't go that far, but then politicians operate on expediency, not logic. I must assume then that you not only wouldn't mind having a couple of armed robbers living in the apartment next to yours (as long as they've done their time), but you also wouldn't mind a convicted rapist or child molester.

That's very liberal view but not one I subscribe too myself. The fact is, someone who gets a gun and robs a pharmacy or burglarizes a home is making a choice. He knows what the consequences are likely to be, and they include not being welcome among people who aren't criminals, even after he's served his time. That's the product of a choice he made. By this law the government seeks to protect criminals from the consequences of their actions at the expense of the rights of property owners and people who chose not to be criminals --and under circumstances where their predatory criminal behavior is much more likely than not to continue. This is very different from abridging property rights to protect people against discrimination on the basis of race --no one gets to choose their race.

That is the essence of a lot of government programs. Let's look at the mortgage mess as a parallel situation. There, too, people who made bad decisions are being subsidized for those decisions through our tax dollars. So those of us who have been careful and lived within our means get to support those who didn't. The criminal extension is simply the latest in a string. It is advertized as "spread the wealth around."

I realize that it makes no sense to make it so that ex-cons can only exist by doing more crime. On the other hand, it makes even less sense to make them a protected class. Like the mortgage default situation, that is rewarding bad behavior.

chasfm11 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

jordanmills wrote:They did their time and paid their debt. Would you prefer they stay homeless and jobless? Do you WANT to leave them no option for making in life than no crime?

So, you think property owners should be forced to rent apartments to criminals, like burglars and users of illegal weapons, who have a 70% chance of continuing their crimes? Are those the fellow renters you'd like to see if you were a resident of such apartments? And you should consider that in the People's Republic of California, property owners will probably be held to some kind of civil liability for failing to provide sufficient security after they've been forced by law to accept high risk renters.

I don't know where you're from, but where I come from, we only punish people for what they did. Not what they have a certain chance of doing in the future.

Your first statement is false on its face in the US, so unless you don't come from the US, where you come from people do get punished for what they have a chance of doing in the future (and I suspect that outside the US it is even more likely for people to be so punished). As just one example, people are imprisoned without bail because a judge decides they pose a flight risk --in other words, because of what they have a chance of doing in the future. And certainly, if you consider it punishment to deny a convicted felon a rental opportunity, then you can't logically say that keeping someone in jail isn't punishment --someone who, btw, hasn't been convicted of anything, unlike the felons in question.

Also, since in your view a property owner deciding not to rent to a convicted felon is a "punishment," you logically must support renting to rapists and pedophiles, if they've served their time, because otherwise, they'd be punished only for what they have a certain chance of doing in the future. Even this misguided law doesn't go that far, but then politicians operate on expediency, not logic. I must assume then that you not only wouldn't mind having a couple of armed robbers living in the apartment next to yours (as long as they've done their time), but you also wouldn't mind a convicted rapist or child molester.

That's very liberal view but not one I subscribe too myself. The fact is, someone who gets a gun and robs a pharmacy or burglarizes a home is making a choice. He knows what the consequences are likely to be, and they include not being welcome among people who aren't criminals, even after he's served his time. That's the product of a choice he made. By this law the government seeks to protect criminals from the consequences of their actions at the expense of the rights of property owners and people who chose not to be criminals --and under circumstances where their predatory criminal behavior is much more likely than not to continue. This is very different from abridging property rights to protect people against discrimination on the basis of race --no one gets to choose their race.

That is the essence of a lot of government programs. Let's look at the mortgage mess as a parallel situation. There, too, people who made bad decisions are being subsidized for those decisions through our tax dollars. So those of us who have been careful and lived within our means get to support those who didn't. The criminal extension is simply the latest in a string. It is advertized as "spread the wealth around."

I realize that it makes no sense to make it so that ex-cons can only exist by doing more crime. On the other hand, it makes even less sense to make them a protected class. Like the mortgage default situation, that is rewarding bad behavior.

As I said earlier in the thread, I'm not contending the system is a good one. I think "justice" system creates new criminals and schools them in crime. I also think there is a class of predatory criminal that can't be reformed, and who simply do not think like the bulk of the human population. And recognizing this, while I still think it would be a bad law that infringes on property rights, I wouldn't have nearly as much problem with it if it excluded protection for those who have committed violent crimes. However, the better solution is to fix the problem at it's source --the "justice" system-- rather than impose patchwork solutions that infringe the rights of others.

If the mugger huggers want to hire convicts, they already have the right to take their own money and start a business and hire convicts. No new laws are needed.

If the mugger huggers want to rent to convicts, they already have the right to take their own money and buy an apartment building and rent to convicts. No new laws are needed.

If they're really committed to their cause, they can rent a room in their own house to a sex offender. How about a room that adjoins their teen daughter's room? If they really believe the words that come out of their mouths.

snorri wrote:If they really believe the words that come out of their mouths.

They don't. Their words are for others. The mere expression of their enlightened views elevates them above the rest of us, who must be punished for our proletarian reactionary attitudes and beliefs.