Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Neither of those two scenarios offer an alternative to dealing with the consequences.
I'm confused by this... are you saying then that because there is no alternative that there shouldn't be an alternative? The disenfranchisement argument has an alternative because we can change it via laws, so thus people should not need to be responsible for their actions?
|
No. I'm saying that the disenfranchisement argument is not an inherent consequence - it is a consequence defined by law. If you contract AIDS, the inherent consequence is that you have AIDS. If you commit a crime, the inherent consequence is that you have commited a crime - one of the consequences as defined by law is disenfranchisment.
Quote:
Is the person who is being disenfranchised for no reason? Just because? If that's the case, then that is not fair. An innocent person being disenfranchised? Not right, not fair. But that's not how our system works...and that's something that I would be willing to lend my support in changing.
But in this case, commit felony, lose rights. Pretty simple cause and effect.
As far as using it as an excuse to NOT CHANGE the law, I don't see a need to change the law. It's not a cop out. I firmly believe that if you do something wrong you pay the price for it. I consider that to be one of the line items in that price.
|
You're still using "accept responsibility for your actions" as an excuse for your support of the law - not as the reason you feel the law is appropriate.
If the law stated that anyone convicted of a felony would lose their left leg - you are stating that a potential felon should then "accept responsibility for their actions", and therefore - it is acceptable that a convicted felon should lose their left leg.
There is a disconnect in your logic. Simply because someone should be responsible does not mean anything/everything that is defined as a consequence is acceptable or should be accepted.
If you feel the law is appropriate, that is fine (I disagree). But to claim it is appropriate
because people should be responsible is an invalid statement. Anything could be defined as the consequence of being convicted of breaking a federal law. That does not mean anything that is defined is an appropriate consequence.