Man denied law license in AZ

topaz · December 10, 2005, 08:00 PM

The man has paid his debt to society. Give him a break.

CrAz3D · December 11, 2005, 12:08 PM

He didn't give those two other dudes a break.

Forged · December 11, 2005, 03:20 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on December 10, 2005, 05:12 PM
If he didn't mean to kill them why did he? There wasn't someone there "holding his hand" through the murders so to speak. He pulled the trigger. He killed the men.

They where attempting to buy 20lbs of pot from him. He was robbing them of a shit load of money, I would imagine they put up a fight for it and he killed one of them before they could kill him.

iago · December 11, 2005, 03:48 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on December 11, 2005, 12:08 PM
He didn't give those two other dudes a break.

You haven't answered the most important question yet. Are you intentionally avoiding it, or do you just keep missing it?

CrAz3D · December 11, 2005, 07:54 PM

Quote from: iago on December 11, 2005, 03:48 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 11, 2005, 12:08 PM
He didn't give those two other dudes a break.

You haven't answered the most important question yet. Are you intentionally avoiding it, or do you just keep missing it?

what question?

Explicit · December 11, 2005, 09:38 PM

Quote from: iago on December 10, 2005, 05:56 PM
You are avoiding the key question, over and over again. Please answer:

Quote from: Adron on December 10, 2005, 02:52 PM
A murderer is someone who murders. Do you want him to keep murdering[...]?

before continuing, please.

That question.

iago · December 11, 2005, 10:02 PM

Quote from: Explicit[nK] on December 11, 2005, 09:38 PM
Quote from: iago on December 10, 2005, 05:56 PM
You are avoiding the key question, over and over again. Please answer:

Quote from: Adron on December 10, 2005, 02:52 PM
A murderer is someone who murders. Do you want him to keep murdering[...]?

before continuing, please.

That question.

Yes, and it was asked at least 2 or 3 times in this thread, and has been consistantly ignored.

It boils down to, would you prefer a criminal to stay a criminal all his life, and continue committing crimes when released from jail? or would you prefer them to get a job and be a contributing member of society?

I'd say b. There will be less crime in the world.

CrAz3D · December 12, 2005, 12:31 AM

I hope he doesn't kill anyone else...but what is to say he is a fully changed man? The Arizona Bar obviously doesn't think he is a changed man.

Grok · December 12, 2005, 10:21 AM

The responders to this thread are taking one of these two positions:

A) Once a criminal, always a criminal.

-- Someone who commits a crime, at least a felony, is not a normal person and should not be given normal rights, even after they complete the punishment that we normal people have assigned to them. By not restoring their normal rights, the felon will have to resort to crime in order to survive, but I can ignore that fact because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that these people are criminals and will repeatedly commit crimes, and this makes me correct to refuse their restoration of rights.

B) Once a criminal completes his punishment, restore his full rights.

-- Someone who commits a crime, regardless of the crime, should be assigned an appropriate punishment and allowed to serve that punishment then have a chance to return to normal life. These people may commit further crimes and are even at a higher risk of doing so than people who have never committed any crimes, at which time they will be given more severe punishment than first-time offenders.

I'm of course in (B) so my understanding of the (A) position is biased against, and it is probably written biased against too.

iago · December 12, 2005, 10:35 AM

Quote from: Grok on December 12, 2005, 10:21 AM
The responders to this thread are taking one of these two positions:

A) Once a criminal, always a criminal.

-- Someone who commits a crime, at least a felony, is not a normal person and should not be given normal rights, even after they complete the punishment that we normal people have assigned to them. By not restoring their normal rights, the felon will have to resort to crime in order to survive, but I can ignore that fact because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that these people are criminals and will repeatedly commit crimes, and this makes me correct to refuse their restoration of rights.

B) Once a criminal completes his punishment, restore his full rights.

-- Someone who commits a crime, regardless of the crime, should be assigned an appropriate punishment and allowed to serve that punishment then have a chance to return to normal life. These people may commit further crimes and are even at a higher risk of doing so than people who have never committed any crimes, at which time they will be given more severe punishment than first-time offenders.

I'm of course in (B) so my understanding of the (A) position is biased against, and it is probably written biased against too.

Within those camps, I actually believe in position (A). However, I argued against it here in a "convince me I've made the right choice" type of argument. But the arguments for (A) that I've seen here are so weak that I'm wondering now if I was wrong..

CrAz3D · December 12, 2005, 11:46 AM

"Once a criminal, always a criminal" is close to how I see it per your definition. I believe that felonies are haneous acts & should not go without eternal punishment. K, the guy gets out of prision, but that guy should live with the fact floating over his head everywhere he goes. I'm sure he can find a job, there are programs for people like that.
Should we onnly forgive some felons & not other? Sex offenders' names are posted on the internet & where ever they move the neighborhood is notified that a sexual predator has moved in.

Forged · December 12, 2005, 01:27 PM

It seems silly to punish a man after serving his 20 year sentence. He is intelligent enough to get a good job, where he can make pretty decent money. I do not see why he should not be able to get his job seeing as he paid his debut to society already, for something he did as a teenager.
His only other option if he wants to live a nice life is to start selling drugs again, would you prefer he sell drugs?

CrAz3D · December 12, 2005, 01:31 PM

He was like 26 when he murdered two people.
Maybe he is just deceitful enough to get a job as a lawyer so he can find out the loops holes of the law & dupe people out of their money.

Lawyer or drugdealer? Those are his only options?

Explicit · December 12, 2005, 01:41 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on December 12, 2005, 01:31 PM
He was like 26 when he murdered two people.
Maybe he is just deceitful enough to get a job as a lawyer so he can find out the loops holes of the law & dupe people out of their money.

Lawyer or drugdealer? Those are his only options?

Don't you think you're speculating beyond reason? His original sentence was life, but he was released after 17 years. In order to do that, you'd have to show that you were rehabilitated, because otherwise, you'd still be in there rotting away. The Arizona Bar should be taking that into consideration, but it's apparent that they could care less.

Being a lawyer is legitimate, and it's the path he chose. He should at least be given a chance as opposed to being shut out.

Grok · December 12, 2005, 01:55 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on December 12, 2005, 01:31 PM
He was like 26 when he murdered two people.
Maybe he is just deceitful enough to get a job as a lawyer so he can find out the loops holes of the law & dupe people out of their money.

Lawyer or drugdealer? Those are his only options?

This is a great reason for not allowing any lawyers. I think we should suspect everyone of being deceiptful enough to get a job as a lawyer so they can find out the loopholes and dupe people out of their money.

Because you have to get a job as a lawyer to learn the loopholes and you have to do both of those to dupe people out of their money.

You couldn't just study law and learn those things.