What Charlie said is NICE -- even Beautiful ....

Once penalties are paid, offenders earn new start

But he still might pass the buck and let Bill McCollum and Sembler's Penis Pump lady love play bad cop. Let's hope not.



Above Photo (hehe) Compliments of Stogie. Early morning surprise in the mail LOL.

Oh, and the new rules look VERY confusing --- why can't we just get it RIGHT like the other states? Call Tom Vlasik and the others and ask them how to spell it.

Don't let me down, Charlie. And, people who have no violence or gun issues should get back ALL RIGHTS. RIGHT NOW. Just sayin ... anything less is not enough. The lady who robbed the bank should be able to carry a gun if she wants. She has probably never used a gun in her life ... so why keep her from getting one now? Crazy. Just another hurdle, another reason to make someone have to 'ask the man' for something. Dang. Dang. I so wanted Florida to make a clean break from this shadow. That would have been so SPARKLY ! So SUNSHINE-Y. Fairness requires restoring rights. And, THANK YOU to Frank Kopczynski, Clearwater

By CHARLIE CRIST
Published April 4, 2007

Our Founding Fathers set forth in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." To secure these rights, we, the people, created our government.

When a citizen breaks the law, he or she has taken something from society, so we view punishment as the repayment of that debt. The debt is paid by serving jail or prison time, probation, and paying restitution to the victims of the crime. And like any debt, once the citizen has fully repaid, he or she should be afforded the opportunity, except where the most heinous of crimes have been committed, to re-enter society with the same rights the citizen had before breaking the law.

That is the way the system should work, and that is the way it does work in 45 of our 50 states. Unfortunately, in five states - Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky and Florida - we do not restore civil rights to those who have broken the law once they have paid their debt in full.
(notice we're in there with all those progressive states .. hehe quiet quiet I have friends/family in most of them TOO!)
Why is Florida among only five states that do not automatically restore civil rights? Like Florida, many Southern states struggling through the Jim Crow era resisted calls to change their laws denying the restoration of civil rights. Since then, all but five of these states have realized the historical underpinning for denying the restoration of civil rights and repealed these unjust laws.

Some who favor the current system argue that restoring civil rights is somehow "weak on crime," as if restoring the right to vote, to serve on a jury or to work lessens the punishment or encourages a person to commit new crimes. In fact, the opposite should be true. Giving a person a meaningful way to re-enter society, make a living and participate in our democracy will encourage good behavior. Moreover, there is no historical record in states that have restored civil rights to argue that restoration has increased crime.

Thankfully, crime in Florida is at a 35-year low, and no state has been tougher on crime than we have. For more than a decade, we have fought to ensure criminals are held accountable for their actions through strict sentencing. As a state senator, I sponsored the bill that brought chain gangs back to Florida and sponsored the landmark "Stop Turning Out Prisoners" Act to require criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.

This year, through the passage of the Anti-Murder Act, we will require violent felony offenders who violate probation to remain in jail until a judge finds they no longer pose a danger to the community. Violent criminals who abuse the privilege of probation will not be given the opportunity to prey on Florida's citizens.

The ultimate goal of these laws is justice. Those who do not abide by the laws of our land pay a tough penalty for doing so, and they should. But once they have paid their debt, society should honor its part of the bargain and allow citizens to re-enter society and enjoy the rights granted by our Creator. To not do so is more than reckless or irresponsible, it is unjust. As Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation in his second inaugural address, your elected representatives should govern with "malice toward none, and charity for all."

Charlie Crist is governor of Florida.

[Last modified April 3, 2007, 21:54:37]

Share your thoughts on this story
First Name (only)

Location
Comment (May be published online and/or in print)

You have 250 characters left to comment.


Comments on this article
by John 04/04/07 02:21 PM
Complete sentence, pay full restitution including any court costs, complete probation, and then get your rights back. The sentence is not complete until the victim is made as whole as is possible.
by fred 04/04/07 02:19 PM
Yeah, pass that theory along to DMV and all the HR wizards at companies throughout America...Received a DUI three years ago (one and only ever) now cant find work anymore at all...barely over..simple error in judgement..now unemployable for life....
by Selwyn 04/04/07 01:51 PM
The denial of the right to vote was used by this state to throw the 2000 election. Some classes of crime are judged more heinous than others and at this time have other legal restraints imposed upon them, the voting issue should be settled finally.
by Heath 04/04/07 08:58 AM
You can't draw a line and say some offenders belong on a list and some don't and still call it justice. Either they paid for their crime with jail time or they didn't. If they have, they are absolved. If they haven't, don't let them out.
by Heath 04/04/07 07:46 AM
Why then is it okay to deny sexual offenders their civil rights by restricting where they can live and work after they've paid their debt for their crimes? The governor is right on the issue above, but has a double standard. Does he not realize this?
by Allen 04/04/07 05:52 AM
Will the same spirit extend to the removal from sex offender lists those punished for Romeo & Julet crimes (where one of the young lovers is under 18 and the other is not), or for stupid acts like exhibitionism? Which is worse: stealing or flashing?


Exactly.