Should felons be allowed to join social sites?

Depends on their crime. I wouldn’t go so far as to say every person that has ever committed any crime should be barred from them. Not to mention, it would be hard to actually monitor all of it to be sure they stay away from social sites.

Why should they be banned? They’re banned from “certain sorts of work, professions and civil rights” in order to protect the rest of society. Why would banning all felons from social sites be necessary, feasible or preferable?

Do you mean while incarcerated or after they’ve been released?

Of course. I find banning a little excessive. Pedos really ruined it for everyone lol. “OMG wut about the kidzzzzz!!!!”.

@Seaofclouds For what crimes would you have them banned? The feasibility we’ll set aside, for now.
@Seelix That is why I am asking the question. Would it be…. In your opinion, and why/why not.
@abysmalbeauty That is an issue for you to speak to. Do you see a difference? If so what?
For myself I do not think that anyone should be barred from social interaction or professions, etc. unless they pose an actual and emanate danger to others.
@Blackberry Ah, Pedos, as you say, caused a knee-jerk reaction among the populace and the populace, as always, responded with “pitch-forks and torches”, eh?

While actually in prison no they shouldn’t be allowed to join social sites. We have to consider that any criminal activity that takes place while an inmate is incarcerated that is facilitated by the freedoms allowed by our prison system are technically our (being the prison systems) responsibility. Prison is not just punishment. For many inmates its actually the means to prevent criminal activity from continuing.

Once you have served your sentence then I see no reason why you shouldn’t be able to join social sites or use the internet just like everyone else after all your supposed to come out reformed- no? If you are dumb enough to get caught committing criminal activity again then you go back to jail and you don’t get to use the internet again.

@throssog – Okay, I suppose I might have been a little unclear. No, they shouldn’t be banned. I don’t see it as necessary. I don’t see it as feasible, because how would this be monitored? I don’t see it as preferable, either.

I do think that prisoners’ rights so far as social interaction should be restricted, because that’s a part of being in prison. If a prisoner is only permitted to see/have contact with friends or family in certain circumstances, I believe that should be extended to the Internet as well during their imprisonment.

After one is released from prison, I think that they should have the same rights as others, dependent on their crimes. People convicted of child abuse shouldn’t be allowed contact with minors, be it online or in person. That logic should follow in all situations, I think.

How? Are you going to bar them from owning computers? No, don’t be ridiculous.

@abysmalbeauty Ah, but felons serving their sentences do belong to social sites and have pen pals and Blogs, web sites, etc. . Just not ‘live and in person’. Prisons and incarceration are partially concerned with incapacitation ( keeping the criminal from committing more/further crime) but that is only one goal. Here I have asked about social sites.
Having served their sentence you would permit them to interact with the law abiding (un-convicted) again?
@Seelix You have given it some thought – good. Now, why?
@marinelife Some, my friend, are barred from even being on line by whatever means: Library, etc.
It is not I, but the courts and supervision agents who determine these restrictions and how long/permanently they are to last.

@throssog – Why? I’ve given you my “why”.
I do think that prisoners’ rights so far as social interaction should be restricted, because that’s a part of being in prison.
As to why they shouldn’t be banned once released from prison (dependent on their crimes): They’ve done their time and so should have the same rights as others. That’s all there is to it.

@Seelix With the caveat(s) you would impose, I can agree partially with your position. However, do human beings not need interaction with others and should we ( as holders of prisoner/slaves) not see to their habilitation and not just their incarceration? After all slave masters have obligations and responsibilities to their slaves…do they/we not?

@throssog – Of course. Prisoners are kept fed, sheltered, clothed, bathed, in good health (relatively speaking dependent on diseases and conditions) and allowed to socialize with their peers. They’re permitted to take courses to improve their skills so as to be able to enter the work force upon their release. They’re offered therapy and instruction in coping skills, etc. in order to deal with any anger management or similar issues they might have. They’re offered the opportunity to practice religion. That goes beyond basic rights and into rehabilitation.

@Seelix Ah, they are , are they? Hmm, perhaps I should state this now as it has pertanance to the matters under discussion. If I do not I shall be liable to the accusation of “inventing” things. I am a convict and served ten (10) years in the Federal BOP. While, putatively, these programs you mention were on offer – they were meaningless shams. BOP and the entire Federal system rejected rehabilitation as a goal of penal servitude back in the 1980’s. Once it was as you consider it to be now – “it ain’t that way no more!”. I speak from experience.

@throssog – I speak from my (admittedly limited, as I’ve not experienced it firsthand) knowledge of the Canadian penal system. There might be some differences of which I’m not aware.

@Seelix Ah, Canadian. Well that explains much…your civility and good manners, your ability to engage in reasoned debate with out ad hominem(s),etc. I have always admired Canada’s educational system. Never attended classes there but did in GB. Civility is one of the lost virtues among USA persons I’m afraid.
Yes, your system is somewhat different and rehabilitation is still an espoused aim. Sadly not in the USA system.

I think violent criinals should be banned from social sites while in prison.

@throssog – I thank you for the compliment, but I don’t know that my civility has strictly to do with my being Canadian. There are plenty of Jellies from south of my border and elsewhere who are just as civil :)

@JLeslie Violent criminals? What sort of violence do you mean? The law recognizes many sorts and degrees of violent criminal. Some you might not classify as violent. So, I ask for clarification.
@Seelix Please, forgive me a personal bias and the prejudices of experience?

@throssog I don’t know all the possibilities. For sure pedaphilia, rape, assault with a deadly weapon, murder.

Absolutely not, jail/prisons are set in place for removal from society. If they are now longer in there, there life should become just as normal as everyone else’s.

@JLeslie Rape and Pedophilia I can see, assault with a deadly weapon and murder? Hmmm, no I don’t see those. The people who commit these last two usually had a reason and would “not” do it if they had the chance. Now , after they have been subjected to the tender mercies of the incarcerational system for a few years…some come out “changed people”, and not as “we” would have them be.
@Silence04 I am of the opinion that the collateral and extended consequences of incarceration are too excessive and should be addressed as well. Perhaps someday, eh?

Also, the Internet isn’t owned by gov’ts, it’s a free open space with some servers owned by companies. So it would be at the companies discretion to decide if they should have access. The only way for them to even do that would be for them to preform a background check on everyone that signs up, and I sure as fuck don’t want a social network (multiple 3rd party data collectors) even knowing my cell phone, let alone every thing about my past.

@Silence04 Well, the Chinese are having a bit of difficulty with all that right now, eh? I agree with you about distrust of data mining situations…and the hacking that surely seems to follow. :)

@throssog Might matter the degree. A serial muderer plans and is a predator. Actually, anyone who painstakingly planned a stranger murder would be on my list. Kidnapping would make my list too I think. Anything that counts as predatory in all those crimes I mentioned.

@JLeslie Predatory? Hmmm, that would include, I imagine those law enforcement persons who sought out victims among the poor to charge and convict for crimes they, the poor, did not commit? Ala the Rampart Division LAPD? As well as others of that stripe?

When they are in jail, no. When they are out of jail, yes. It makes no sense that someone can interact with you in the real world but not online.

They should be allowed. The problem is you never know who is the other person behind what he / she writes. Not to mention they can fake up an identity easy. If you never saw this you should try dating a bit over what you read over the internet and see with who you end up meeting. Only a few write the whole truth.

@throssog Huh? Cops who seek out the poor and blame them for crimes, fake evidence maybe to help get a conviction? Yeah, I am fine with that cop having no access to social sites while in jail. Did I understand you correctly?

@ Quite so .

@Hibernate But that is true to all of society. What, only ex-cons lie? Unless you didn’t mean that, then I apologize for misunderstanding your post.
@throssog I am also a former resident of many BOP’s and to answer your original question, in my opinion is that we shouldn’t be banned but only those that have being predators in the past.

@throssog Basically, I’d say if their probation (if they are on any) states that they have to stay away from certain things in person, I’d say they should stay away from those things online as well (though I think that is already the case in regards to being on probation). If they don’t have any restrictions on what they can do in real life, they shouldn’t have any restrictions online either.

@JLeslie Yes, exactly so.
@flutherother I must consider that , for some, this access would be needful to their being able to fit in again and not suffer “culture shock” upon release. Consider what the lack of knowledge of “all this” would be like.
@Hibernate Ah, well that is the case with most of the dating systems I have heard of – on line. Lots of hat and few , if any cattle, eh? And sometimes just a rustler. :)
@mrmijunte Really? Which “joints”? I was at Lexington and Atlanta.

@throssog My journey started in Atlanta´s ACDC, then took me to Florence, CO ( Medium and camp ) and Safford, AZ ( Low ).

I agree with @flutherother: “When they are in jail, no. When they are out of jail, yes. It makes no sense that someone can interact with you in the real world but not online.”

@mrmijunte Sounds like a journey! Florence? May I ask when you were down? I have been out for 4+ years and off supervision for 7 months, after 6 months half-way. Twa! :)
@Facade Hmmm, well, if you want someone to re enter this world with an absolute ignorance of this medium of interaction…that would be the way to do it. Of course that means that their job opportunities are even more limited. Something to consider when thinking of recidivism as convicts need to eat and want their children to eat just as much as anyone else, eh? Just something to consider. Think, if I may be so bold, of how you would want it to be for your family member or for yourself.

@throssog Social sites are not the same as using Monster.com for a job search. I would even pose the pedaphiles maybe cannot go onto any social sites that allow children under 18. They cannot live within a certain distance of schools even when out of prison, they still have restrictions on their freedom. Probably I would not actually expect that to be a law, that they cannot go on those sites once out of prison, but I can see an argument for it. If my relative is a pedaphile or registered sex offender he is a sick fuck. And, I am not talking about an 18 year old who was sexting or sent a photo of his 17 year old girlfriend topless across email, and now has some sort of ridiculous sex offender record, the laws are wrong regarding those cases in my opinion, and there are states changing those laws.

@throssog Not having access to facebook while incarcerated will not hinder their job success. You’re fooling yourself.

@JLeslie I fear that you are incorrect on a number of counts/points. It pains me to have to say this , as I feel you are trying to consider these issues from a reality stand point.
The issues you raise as to life time registration and no access to certain web sites/types of sites ( they go together) is a fact. The restrictions on where a sex offender (regardless of age/texting/status of offence) are in place and caused a shanty town of shacks ( self built) under a major interstate bridge in Dade County, Fla. among other places. The “common sense” determinations you would make and think the prosecutors/Judges and Legislatures make…aren’t there. As to states changing them…some few are considering it but the repeal of such laws is neither popular nor assured, “soft on crime” you know.

@throssog I have never met anyone, or seen anyone on TV argue that a simple topless text of a 17 year old should cause a lifetime of sex offender status for a friend or boyfriend of 18+ years, especially if the 17 year old sent the picture originally herself. I agree the laws as they stand will take time to change, but the will of the people is to change it I believe.

@throssog . Was in Florence in late 05’ to late 07’. No longer in supervision, I made a deal with my P.O. to send me back ( was sent to Safford ) so I could come out without supervision. So in the end I did 6 more months in exchange of 3 years and a half.

@JLeslie May I suggest a trip to: http://sentencing.typepad.com/
and search for sexting and kiddie porn cases. It will prove…enlightening. Aside from State laws you also have Federal laws that are even worse. To enact a video or even a drawing that portrays the participants to be under age is a felony and sex offense. The will of the people has little to do with it and tough on crime and “protect the children” much more. Go, look , see for yourself.

@mrmijunte Ah, you lucked out with that deal! Best of luck with re-admission to society. :)

@throssog The first case on that site says exactly what I am saying, the laws need to be changed. It seems to me the judges would have not required a lifetime of registering as a sex offender if the law had wiggle room.

Jail=Loss of privilege

Freedom of speech, IMO, would allow for one to join a social site once one has paid their debt to society.

@Facade Facebook , et alia are only a part of the system we currently live under and must seek employment in/under/with/through. To not know how to navigate the net and use the various apps is like being in a race with both legs tied together. Believe me, I know! I fear that the only one(s) fooling themselves are “us” when we expect the convict to be able to secure a reasonable job and re-enter society without the tools, skills and help needed to do so. But then we can always build more prisons and…ooops! I forgot, too expensive , now, eh? :) Better get these folk some hope and some employment (not just cons) and soon. Otherwise…well, do you knit? :)

First, I think it’s a bit odd that you would say you feel assault with a deadly weapon and murder are shouldn’t be considered as “violent” because that perp usually has a reason for it. WTF? I will personally murder anyone who touches my children, but just because I had an excellent reason for it does NOT mean that I wouldn’t consider myself violent and deserving of a prison sentence.

Second, to answer the question- Ex-cons are welcome to rejoin society as they so choose, but inmates should not be allowed access to the internet, especially social sites, as they don’t deserve that sort of privilege. I don’t believe they derserve to watch TV, movies or any other sort of privileges like that either. But then, I have a harsh view of what prison should be.

Once they are released, then they are welcome to participate in whatever they choose, since they have served their time. I do, however, believe that there should be some sort of system in place to monitor all online activity by rapists and pedophiles.

Once they’ve done their time, I feel they have already paid their debt to society. Considering how we already treat ex-cons, I feel that such a ban would run afoul of the Eighth Amendment.

@ Hmmm, obviously you do have a certain degree of set opinion (s) as regards law and punishment. A shame you don’t find yourself able to see how someone who would “personally murder anyone who touches” her children might not be culpable for murder qua murder but some other act under law. But, simplistic reasoning is often that way, isn’t it? Violent? Dangerous, violent criminals are a breed apart and everyone who has ever been around them or worked with them recognizes and knows the symptoms. Civilians, especially those who wish to appear or be “tough on crime, don’t and cause much suffering , for all , because of it. A shame – but there you have it. By the way, are you aware that very few people actually fir the Dangerous, violent criminal type and most of the incarcerated population of the USA is not dangerous or violent?

@jerv Not the 8th, I don’t believe. Perhaps an argument might (not likely) be made for 1st. I am afraid it would be an institutional decision, up to the Warden, on a prison by prison basis . Unless the BOP/DOC made a system wide ruling.

For me, it would depend on the crime. Rapists, molesters, torturers and serial killers shouldn’t be able to.

@throssog You don’t feel it would be cruel and unusual?

@jerv No, not within the context of the meaning(s) assigned to that amendment and those terms. I can see how , to someone using common sense, it might seem that it could be, but the law has different definitions I’m afraid.
Do, please, remember that enhanced interrogation techniques are not considered cruel and unusual either. Hmmm, odd, don’t you think?
The case law on the 8th Amendment is , to say the least, somewhat inconsistent. :)

Guess what. I’m a felon. I shit you not.

I wrote bad checks with some friends of mine when I was 19. The total of the checks were $100 above the limit to make it a felony. It was stupid on my part, I admit that. I paid my dues and served 5 years probation without any problems. That was over 20 years ago. Should I not be able to join Fluther because of something foolish and stupid I did in my teens? I paid my price. I think I’ve been of great help to at least a few people here. at least I hope so

@jonsblond I applaud you admission of felon status!! It takes courage in today’s climate to do so. However, I do not feel that writing bad checks, especially at 19, should qualify one for such status. A bit of civil restitution, but not felon status. As I’m sure you’ve found it is a “gift that keeps on giving”. The cost to society of felon status is, in my estimation, too great. The cost to the individual so stigmatized and encumbered is unconscionable, if we are to benefit, as a society, from their potential contributions.
As I have stated, in another post, I believe in the justice of Lycurgus. Not in the “justice” of revenge, retribution and punishment. My reasons for this, aside from my personal distaste for such childish acts is that it doesn’t work. Never has, never will. History proves it and our recent experiences with “lock’em up and throw away the key” is further evidence of its failures.
As to your being a member of a social web site or other such , I consider your life experiences and felon status to be a plus – any experience that some lack and others may expose them to is a plus, imho. It matters not , to me, so long as the experience is shared and shared honestly. It increases us all.
Thanks, again, for your courage and honesty.

@throssog It was difficult to admit, but I am an example of someone who did something really stupid and learned a lesson from it. I was able to get the felon status changed to a misdemeanor once I finished my 5 years probation successfully, but the experience of everything I went through will always be there. Had I not moved to Illinois from California during my probationary period, I would still be considered a felon. California did not offer that option when I lived there. I can never work for the government, but at least it’s not on my record now. I hope my experience could encourage young people to not make a stupid choice like I did.

@jonsblond Again, I thank you for your continuing candor and personal honesty. I, too, am delighted that you were able to get the felony reduced to misdemeanor ()!!). Best of luck in your life and with your joys therein.

@throssog “However, I do not feel that writing bad checks, especially at 19, should qualify one for such status. ”

Sorry, but society begs to differ, hence why I wrote what I wrote.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are being physically assaulted by a teenage girl. In an attempt to get away, you shove her away and your hands come near her breasts in the process. No “if“s, “and“s, or “but“s; you are a felony sex offender for the rest of your life.

You are correct in your reply directly to me that what common sense dictates and what the law says are entirely different things sometimes, and why I am having less and less respect for the law as I age.

@jerv I’m afraid your hypothetical won’t hold up and is inapposite to your point – though I do understand the point you are attempting to make. The law permits, in some cases demands, that a lesser crime be committed to stop/halt/over acme a greater crime. Self defense is one such area.
However, that a person of 19 should have the rest, say 45 years of their life determined by the thoughtless acts of adolescence? No, I fear that, in my estimation, a society which would continence that “eats its own young” as the saying would have it. :)

@throssog The reason I bring up that particular example is because of an actual case; history and precedent are not hypothetical.

You assume that the law always gets it right. That is idealistic.

@jerv Actually I do not, and with good reason, believe the law always gets it right. As to your case law – perhaps a citation?

While they are in jail or prison they aren’t allowed internet access.