Do you want felons in office?

**MsChievous** · July-29-09, 12:38 PM

http://michiganmessenger.com/23590/d...-public-office

**Jmil** · July-29-09, 01:14 PM

No no no no - hell no!!!

**Crumbled_pavement** · July-29-09, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Michigan Messenger

Other candidates declined to share their personal opinion on the issue, but said they would do the will of the people. Cara Blount, a professor and former Detroit police administrator, said her opinion didn’t matter because the public has the power. “Our job [as city charter revision commissioners] is to collect from the citizens what it is they want,” Blount told Michigan Messenger. “So if the citizens don’t want people who have been convicted of a felony in office, then that’s kind of what the Charter Commission will need to go by.”
Blount said the majority of voters she has spoken with about the issue don’t want felons in office. “A lot of the people that I have spoken to … when I tell them there’s no stipulation in the charter that keeps felons from office, they say, “I want that in there.”

from http://michiganmessenger.com/23590/d...-public-office

Please, MsChievous and Mr. Lynn, when you guys get on the Charter Commission ban all felons from running for any elected position in Detroit.

Thanks.

lilpup · July-29-09, 01:31 PM

I think the types of felonies need to be specified. To prohibit someone from public office because they failed to have a lifejacket in a canoe or kayak [[yes, that's a felony in Michigan) would be a little extreme, imho.

**Blueidone** · July-29-09, 01:44 PM

I have to disagree Lilpup. A felon is a felon. The person disobeyed the LAW, no matter what LAW is broken. I believe that public officials have to obey the laws of the land....ALL OF THEM.

A public official who disobeys the law should be removed from office. Perhaps a temporary leave from the time of being charged until the time of being found or pleading guilty, but definitely without ANY type of compensation. If found innocent, repay the compensation back to the date of charge. If found guilty...the citizens and the district lose nothing.

lilpup · July-29-09, 02:18 PM

Well, if you're going to be that hard-assed about it - what if they've pleaded 'no contest' [[technically *not* a conviction and not supposed to affect one's criminal record) to a felony?

**bailey** · July-29-09, 02:20 PM

isnt a blanket ban also a rejection of our criminal justice system? If someone convicted of a felony has been charged, found guilty, sentenced to some form of punishment, and completed that punishment fully, isn't that person "rehabilitated"? Or, are you saying that once a person is found guilty...or pleads no contest.. to a felony they are no longer fit to be a part of society?

**Wallins** · July-29-09, 02:48 PM

Where would Charlie Beckham fit in? He was appointed Deputy Mayor by Dave Bing? Charlie did not run for this office but he is in a powerful position. Perhaps the charter should include no political appointed felons.

**kraig** · July-29-09, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Wallins

Where would Charlie Beckham fit in? He was appointed Deputy Mayor by Dave Bing? Charlie did not run for this office but he is in a powerful position. Perhaps the charter should include no political appointed felons.

According to Bing's Organization Chart, Beckham had been appointed the Chief Adminsitrative Officer not the Deputy Mayor. Where can I find the information that states he's been appointed Deputy Mayor?

**Novack** · July-29-09, 03:02 PM

I love felons. They're entertaining to say the least. Thats why I voted for Kwame...TWICE

**bailey** · July-29-09, 03:15 PM

I love felons. They're entertaining to say the least. Thats why I voted for Kwame...TWICE

but he wasn't a felon yet. He wouldn't have been dq'd from running both times you voted for him.

**R8RBOB** · July-29-09, 03:56 PM

No, I don't want felons in office, but if voters re-elect Martha Reeves, they should be charge with a felon for being stupid.

**Crumbled_pavement** · July-29-09, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Wallins

Where would Charlie Beckham fit in? He was appointed Deputy Mayor by Dave Bing? Charlie did not run for this office but he is in a powerful position. Perhaps the charter should include no political appointed felons.

I guess you really can't do anything about appointments besides not re-elect the person that appointed the felon.

As far as felons being rehabilitated, who would be the first to let a pedophile babysit their young kids, just because the felon served his time and paid his debt to society? I guess this line of thinking is really why I don't want felons in public office. Most of them will just use the office as a way to milk the public. Don't we enough thieves, crooks, liars, and what not robbing us blind already? Do we need to expand to allowing jail birds also to join in the robbing spree? Do we want to open the doors for the likes of Kilpatrick [[who is now a felon) to come back and rob us some more. Granted it would take a stupid voter base to re-elect Kilpatrick, but inner city voters are very forgiving and will accept a tearful apology.

MIRepublic · July-29-09, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

isnt a blanket ban also a rejection of our criminal justice system? If someone convicted of a felony has been charged, found guilty, sentenced to some form of punishment, and completed that punishment fully, isn't that person "rehabilitated"? Or, are you saying that once a person is found guilty...or pleads no contest.. to a felony they are no longer fit to be a part of society?

I take the same stance. I don't believe in a blanket ban for that very reason. If society is going to make it so hard for people who've served time to fit back into society, then what is the use in even letting them out, at all? I guess we should just lock up all felons, then, regardless of the offense, for the rest of their lives. What this discrimination does is essentially funnel them back into a life of crime. It's like telling someone to go fishing, but not giving them the pole.

**jbd441** · July-29-09, 04:33 PM

How sad this is. How can you pick or choose which felony a person can be convicted of and still be elected to public office? No judge is going to convict anyone of a felony for not wearing a life jacket. When are the citizens of Detroit going to say enough is enough of public officials stealing their hard earned tax dollars? Isn't anyone even slightly embarrassed of some past and present council members/x-mayors childish, immature, felonious behavior being plastered all over the internet for the whole world to see? This is the first good step Detroit can take to clean up the corruption and let this city heal.

**Homer** · July-29-09, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by MIRepublic

I guess we should just lock up all felons, then, regardless of the offense, for the rest of their lives.

Great idea. Thats what the salt mines and baloney sandwiches are for.

But seriously, if felons can't run for office in Southfield why should they here.
There are plenty of careers an ex-felon can enter rather than politics.

**Crumbled_pavement** · July-29-09, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Homer

There are plenty of careers an ex-felon can enter rather than politics.

Bingo!!!!!

lilpup · July-29-09, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by jbd441

No judge is going to convict anyone of a felony for not wearing a life jacket.

It's a felony in the State of Michigan - how can a judge just throw it out if the person didn't have the equipment on board and the ticket was issued?

**Jman** · July-29-09, 05:16 PM

It's a felony if convicted for the third time within 10 years. Sounds like blatant disregard for human life and should be a felony.

**jbd441** · July-29-09, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by lilpup

It's a felony in the State of Michigan - how can a judge just throw it out if the person didn't have the equipment on board and the ticket was issued?

So a boater gets a ticket for not having a life perserver on or even in their watercraft. That person goes to court. I can guarantee unless a child's life wasn't threatened, on a guilty plea a judge will in most cases impose a fine and withhold adjudication. I had to sit in court for my job and watched this happen many times.

lilpup · July-29-09, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by jbd441

So a boater gets a ticket for not having a life perserver on or even in their watercraft. That person goes to court. I can guarantee unless a child's life wasn't threatened, on a guilty plea a judge will in most cases impose a fine and withhold adjudication. I had to sit in court for my job and watched this happen many times.

In which case the judge doesn't have to "ajudicate" because you've entered a guilty plea into the record. A "no contest" and paying the ticket without going to court would be a better response.

**MsChievous** · July-29-09, 05:59 PM

Bear in mind that many of those convictions can be/could have been pleaded down to a lesser charge, hence murder could be dropped to 2nd degree, still a felony but less time. Those things are done for a number of reasons. So, if you're going to pick your felonies, is 1st and/or 2nd degree murder less palatable than, say, manslaughter? Or look at Criminal Sexual Conduct [[4 degrees); which one is OK? Think about this long and hard.....

**Meddle** · July-29-09, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

isnt a blanket ban also a rejection of our criminal justice system? If someone convicted of a felony has been charged, found guilty, sentenced to some form of punishment, and completed that punishment fully, isn't that person "rehabilitated"? Or, are you saying that once a person is found guilty...or pleads no contest.. to a felony they are no longer fit to be a part of society?

Well, they can't posess firearms, get a liquor license, drive a schoolbus, or even vote, so why should they be able to run for elected office?

There ARE ways for to have your record expunged and have your rights restored if you go through the process.

**MsChievous** · July-29-09, 06:47 PM

In Michigan, I believe felons have the right to vote if they're not in prison

MIRepublic · July-29-09, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by MsChievous

Bear in mind that many of those convictions can be/could have been pleaded down to a lesser charge, hence murder could be dropped to 2nd degree, still a felony but less time. Those things are done for a number of reasons. So, if you're going to pick your felonies, is 1st and/or 2nd degree murder less palatable than, say, manslaughter? Or look at Criminal Sexual Conduct [[4 degrees); which one is OK? Think about this long and hard.....

MsChievous, if you're really going to play this game, why not just ban all convicted criminals from running for office? Do you really want to play this game?

It's ridiculous anyone thinks that this is a the problem, or even a big problem in government. I'd trust a convicted criminal that has served his or her time and looking to do something better in his or her community to do right by the city than a well-meaning incompetent.

Neither are probably optimal cases, but I'm making the point that convicted felons who've served their time are hardly city governments pressing problem if a problem, at all. I've been impressed with you, thus far, but if this kind of discrimination is something you want to lead a crusade against and identify as a big problem or a problem, at all, I seriously question your vision. I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise, to me, though given your former line of work. You all, after all, have always seen those that have served their time as something less than equal citizens.

Hopefully, playing on people's fears, whipping up unnecessary hysteria, and darker emotions for votes won't pay off, for you.