Comment by inetknght | Hacker News Reader

Comment by inetknght | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Referring to people as “felons” is such a terrible and dehumanising practice.

I don't think there's anyone who could reasonably argue that reform isn't needed to American justice. However I think it's absolutely necessary, and not dehumanizing, to be able to identify someone as having incomplete incarceration status and the level of criminal conduct.

A felon is commonly used to refer to a person who has been convicted of a crime and particularly (but not only) whose sentence is not yet completed. Is that dehumanizing? Perhaps, but I don't currently think it is.

There are legal actions necessary when engaging with someone convicted of certain types of crimes. Certain crimes in the USA prohibit you from owning a gun even after your sentence is served. Sure, I think that is dehumanizing (sentence is served, so why are there additional restrictions?) but the legal requirement to be able to identify such persons doesn't make it dehumanizing on its own, it just makes it necessary.

What words would you use to describe such a person?

> A felon is commonly used to refer to a person who has been convicted of a crime and particularly (but not only) whose sentence is not yet completed.

Not, though. According to Wikipedia:

“The status and designation as a "felon" is considered permanent and is not extinguished upon sentence completion even if parole, probation or early release was given.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony

And a felony is defined differently in different states. And since such a wide variety of crimes are classified as felonies it is really hard to usefully draw any conclusions other than “person convicted of a felony at some point in their life” which is hardly useful. Could be a stone cold killer, could be a tax evader. Who knows? A felon is a felon.

Thank you for engaging constructively on this discussion.

> Not, though. According to Wikipedia:

I would argue that the definition I provided (convicted of a crime AND particularly (but not only) whose sentence is...) is relatively compatible with the definition you cite. I continue that it's my definition I provided and so perhaps I am not the only one whose use of the word differs from Wikipedia.

> it is really hard to usefully draw any conclusions other than “person convicted of a felony at some point in their life” which is hardly useful.

It is indeed hard to usefully draw any conclusions other than "person convicted of a felony at some point in their life" and I would argue that's the point.

If you want more information, then guess what? Felonies are public record and are often available online. Go find it instead of expecting it to be directly told to you. That's kinda creepy though, so perhaps you shouldn't advertise that you know what crimes your neighbors are convicted of.

Is it hardly useful? No, it's very useful for specifically legal purposes... which only make distinctions between types of felonies when stating what the felon can or can't do. Can't buy a gun. Can't live within some distance of a school. Must tell others your criminal history. Okay, and it's good to know that someone is required to (not) do some action merely by a word: they're a felon, so they're not allowed to do this or that. That's very useful for legal purposes -- can't sell a gun to this person, can't provide a loan for this person to buy a house at this address, whatever.

It's not very useful outside of legal purposes, and it shouldn't be. As long as the person has already gone through the justice workflow, why should it matter what their crime was?

Losing the right to privacy should be part of the punishment. After enough convictions or offenses large enough tracking your location and/or randomly searching your house shouldn't be a big deal. Lower the prison sentence and fines accordingly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com