A 43-year-old Tyler man who killed a man in self-defense was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison Tuesday for having the gun he used to do it, according to a U.S. Attorney's Office press release.Okay, he was a convicted felon, and that means he can't legally own a firearm. But he had apparently served his time. Does that still mean he isn't allowed to defend himself? My first impulse is to say yes, he should still be allowed to defend himself.
Dexter Alan Cravens, a convicted felon, shouldn't have had the gun when he shot a man inside a house during a firefight the night of Oct. 11, 2004, the release states. The victim was found unconscious in the front yard and later died of his injuries.
Cravens wasn't prosecuted for the shooting, after an investigation showed he acted in self-defense. But with two prior felony convictions in Smith County for drugs and burglary, he couldn't legally carry a weapon, the release states.
Friday, June 17, 2005
I just don't know what to think of this
Tyler, TX:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
He should MOST DEFINITELY be allowed to defend himself. This whole concept of felons not having the right to vote or defend themselves is an abomination. If this guy obeyed the law and didn't have a gun to defend himself, he would have in effect just suffered a delayed death sentence. If that's what the court really wanted, they should have been up front about and sentenced him to death in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIn theory, this is how most people claim our justice system is supposed to work:
1. Person commits crime
2. Person goes to jail, is punished, rehabilitated, and "pays his debt to society".
3. Person leaves prison, having learned his lesson, and is a good little citizen.
If this is our goal, it is counterproductive to have punitive laws that make it difficult for felons to find decent jobs, impossible for them to participate in our politcal system and illegal for them to defend themselves.
If the criminals are so bad that we need to impose restrictions on them after we release them, we shouldn't be letting them out in the first place. Either leave them alone after they serve their time, kill them, or keep them locked up.
Don't lock them up in a place where they learn more brutality and better criminal skills, release them into public, and then make it impossible for them to have a decent life. All they will do is go back to crime. If they have to break the law just to defend themselves, they are being taught that continuing to break laws is the most effective way for them to function in our society.
I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteAnd for some reason, blogger has not been emailing me comment alerts. So I didn't know about you leaving the comment until I happened to check my click-through stats.