8 ms·

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

by mdekkers 2y ago

nathanaldensr 2y ago
Please allow us to use common language without gatekeeping.
- mdekkers 2y ago
  Please engage on a substantive level. I look forward to learning about the positive aspects of using “felon” to refer to a person.
  - thrill 2y ago
    Clarity in meaning.
  - exe34 2y ago
    Precision.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - quartesixte 2y ago
    Establishment of proper contexts and applicable related terminology. "Felon" allows everyone to know what "node" of the vocab network you just jumped into.
    - mdekkers 2y ago
      My understanding is that different states have different definitions for the meaning of “felon” and the applicability depends on possible jail time, not actual jail time. Given that “felon” means “person that’s been convicted of a felony at some point in their life” and the fact that “felony” covers such a wide variety of crimes, it is a genuinely useless indicator of context.
      - quartesixte 2y ago
        Counterpoint: starting with assuming over-specific context is not entirely useful and there is general consensus on broad meanings of both “felon” and “felony”. We can then quickly either narrow down to specific instances of those words, or stay in broader generalizations depending on where the conversation goes. Jump too quickly into arguing for hyper-specific contexts bringing meaninglessness to colloquial, general contexts is a surefire way to signal to counterparties you are unwilling to play the negotiation-over-contexts games necessary for smooth conversation with most people generally.
  - sfmike 2y ago
    One positive aspect is possibly saving people from dying, preventing more victims.
inetknght 2y ago
> 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?
- 6510 2y ago
  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.
- mdekkers 2y ago
  > 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 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.
  - inetknght 2y ago

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

nathanaldensr 2y ago

Please allow us to use common language without gatekeeping.

mdekkers 2y ago
Please engage on a substantive level. I look forward to learning about the positive aspects of using “felon” to refer to a person.
- thrill 2y ago
  Clarity in meaning.
- exe34 2y ago
  Precision.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- quartesixte 2y ago
  Establishment of proper contexts and applicable related terminology. "Felon" allows everyone to know what "node" of the vocab network you just jumped into.
  - mdekkers 2y ago
    My understanding is that different states have different definitions for the meaning of “felon” and the applicability depends on possible jail time, not actual jail time. Given that “felon” means “person that’s been convicted of a felony at some point in their life” and the fact that “felony” covers such a wide variety of crimes, it is a genuinely useless indicator of context.
    - quartesixte 2y ago
      Counterpoint: starting with assuming over-specific context is not entirely useful and there is general consensus on broad meanings of both “felon” and “felony”. We can then quickly either narrow down to specific instances of those words, or stay in broader generalizations depending on where the conversation goes. Jump too quickly into arguing for hyper-specific contexts bringing meaninglessness to colloquial, general contexts is a surefire way to signal to counterparties you are unwilling to play the negotiation-over-contexts games necessary for smooth conversation with most people generally.
- sfmike 2y ago
  One positive aspect is possibly saving people from dying, preventing more victims.

inetknght 2y ago

> 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?

6510 2y ago
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.
mdekkers 2y ago
> 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 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.
- inetknght 2y ago