Should Felons be Allowed to be Sheriff?

@squinney,

squinney wrote:

Is there a reason a felon should be allowed to be Sheriff? How would you vote?

My knee-jerk reflex is to vote "no".

First of all, I disagree with the premise of your first question. North Carolina is a free state and a democracy. The burden of proof should be on those who prohibit things and interfere with the voters' preferences. Therefore the proper question isn't, "what reason is there for the constitution to allow something?" Rather, it's "what reason is there for the constitution to prohibit something that voters want?"

The answer to that question is that I don't see any good reason. Assuming that North Carolina voters elect their sheriffs, "you the people" already have a procedure for disallowing that felons become sheriffs: Just don't elect them. But if a felon runs for sheriff, and a majority of voters still wants him, I see no reason why the North Carolina constitution should stop voters from getting what they say they want. Force candidates to disclose it? Sure. But forbid that voters elect them? No.

1 Reply

@squinney,

The reason your friend is restricted is because it is for drug sales. Drug possession in NC is only a six month restriction.

I thought Sherrifs are local positions and not controlled by the state. I see this is a state-wide ballot measure. I wonder if this redefines the role.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Would a sheriff be expect to carry a firearm? It's pretty rare for a felon to be permitted to own or handle firearms. Not actually impossible, but rare. Also, I wonder if a person with a felony conviction could be hired, as opposed to being elected, to a law enforcement position.

The person that I know, that is a felon in NC, is not only restricted from owning a firearm, she can't even be in a building or vehicle with someone that has a gun. Her boyfriend that she lives with has to keep his guns locked up outside of the home. Despite his concealed carry license, he has to remove his gun from his vehicle and lock it up in the house if she is going somewhere with him.

You bring up an excellent point. I don't know the answer to your question regarding sheriffs except to say that I know our current sheriff does carry.

0 Replies

Ha! Evidently we had numerous felons running for sheriff this year in primaries across the state. One is somewhat famous, as sheriffs go. That was what brought it to the attention of the legislature.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/7497525/

The article does indicate that the gun issue would be problem. Hege, the somewhat famous sheriff, claims he "don't need no gun."

Guess he'll just restle 'em like a alee-gater.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

First of all, I disagree with the premise of your first question. North Carolina is a free state and a democracy. The burden of proof should be on those who prohibit things and interfere with the voters' preferences. Therefore the proper question isn't, "what reason is there for the constitution to allow something?" Rather, it's "what reason is there for the constitution to prohibit something that voters want?"

The answer to that question is that I don't see any good reason. Assuming that North Carolina voters elect their sheriffs, "you the people" already have a procedure for disallowing that felons become sheriffs: Just don't elect them. But if a felon runs for sheriff, and a majority of voters still wants him, I see no reason why the North Carolina constitution should stop voters from getting what they say they want. Force candidates to disclose it? Sure. But forbid that voters elect them? No.

I'm guessing that is why they put it on a state wide ballot. The voters DO get to decide, and this will keep it uniform across the state.

BTW, the Libertarians are agreeing with you. They are becoming quite vocal on this issue.

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2010/10/19/1039857?sac=Home

Quote:

...According to a prepared statement by Barbara Howe, chairwoman of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, the proposed amendment "is yet another unnecessary, unwarranted, and immoral restriction on the voting rights of the people of North Carolina."

"Perhaps most significant, this amendment is a slap in the face of voters," she said. "It assumes voters are not intelligent enough to decide for themselves who is fit for public office. Libertarians believe voters are smart enough to make such a decision."...

1 Reply

As I understand it, this amendment would deal with felonies committed IN THE LINE OF DUTY for all public servants. Does that mean on the job criminal acts only?

So a repeated drunk driver could still serve in Congress or as a mayor?

1 Reply

@squinney,

squinney wrote:

I'm guessing that is why they put it on a state wide ballot. The voters DO get to decide, and this will keep it uniform across the state.

That's not what I meant. On this referendum, all voters of North Carolina get to decide, once, about all felons who may ever run for sheriff anywhere in North Carolina. But if the referendum passes, local voters in your state will never get to change their minds about any particular felon who may have redeeming qualities. Under the status quo, local voters have this choice. If the referendum passes, they no longer will.

1 Reply

@squinney,

In most populated counties, I doubt the sheriff ever has to ride with the beat cops, so I could see him not needing a gun. I wonder if that is true in the more rural counties. I know in New Hanover, the sheriff is more an admin position.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Correct. I understood that. That's why I said in shorthand that I think the state is taking the easy route. And as I said, the Libertarians agree with you.

I'm thinking that I do, as well on this point. However, I do not have as much confidence as you (and the local Libertarians) in the individual voters here being able to identify candidates with or without redeeming qualities. There's a heck of a lot of good 'ol boy stuff, with very little published or reported on sheriff races.

1 Reply

@squinney,

In that case, I reemphasize my point that I do approve of laws forcing sheriff candidates to publish their criminal records, if any. Indeed, why not do it on the ballot? "Andy Griffith, candidate for sheriff (Burglar-Raleigh)"

0 Replies

@squinney,

Quote:

In each county a Sheriff shall be elected by the qualified voters thereof at the same time and places as members of the General Assembly are elected and shall hold his office for a period of four years, subject to removal for cause as provided by law. No person is eligible to serve as Sheriff if that person has been convicted of a felony against this State, the United States, or another state, whether or not that person has been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law. Convicted of a felony includes the entry of a plea of guilty; a verdict or finding of guilt by a jury, judge, magistrate, or other adjudicating body, tribunal, or official, either civilian or military; or a plea of no contest, nolo contendere, or the equivalent."

Will not pass the constitution test when it come to a Presidential pardon.

0 Replies

Second problem one of the methods of dealing with a conviction of an innocent man is for a state governor to grant a pardon and it would seem also from reading this amendment there is no way to removed the limitation on anyone convicted by a court even in error.

0 Replies

What kind of felon are we talking about. Thief, drug user, or murderer? Some believe in the voters to see the right candidate but from what I have been able to observe the last 40 years most dont bother to learn any more than what the tv spits out, which are political adds. All are lies!

0 Replies

@PUNKEY,

"So a repeated drunk driver could still serve in Congress or as a mayor?"

That would stop a lot of current congressmen and women.

There have been frequent drunks that serve long terms in congress.
It's part of the American way of life.

0 Replies

@squinney,

So many in politics are felons. You just aren't told this information by their campaigns or the media. You elect whomever the government allows you to elect into office. Didn't you know this already? How old are you anyway?

1 Reply

@billz5557,

can you give us 10 felons currently holding public office?

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

all of them, i believe that being a politician should be made a crime against humanity

1 Reply

@djjd62,

While I agree some may deserve this approach, this attitude is part of the reason we don't get the best in politics.

Why would anyone want to be a politician? Hundreds of others start finding ways to tear you down the minute you are elected.

Our judgment of our politicians only reflects the poor standards of our own society.

0 Replies

I imagine it's going to pass. I went ahead and voted against it on principle. There are a wide variety of things that fall under felony, and some that I would consider minor, committed at a young age and atoned for, shouldn't keep someone from being sheriff 30 years later.

I'll let you know what the final vote ends up being. I'm gonna guess that it passes by something like 99:1.

1 Reply

@squinney,

Same here. It was an easy no, but I wonder how many people missed it. It was the last item on my ballot on the back side.

0 Replies

Should Felons be Allowed to be Sheriff?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know