Full Version: Can Former Criminals Gamble
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071129/ap_on_...g2p47QkAqms0NUE
Make no mistake, I am not a fan of gambling and do not believe that its the right way for Governments to raise money.
In this case, an ex-convict was forced to hand over his winnings from a lottery because gambling was against his parole terms. Now, there are some reasonable laws to prevent criminals from doing things that law-abiding citizens are allowed to do. For example, we don't want convicted child-molestors working in schools or convicted drunk drivers going to a bar. But in this case, an ex-convict bought a $10 lottery ticket with money that he earned from an honest job. Also, the Court System has ruled in many cases that a law cannot be specifically written targetting a small group of people (e.g. Health benefit laws aimed specifically at Walmart, etc).
So, the question for debate is
Is it Constitutional for the Government to have legalized gambling but prevent ex-criminals from doing the same thing with their own money?
Make no mistake, I am not a fan of gambling and do not believe that its the right way for Governments to raise money.
In this case, an ex-convict was forced to hand over his winnings from a lottery because gambling was against his parole terms. Now, there are some reasonable laws to prevent criminals from doing things that law-abiding citizens are allowed to do. For example, we don't want convicted child-molestors working in schools or convicted drunk drivers going to a bar. But in this case, an ex-convict bought a $10 lottery ticket with money that he earned from an honest job. Also, the Court System has ruled in many cases that a law cannot be specifically written targetting a small group of people (e.g. Health benefit laws aimed specifically at Walmart, etc).
So, the question for debate is
Is it Constitutional for the Government to have legalized gambling but prevent ex-criminals from doing the same thing with their own money?
This seems very strange, unless there is much more to this story than I can see here. Has the person in question been diagnosed, by qualified professionals, as being a gambling addict? If so, did this addiction lead directly to his crime? Unless the answer to both of these questions is "Yes," I fail to see why he should not be allowed to participate in an otherwise legal activity.
There seems to be an idea floating around that the authorities can do anything they want with the rights of ex-convicts. (The most infamous example is taking away their right to vote after they have served their sentences. This seems very hard to justify. I can see removing the right to bear arms from someone who has been convicted of a crime involving firearms. But why voting?)
It may be that this person agreed to some kind of legal contract as part of his parole that he would not gamble. If so, he may not have much of a case. That doesn't mean that it was a good thing for the authorities to do. Also, somebody agreeing to the terms of a parole isn't exactly in a position to bargain freely; I'm sure he would have agreed to all kinds of useless restrictions.
In a nutshell, the authorities probably have the legal right to enforce this restriction; they don't seem to have the ethical right.
There seems to be an idea floating around that the authorities can do anything they want with the rights of ex-convicts. (The most infamous example is taking away their right to vote after they have served their sentences. This seems very hard to justify. I can see removing the right to bear arms from someone who has been convicted of a crime involving firearms. But why voting?)
It may be that this person agreed to some kind of legal contract as part of his parole that he would not gamble. If so, he may not have much of a case. That doesn't mean that it was a good thing for the authorities to do. Also, somebody agreeing to the terms of a parole isn't exactly in a position to bargain freely; I'm sure he would have agreed to all kinds of useless restrictions.
In a nutshell, the authorities probably have the legal right to enforce this restriction; they don't seem to have the ethical right.
Is it Constitutional for the Government to have legalized gambling but prevent ex-criminals from doing the same thing with their own money?
This doesn't make any sense to me, at all. I don't know if it's constutional or not, but it certainly doesn't seem logical.
The only circumstance I can imagine where this would be ok was if there is some kind of unpaid and undischarged fine associated with the gambling winner.
But even there, my understanding is that usually sentences involve either a fine or imprisonment, not both, and that if you've served your term in accordance with the laws applicable at the time i.e. in all circumstances except where the convict has actively escaped rather than passively been released (by reaching the end of their full term, receiving parole, being released for compassionate reasons e.g. hospital treatment, family funerals, etc.) then any fines wouldn't apply and you would owe the state no more than anybody else.
Now, there is a wider issue on the legal status of gambling (and the other criminalised vices - drugs, drink, prostitution), where I believe the only sensible control policy is to legalise and regulate (and tax the revenues).
If people want to do these things and are legally barred from doing so, history and current experience tells us that they will do them anyway. This is also true of murder, and is not reason, on it's own, for legalising them. However, murder and almost all other crimes do not require other people to provide a criminal organisation to enable the crime.
If I want to kill someone, I have to find a weapon (most of which are legally available) and a victim. If I want to rob them, I just have to find a victim who has something I want. The point is, I don't need a third party involved just to enable my crime, and the crime itself is what causes the damage.
If I want to gamble, however, I have to find someone to gamble with. A bookie, a card school, a casino etc. And the act of gambling itself harms only me (and only then, if I lose). The same goes for drugs (I have to find a supplier).
If the act itself (gambling, taking drugs) is criminal, legitimate people don't want to be involved for fear of becoming criminals themselves, so only criminals get involved.
Prostitution is a bit different, in that it's usually the prostitute that pays a third party (a pimp or brothel owner) as well as or instead of the user, but it remains true that the act of having sex in exchange for money - in and of itself - is not immediately harmful (except to the punter's wallet and both parties' self-esteem).
And in most cases, it's activities peripheral to the actual act of gambling (or drugtaking or paid sex) that cause the problems for people outside the act - turf wars between criminals (i.e. fighting over who gets to exploit the criminality of the transaction itself), addicts stealing to feed their habit, johns beating up hookers to avoid paying, that kind of thing etc. If it was legalised and regulated then it most of these problems would disappear (Coors don't try to kill Budweiser employees to get the rights to supply a particular bar, nor do they threaten to beat up bar owners who don't stock their booze. They just use marketing. There are no booze turf wars, and haven't been any since the repeal of Prohibition, because alcohol is legal and regulated.)
And if it was a legal and regulated business like any other, it would pay taxes like any other and some or all of that tax revenue could be earmarked for properly funded treatment programmes for gamblers who get addicted.
It's important to remember though that most gamblers - like most drug takers and johns (and drinkers) - are not addicted. They can take it or leave it, and they do it because (on some level) it makes them feel good. (I think the roots of addiction lie in when this flips into them doing XYZ because it makes them feel less bad, but that's another thread).
This doesn't make any sense to me, at all. I don't know if it's constutional or not, but it certainly doesn't seem logical.
The only circumstance I can imagine where this would be ok was if there is some kind of unpaid and undischarged fine associated with the gambling winner.
But even there, my understanding is that usually sentences involve either a fine or imprisonment, not both, and that if you've served your term in accordance with the laws applicable at the time i.e. in all circumstances except where the convict has actively escaped rather than passively been released (by reaching the end of their full term, receiving parole, being released for compassionate reasons e.g. hospital treatment, family funerals, etc.) then any fines wouldn't apply and you would owe the state no more than anybody else.
Now, there is a wider issue on the legal status of gambling (and the other criminalised vices - drugs, drink, prostitution), where I believe the only sensible control policy is to legalise and regulate (and tax the revenues).
If people want to do these things and are legally barred from doing so, history and current experience tells us that they will do them anyway. This is also true of murder, and is not reason, on it's own, for legalising them. However, murder and almost all other crimes do not require other people to provide a criminal organisation to enable the crime.
If I want to kill someone, I have to find a weapon (most of which are legally available) and a victim. If I want to rob them, I just have to find a victim who has something I want. The point is, I don't need a third party involved just to enable my crime, and the crime itself is what causes the damage.
If I want to gamble, however, I have to find someone to gamble with. A bookie, a card school, a casino etc. And the act of gambling itself harms only me (and only then, if I lose). The same goes for drugs (I have to find a supplier).
If the act itself (gambling, taking drugs) is criminal, legitimate people don't want to be involved for fear of becoming criminals themselves, so only criminals get involved.
Prostitution is a bit different, in that it's usually the prostitute that pays a third party (a pimp or brothel owner) as well as or instead of the user, but it remains true that the act of having sex in exchange for money - in and of itself - is not immediately harmful (except to the punter's wallet and both parties' self-esteem).
And in most cases, it's activities peripheral to the actual act of gambling (or drugtaking or paid sex) that cause the problems for people outside the act - turf wars between criminals (i.e. fighting over who gets to exploit the criminality of the transaction itself), addicts stealing to feed their habit, johns beating up hookers to avoid paying, that kind of thing etc. If it was legalised and regulated then it most of these problems would disappear (Coors don't try to kill Budweiser employees to get the rights to supply a particular bar, nor do they threaten to beat up bar owners who don't stock their booze. They just use marketing. There are no booze turf wars, and haven't been any since the repeal of Prohibition, because alcohol is legal and regulated.)
And if it was a legal and regulated business like any other, it would pay taxes like any other and some or all of that tax revenue could be earmarked for properly funded treatment programmes for gamblers who get addicted.
It's important to remember though that most gamblers - like most drug takers and johns (and drinkers) - are not addicted. They can take it or leave it, and they do it because (on some level) it makes them feel good. (I think the roots of addiction lie in when this flips into them doing XYZ because it makes them feel less bad, but that's another thread).
QUOTE(skeeterses @ Nov 29 2007, 12:37 AM) 
Is it Constitutional for the Government to have legalized gambling but prevent ex-criminals from doing the same thing with their own money?
When I read about this yesterday, I felt bad for this guy. His probation states that he is not allowed to buy lottery tickets. So, technically he violated his probation. He was guilty of unarmed robbery and served no time, but only got 5 years probation and was sent to a mental hospital... it's unclear if he is still being treated. He's already received the 1st $50,000 payment.
I am assuming that the terms of probation are to prevent the ex-criminal from engaging in activities that might lead to further criminal activity or tempt them to engage in criminal activity. It's not like he couldn't ever play the lottery again - just not during the period of his probation.
So, I don't think prohibiting criminals from playing the lottery during their probation is unconstitutional.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.