Does my friend have a logical/valid constitutional defense?
First of all, neither of us know the law. Now lets begin.
A friend is about to be imprisoned for not having a job. Or ultimately for violating his federal supervision of which one of his conditions says 'you must work'. Technically he cannot work as he has mental disabilities, autism, adhd, ptsd, depression and so on. He has an official clinical diagnosis for these problems. He says that the condition is unfair and cruel, and not productive or realistic in his case. Because he will be imprisoned for not having a job, or not being able to work, then released and then imprisoned again for not working, over and over. There is nothing good in that at all. Is this the point of supervision and the legal system?
Additionally, he says that even if he could work, it violates his constitutional right to work or not to work, and that exploiting and abusing a vulnerable population like felonies, by the court and PO office, to comply to unconstitutional laws or force, is still unconstitutional and wrong, even if felonies apparently have no right to question or challenge such unconstitutional laws. This is where I agree with him but I think there is some sort of legal shenanigan where the court and PO office can infact force him to do whatever they want or else be imprisoned, including killing babies of a certain color, and he and other felonies will not be able to question and challenge it. And the people will praise the government all of their days.
In the end, the supervision system allows for and encourages the practice of covertly subverting and circumventing basic constitutional rights. For now it is just with felonies. But I feel like the chinese americans or russian americans will be next. Who knows.
He says that even if felonies lose certain rights, the supervision system should be used just for monitoring felonies, just as its name suggest, and not to abuse and exploit the vulnerable population felonies, especially by violating constitutional rights. That extra stuff should be in another system called 'abusing and exploiting felonies after they have served their time.'
I guess there is some legal shenanigan I am missing. Maybe its simply that felonies do not have rights and anything can be forced against felonies.
But anyways, hopefully he has some valid points and a constitutional defense somewhere. He is thinking of making it a national issue, raising funds for a legal team, and doing a lawsuit against the federal government, specifically how the supervision system allows for the court and PO office to do whatever it wants to felonies beyond supervision. It might be a tough one as it is all over the place, but I support him. For me, excluding all the other factors, I think it is unconstitutional to imprison someone simply for not working, not having a job, or not being able to work, no matter their status, but especially if they are a vulnerable population like felonies. Its abusive, exploitative, and not even supervision.
He has a whole nother lawsuit in mind. But that one is even more troublesome.
First of all, neither of us know the law. Now lets begin.
A friend is about to be imprisoned for not having a job. Or ultimately for violating his federal supervision of which one of his conditions says 'you must work'. Technically he cannot work as he has mental disabilities, autism, adhd, ptsd, depression and so on. He has an official clinical diagnosis for these problems. He says that the condition is unfair and cruel, and not productive or realistic in his case. Because he will be imprisoned for not having a job, or not being able to work, then released and then imprisoned again for not working, over and over. There is nothing good in that at all. Is this the point of supervision and the legal system?
Additionally, he says that even if he could work, it violates his constitutional right to work or not to work, and that exploiting and abusing a vulnerable population like felonies, by the court and PO office, to comply to unconstitutional laws or force, is still unconstitutional and wrong, even if felonies apparently have no right to question or challenge such unconstitutional laws. This is where I agree with him but I think there is some sort of legal shenanigan where the court and PO office can infact force him to do whatever they want or else be imprisoned, including killing babies of a certain color, and he and other felonies will not be able to question and challenge it. And the people will praise the government all of their days.
In the end, the supervision system allows for and encourages the practice of covertly subverting and circumventing basic constitutional rights. For now it is just with felonies. But I feel like the chinese americans or russian americans will be next. Who knows.
He says that even if felonies lose certain rights, the supervision system should be used just for monitoring felonies, just as its name suggest, and not to abuse and exploit the vulnerable population felonies, especially by violating constitutional rights. That extra stuff should be in another system called 'abusing and exploiting felonies after they have served their time.'
I guess there is some legal shenanigan I am missing. Maybe its simply that felonies do not have rights and anything can be forced against felonies.
But anyways, hopefully he has some valid points and a constitutional defense somewhere. He is thinking of making it a national issue, raising funds for a legal team, and doing a lawsuit against the federal government, specifically how the supervision system allows for the court and PO office to do whatever it wants to felonies beyond supervision. It might be a tough one as it is all over the place, but I support him. For me, excluding all the other factors, I think it is unconstitutional to imprison someone simply for not working, not having a job, or not being able to work, no matter their status, but especially if they are a vulnerable population like felonies. Its abusive, exploitative, and not even supervision.
He has a whole nother lawsuit in mind. But that one is even more troublesome.
Last edited:
