Does your response include the notion that equal opportunity and equal treatment before the law includes returning the individual and society to status quo ante? Sometimes it's been called "restorative justice".
I think restitution is a fine ideal and ought to be part of sentencing whenever practical. But there are many cases where restitution is impossible. Once taken, life cannot be restored. Once committed, an assault cannot be undone. Major theft or fraud may well be beyond the ability of the criminal to ever make restitution.
I do not believe that the inability to make full restitution should leave a man forever a 2nd class citizen, stripped of his fundamental rights.
If he is a danger to society, keep him locked up until he isn't. Obviously, changes in sentencing would be needed in some cases to constitutionally keep men locked up until they are no longer a danger.
If he is not a danger and has completed the legally required terms of his sentence and is permitted to walk our streets unsupervised, respect his rights, all of them.
We might well consider on how much jail time actually serves to "pay a debt" vs using incarceration primarily for the safety of society while imposing some kind of non-incarceration restitution requirement. But that is all rather complex and will always be imperfect.
If we are going to impose restrictions on a man's rights, I don't see why his RKBA should be held hostage above and beyond other rights. Do we let a man freely assemble, speak, attend church, preach a sermon, read or write a newspaper, be secure in his person, access an attorney, vote, or hold public office?
Frankly, I see no reason why a non-violent felony should contain any prohibition on RKBA at all even under our current lifetime ban for felonies.
Walhburg has had both the time, the means, and the opportunity to make restitution to his victim and to society.
I am opposed to ex post facto laws. So while I favor reasonable restitution where possible moving forward, for those whose crimes are in the past, my standard is whether he has completed the requirements of his sentence in law at the time he committed the crime. Yes, this means some jerks will get their rights restored. I find that preferable to denying rights until someone proves he isn't a jerk.
And since the restitutive changes to the justice system you suggest are large enough to require quite some time to implement, and might never ben implemented, my focus is on removing the lifetime scarlet letter and restriction of RKBA.
Charles
