John Smith wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...
The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that
any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to
the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us
by our creator.

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Here's another, somewhat similar view:

An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by
a process that includes passing the required examinations *and*
demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and
regulations.

The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and
until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is
considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy.

Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof.
License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was
revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still
trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did
not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked.

I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work against
felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole.

Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right
might win out.

Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license who
had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk
driving--manslaughter--etc.

Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put
it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's
behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has
problems in those areas.

And note again that the revocations are not automatic.

This type of logic, once again, demonstrates
why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio.

It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions.

Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the hobby
aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished!

Maybe.

It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among
licensed radio
amateurs compared to the general population.

Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish them
after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse,
dead!)

You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree.

73 de Jim, N2EY