EDIT:// This is probably a bad idea all around. I didn't word my original thought out well. I forgot to include that even though there are already felony charges offered for rioting, how exactly would small time rioting charges be met. Even if you increase the financiali penalties, or increase jailtime for misdemeanors charge, it will only sow more discontent, further divide the economic class division. The people who would be charged would have a harder time recovering, which would make them strengthen their original discontent. It'll be a vicious circle. Lose-lose all the way.

The idea was more or less using the analogy of sending a child to timeout after escalating to a tantrum. But the idea kinda spiraled out of control when you consider how the rioters would react. Nothing would change. They would still be unhappy for the charge. They would be set back for the time loss (jail) or the financial penalties (loss of job, bail fees, gainful employment?)

I was trying to come up with an idea that could be used as a stronger deterrent. This doesn't seem like a good one. But hey, at least we were able to talk it through, right? That's the type of step that helps to build progress into actual reform.

Quick research has it that riot charges are on state level decisions. Some states have it classified as misdemeanors inciting and participating. Some are upgraded to felonies when property damages total +$1,500, result of serious bodily injury, or be in possession with a deadly weapon.

North Carolina https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-288.2.pdf

Riot Instigators and participators -- should be charged as felonies, lose voting rights. --That's looting, destruction of property, vandalism, intent to do bodily harm, results of bodily damage/injury to person(s),

If you can't peacefully protest and have the willingness to have CIVIL DISCOURSE, you should lose your rights to vote. If you can't have a cool level head to discuss the things the problems you are faced with, it's not CIVIL DISCOURSE. If you reject the opposing party's counter argument of why things are done like they are, it's not CIVIL DISCOURSE.

Because, voting itself is an act of CIVIL DISCOURSE.

I get it, these protestors are upset. But inciting and participating in riots is not the answer.

Ever thought about inviting seasoned police sergeants, lieutenants, captains, chiefs, HR/PR associates, and even junior officers to round tables of discussion? Ask them about policy, training, their reactions, economical factors regarding training, mental state of mind when they're in the middle of their duties? Ever thought about bringing your own set of demands or talking points to hopefully resolve some issues? Because this is civil discourse.

Because demanding and destroying things you want will only force the opposing side to be defensive. This leads to nowhere. Make it so there's a penalty for those who don't want to have CIVIL DISCOURSE lose their right to do so.