Should ex-felons be allowed to vote? Each state has different voting laws regarding ex-felons. Recently Iowa joined neighbor Nebraska in allowing ex-felons the right to vote. Obviously, there is a political aspect to this question.


Just to clarify, this is from the economist and the writer of the article is in favor of allowing ex-felons to vote.

Question for debate:

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?

Why shouldn't they have a right to vote? In my opinion, if somebody was found guilty of a crime and served his sentence he should be granted all his rights after his return into freedom. I find it rather strange that ex-felons cannot vote. So what if they tend to vote for a Democratic candidate? They should have to have that essential democratic right since they are U.S. citizens. On what grounds is the fact based that ex-felons shouldn't have the right to vote? I am really curious.

I have to admit that I am also curious as to the origins of felon disenfranchisement. Just the other day, I asked a felon who I know why he was allowed to own guns. Apparently in his state, felons can own hunting guns but not handguns.

As to the political ramifications, despite the fact that 7 in 10 felons would "prefer" Democratic candidates, it's probably optimistic to give this population a very high turnout estimate. Even the total population only votes at a 50 - 60% turnout rate, felons would likely be much lower.

Harmonizing the various states' legislations would likely require a Constitutional amendment, and I doubt that either party wants to be the "let's give felons more rights" Party for any given election cycle. So, it ain't gonna happen on a national level. We will continue to see stealth management of the issue, with Republicans purging felons (and probably some non felons) from voter rolls and Democrats promoting looser election requirements like same-day registration and fighting ID requirements.

I voted "yes with restrictions" - I don't think it's too much to ask that felons submit some sort of petition to get the right to vote back.

If a person has served his or her sentence, the right to vote should be restored along with his/her freedom.

To carlitoswhey: those ex-felons whose sentence was for a crime committed with the use of a firearm are restricted from owning a firearm from then on.

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?

I really won't lose any sleep if we changed the law and allowed ex-felons to vote. I can take an objective view of both sides of the argument, and find some agreement with each.
But in the meantime, I also can't dredge up any sympathy for someone who knowingly committed a felony, thus knowingly forfeiting the right of suffrage. I can't imagine that loss of a right being the pivotal point in a criminals decision matrix, on whether or not to commit that crime.
If there is enough support, and the law is changed, I won't stand in it's way, but my eyes are dry to the whining and crying about the loss of the right to vote. Nearly every felony I can think of off hand carries with it a loss of somebody else's right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, often unrecoverable. That doesn't appear to have been a concern to would be felon's.

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?

I think they should be allowed to vote with restrictions. If an ex-felon wished to vote they should go through a process to get the right reinstated. I would say the cutoff should be 3 months or so before and election so there's not a bunch of fraud. If someone really wants that right they should go through the steps.

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?
Yes, but my reason for saying so is quite different. Experience has shown that the administration of ex-felon lists is so fraught with errors that the disenfranchisement of legal voters occurs all too frequently. Let's just dump this stupid rule so that we don't have to go through the administrative hassle and so we don't risk disenfranchising innocent voters.

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?

After a felon has served his/her sentence including all probation, parole, fines, restitution, court costs, etc. they should be allowed to vote again without restriction.

When one pays off a car, one gets the original title. When a felon satisfies all elements of a sentence, they should receive something along the lines of a clear title to a car.

Not to allow them the right to vote is sort of a non-legal type double jeopardy. As the slogan goes “do the crime-serve the time,” but actually this never happens. Often prisoners returned to society are like people who get in debt to loan sharks. They have paid off the principal, but are paying interest on interest. Being restricted after completion of a sentence means one continues to pay for a crime after they've paid for it. Paying ones debt to society should not mean paying for perpetuity.

Although this is a state issue, it would not surprise me to see a federal lawsuit filed, perhaps tied to Amendment 14.

BTW: Voting, by its nature is a peaceful activity. I simply cannot see how denying someone a vote endangers the public safety. If some one can illustrate this, please do so. Attempts to draw parallels between an ex-felon owning a gun and voting is irrelevant. Unless we want to pursue endless slippery slopes, that is another debate.

I once started a thread asking if felons in prison should be allowed to vote. In that thread I said I had no problem with an ex-felon who served their time being allowed to join the voters of the country.

Although I do not belive they should get a 'clear title' as BoF stated. As sex offenders should still have to register once they are out of prison. But this is for a different topic.

You are correct.

Sex offenders do have to register, but that, at least in Texas, that is part of the sentence.

I can see no reason a sex offender shouldn't be allowed to vote, though, in the case of pedophiles, it might be necessary for them to vote at a location not frequented by kids. In my town precinct polling places are often set up in public schools, but early voting is usually done at a courthouse.

ALthough Texas no longer has a poll tax, voters to have to register. Former offenders should have to register just like everyone else. If the sentence is complete, there should be no hold placed on voting.

As the Supreme Court just revisited in the Small case, adding foreign crimes which would be felonies if committed in the US, it's quite relevant and not a slippery slope at all. The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricted all felons, not just violent criminals. As augmented in 1986, it also restricts dishonorably discharged soldiers, those under restraining orders, illegal aliens and some others.

If Joe commits mail fraud and is convicted, he loses his 2nd Amendment right to own a gun, and his 14 / 15 / 19 / 24 / 26 Amendment right to vote. Thise seem highly related to me. It's not just a public safety argument, it's a matter of felons not having full citizenship.

(edited to fix amendments)

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?

The key for me here is that the convicted felon paid for their crime and served their sentence. I would not support those currently serving time getting to vote while in prison, I consider that just another freedom lost because they choose to violate the rules of our society and the life of someone else (in one way or another).

I would and do support ex-felons, as in those who have served there sentences being allowed to vote. The tricky part here would be those currently on parole. Technically, they are still serving their sentence. I would not have a problem with allowing them to vote, but if not allowing those on parole to vote is what was needed to get those who served their sentences the right to vote, then I say it's a reasonable compromise.

I was REALLY surprised to see that President Bush supported this however.



Or does he? That seems rather cryptic. The author of the Article seems to think President Bush supports ex-felons being allowed to vote. So I looked around and found this:

source

Actions speak louder then words in my book, so it appears President Bush does support allowing ex-Felons to vote. Huh, you think you know a guy.



Not a complete answer for you, but this covers the reasoning behind it. There is logic to it, though I happen to disagree with the idea. If we are going to say that committing this crime requires this penalty, then when that penalty is completed the debt should be paid and they should have a second chance at getting it right.

source



Good Point. I agree, but what concerns me is that this line of thinking could be abused to cover all sorts of voting restrictions.

For example, should we remove people from the registered voter roles when they have not voted in 10 years? I think so, it is simple data management if nothing else. Who is to say they live in the district anymore? You send them a letter, asking that they send back the postage paid card if they wish to remain a registered voter and if they don't send it back they are off the list, though they can of course re-register if the choose to later, so long as it is before the deadline.

I remember seeing people in the St. Louis area on the local news on election night, claiming to be disenfranchised because they were taken off the registration lists (in the way described above). IMHO there is a certain level of personal responsibility people need to be held to. If you don't vote for a decade, then get a letter warning that you will no longer be a registered voter if you do not mail the card back and you ignore the letter, well you threw away your chance to vote.

I worry that people with use the "minimize disenfranchisment" argument for everything, even arguing against registering to vote is plausible.

You mean former felons. Again, I ask, should someone be asked to pay forever for a crime? Not restoring rights of former felons is a matter of social injustice.



I have no problem with this as long as the the registration process is liquid enough to allow people to reregister with minimal effort. I think resistance to former felons voting is just another dimension of the climate of fear we have in this country.

I hate to quibble on the semantics, but... according to this definition, a felon is
I don't think that you ever get to be an ex-felon. The word itself means that you did something once, got caught and were convicted. I'm really not trying to derail us, I just think that the very basis for the argument is the deprivation of citizenship rights of felons, and whether this is a good idea. How did we come to a place where we treat a class of people as less than citizens?

As to your stance on restoring felons' right to vote I tend to agree. However, I'd take the flipside of Erasmussimo's point of view and say that I'm worried because those (political types) promoting felon re-enfranchisement tend to be the same folks who say that requiring ID is akin to Jim Crow. I question their true intentions.

I would support restoring full voting rights to anybody who has served a complete sentence for any crime. This seems fairly obvious to me. If nothing else, a Bad Guy who votes shows at least some possibility of becoming something other than a Bad Guy. Not allowing ex-felons to vote makes as little sense as not allowing ex-felons to do honest work.

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?

Sure, and so should everyone in prison have the right to vote. What's so gosh awful wrong about letting someone who has committed a crime (or not, that's another thing -- wrongful imprisonment) to cast his or her vote for whatever politicians, judges, referendums and so on? Does the fact of conviction make the person's political opinions invalid?

If so, then isn't civil imprisonment also political imprisonment? I think so, especially if the attitude is that felons would also tend to vote Democrat. That in itself is a highly questionable assumption, but I can see the logic to it. If most felons are from poverty, and most felons are minorities, and if most people in poverty and who are minorities vote Democrat, there you go.

Of course, one might wonder why the middle class doesn't get locked up as often. Ah well, grist for another debate.

I'm also on the side of how this kind of state law can be used to disenfranchise honest citizens. Well, let's say non-convicted citizens. This has been demonstrated in recent history, and so the laws are unconstitutional due to the misuse.

It's unfortunate that some politicians find this acceptable. I'll call these types non-convicted criminals, and if anyone deserves to lose the right to vote, they do.

If someone fails to obey the laws of the land and are convicted they should not be allowed to vote (while they are in prison). That person by breaking the law has forfeited certain rights. I really do not care what the political opinions are of someone in prison. If the prisoner values his/her opinion so much perhaps they should have thought twice about the crime they were committing.

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?


For most crimes, a punishment is set, which punishes the person for a limited amount of time, i.e. a set period of time in jail. A ban on voting is for life, so has no maximum period. Is it really justice to deprive a 60 yr old of his right to vote if he committed (say) a minor crime at the age of 18? The law should be able to forgive, as well as punish.

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?

I voted yes, but with restrictions. Certainly not while in prison, especially in local elections, but possibly in their home districts, like an absentee voter. I wouldn't want any incarcerated felon voting on who gets to be on the parole board in the community where they are serving their time.
Once the time is served, including parole time, they should have their right to vote reinstated, but again with restrictions. If they are repeat felons, I say after the 3rd time around they lose the right to vote permanently. We already have too many idiots messing up the process, don't need any more.

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?

The answer to this, for me, lies in the word itself: ex-felon. Someone who is no longer a felon. Given that they are no longer a felon, what then is the justification for not giving them the right to vote? Especially since taking that right away is merely further disenfranchising them, making it more likely that they become a felon again. This smacks me as a purely political decision, which would be quite difficult to justify outside of that realm.

I would be in favor of it, however, if it were included as one of the terms of punishment. In that case, it would be applied upon conviction of the felony, removing the whole exfelon argument. Decisions could then also be made as to which felony crimes this would apply to, or even which particular felons (is that a good thing, or a bad thing?), and it could also be appealed.

With due respect to nemov and the responding posters, there is no such thing as an ex-felon. The word itself is based on something someone did in the past. You can't un-do it. I posted the definition above, and would love to do so with ex-felon, but...


We have defined a class of people as "felons" by their past actions. We have decided that they are second-class citizens because they violated our serious laws. Among the restrictions are deprivation of civil liberties like gun ownership and voting. Is this a civil rights issue, whereby we need to amend our constitution to redefine citizenship to include felons?

Denying felons the right to vote goes against the very principles that we cherish. When a person is jailed for any length of time it is with the understanding that when they emerge, hopefully 'cured,' that they will once again be a healthy and functioning individual operating within the limits and safety of the society they live in.

But denying them the right to participate in that society? That is simply one of the many injustices we give criminals who have paid their debt.

I am glad that I am not the only one who thinks it is not right to withhold former prisoners their right to vote. Voting is not a right that one has to earn, voting should be a fundamental right for every civilian who has reached the voting age in a democratic society.

Besides these strong moral objections, it is clear that this legislation is in no way beneficial for society. There are two practical aspects that should be mentioned.

It clearly doesn't help ex-felons trying to reintergrate in society, one of the principal goals of correctional facilities.

It clearly costs a lot of money. (look for example at the numerous appeals in Florida, in every appeal case there are civil servants at work. Those civil servants are being paid by local / regional/ national taxes. I am sure there are better uses for this tax money.)

It is clear that this legislation is not helping society and legislation that doesn't serve society should be abolished. It is a wonder that it still exists in modern day America!

carlitoswhey is correct. Instead of saying ex-felons it would be proper to instead say "former prisoners” or "ex-convict.” Then we would need to clarify whether or not the ex-convict is on parole or probation. If someone goes to jail I do not see how it is inappropriate to request that the ex-con take the initiative to go through a process to get the right to vote again.

A quite valid point. The point of correctional facilities in this country is to successfully aide and then release criminals into the community, at that point there should be no doubt that a person can be trustworthy to vote. In most cases it is an odd twist of fate or bad circumstances that lead them to prison and the denial of their right to vote.

When the time comes for their release it is highly unfair to deny them to ability to prove themselves functional by denying them something so simple as the right to vote for, say, the president of their country. They are still citizens of the United States, they still pay taxes, but they cannot vote for the person who will be in charge of their country... the very thought is hypocritical: "well you can live here, you must pay us, but you can't help decide who will run the country."

I really don't think this line of argument holds much promise for your case.

The Oxford American Dictionary gives the following definition of ex:



Other than the two examples OAD uses, there is no list of words the prefix "ex" can be used with. There's no entry for ex-president, for example. Therefore, I'm sure it will come as an unpleasant shock to many people to realize Bill Clinton is still president simply because there is no specific word "ex-president" in the dictionary.

It's not about the word construction or your knowledge of latin antecedents. It's about a class of people (felons) being legislated against (no vote).

Our society treats felons as different from mere "ex-convicts" who were convicted of lesser crimes. They are felons. Forever. You can no more be an ex-felon than you can be an ex-amputee. That's what the word means and thats how our laws were written. More importantly...

Felony, or in our gun-control laws "a crime carrying a prison term over one year" is deemed so serious that we revoke their right to vote and own guns -- both rights so basic that they are explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. Viewing a felony conviction as a simple sentence or prison term is an incomplete view. I've already listed my view on the poll, I'm trying to draw out how our society has come to this view. Is it shades of the 'scarlet letter' days of stigmatizing criminals for all to see? Is it a remnant of an America that used to have Jim Crow and poll taxes? I'm really curious as to the argument for literally restricting citizenship rights for a class of people (felons).

There is no double jeopardy issue here. Felons lose the right to vote once they are convicted and sent to jail. We are not taking anything additional away once they are released, we are simply not giving it back. Now you may argue that not giving back such a right is unjust, but it is not double jeopardy.

I would argue that felons do not automatically deserve to have the right to vote reinstated. Just as felons released from prison are put on parole, where they have their liberty somewhat infringed upon until they prove themselves, the right to vote should be handled similarly. Do you consider the restrictions of parole double jeopardy?

Also, I believe your car analogy misses the mark. This is not a contract. A felon has committed a wrong against society, and as such, society has the right to sanction him. This includes revoking rights society had given you, namely the right to vote. No felon who serves his time ever becomes "whole" (to use a contract term) again. For instance, a sex offender who has served his time is placed on community watch lists and often has severe restrictions on what they can and cannot do.

I can understand why someone may feel an ex-felon should be allowed to vote but not for the rationales you mentioned. I voted "no" but should have voted "yes, with restrictions." If we can develop some program where ex-felons can prove in some way that they wish to become constructive members of society again (much like meeting reguarly with a parole officer) get their right to vote back, I would probably support such a program.

As I understand it, the purpose of punishment is three-fold -- (1) to deter conduct that harms society, (2) to rehabilitate the wrongdoer, and (3) to protect society from that wrongdoer until he or she can be rehabilitated. Based on these principles, it seems to me that the right to vote cannot be rationally withheld beyond the duration of the sentence itself, once all of its requirements have been fulfilled. A felon will always have the (earned) burden of time stolen from his or her life, the shame associated with being branded by society as one who has wronged it, and -- in most cases -- will have spent time in an institution that tends to breed further criminal activity more often than it corrects it. If a convicted felon is able to overcome the obstacles that will face him or her after spending years in a timeless cage while society moves along without him or her and "repays the debt to society," he or she should be allowed to return to the native state of full rights once that debt is repaid.

To put it another way, think about credit card debt and your credit score. If you miss several payments during a low point in your financial health, then your credit score will be affected or a number of years until you make enough consecutive on-time payments such that the prior financial probelms no longer affect your score. In other words, despite past financial indiscretions or hardship, one is able to restore one's standing in society by demonstrating the ability to function as a honorable and productive member of society and, as a result, one's standing is restored to that state which existed prior to any credit problems. I think we need to think about crime and punishment the same way -- though it remains a difficult thing to attain given the current state of the criminal justice system, the opportunity to "become whole again" further incentivizes the felon to work hard at self-improvements -- things like perpetual restrictions on the ability to vote or to participate in other ways in society that "normal" people enjoy serve no positive deterrent or punitive effect, but do make the attempt to reintigrate back into society post-incarceration that much more difficult.

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?

From this side of the pond, where the terms "felon", "felony" and the comparative "misdemeanour" have no special legal standing as they do in the USA, this is easy.

Yes.

As soon as the term of punishment is completed - be that a custodial sentence, parole, some form of house arrest (e.g. wearing a radio bracelet), community service, a fine, etc - convicts have the right to vote again. In practice, many of them do not register to vote, since they may have difficulty finding a permanent address at which to register. For instance, none of the homeless, ex-offender or not, can register and therefore they cannot vote, but this is not really a deliberate withholding of their rights as much as a recognition that there is nowhere to send their polling card (which they need no matter how they might choose to vote - in person, by proxy, by post, etc.)

There is also a system by which "spent convictions" lapse altogether after a further set period. For example, minor traffic offences disappear from one's record after five years. Even custodial sentences no longer haev to be mentioned on things like job or housing applications after a set period (dependent on the length of the original sentence, and the job being applied for). For more details, see here

The exceptions are those sentenced to life imprisonment that are released "on license". I'm not sure if you have that system in the US, but some lifers, if they are deemed not to be dangerous (through age or infirmity, for example) can be released "on licence", which is like a strict form of parole. As far as I'm aware such people cannot vote.

But then, our voting rules are different anyway - serving members of the armed forces are not allowed to vote either.

I think that the principle should be that once one's "debt to society" - whatever that is - is deemed paid, one should regain the right to vote (along with all the others). I think it's worth making the distinction between their debt to society, in terms of the carrying out of the full sentence of a duly appointed court; and their debt to their specific victims, which may never be repaid, especially if lives have been lost or damaged.

This is a good rule of thumb, as clearly a parolee's or a prisoner's debt to society is not deemed "paid in full". Similarly, a sex offender may have to be kept on a register permanently, depending on the type of offence, in which case their debt is never going to be fully paid, so I can see how it could be argued that they should not be able to vote.

Ok, let me change the terminology to “perpetual jeopardy” because that is, in fact, what it is. Denying someone rights after all elements of a sentence are completed is at best unfair.

Julian said essentially what I said earlier, but maybe better:





You are correct in saying that “our society treats felons as different.” The fault, however, may be as much, if not more, with society as with the felon or ex-felon. Except for life itself, there is little the government can take away that it cannot return. The larger problem is that we [our society] has almost given up on rehabilitation in favor of punishment. The opportunities are so limited and the obstacles so great that "going straight" is often next to impossible for an ex-offender.

The analogy of ex-amputee also breaks down. There are cases where people have had fingers reattached after they were amputated. Without getting grotesque, the case of John Wayne Bobbitt comes to mind. After his wife, Lorena, amputated a portion of his anatomy, Bobbitt later used the reattached apppendage to star in a porn film.

There are cases where you can be an ex-amputee.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=John+...Bobbitt&spell=1

Unless the phrase "paying your debt to society" and the entire concept of rehabilitation means nothing the only rational answer is YES and a "yes" without qualification, reservation or jumping through hoops.

The disenfranchisment of ex-felons is a form of punishment and a continuance of serving more time when time in prison has already been served. Additionally, there is an undeniable racial component to limiting, restricting or barring ex-felons from voting.

Nationally, more than four million Americans are denied the right to vote as a result of laws that prohibit voting by felons or ex-felons. In 48 states (with the exception of Maine and Vermont) and the District of Columbia prisoners cannot vote, in 35 states felons on probation or parole are disenfranchised, and in 13 states a felony conviction can result in a lifetime ban long after the completion of a sentence. This fundamental obstacle to participation in democratic life is exacerbated by racial disparities in the criminal justice system, resulting in an estimated 13% of black men unable to vote.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/issues_03.cfm

A society that believes in treating ex-felons only using sticks instead of carrots will continue to find itself victimized by frustrated ex-felons with bigger sticks.

A "racial component"? Why am I not surprised to read this here?

Felons can't own guns and exercise their second amendment rights without jumping through many hoops.

They can't hold many classes of jobs.

They can't teach our kids.

They, through the freedom of choice and the freedom of their actions CHOSE to commit felonies which, by nature, are terrific crimes against their fellow Americans.

They don't deserve to vote. Most of them don't even deserve to be free.

Rehabilitation is a farce. The crime rate, particularly among repeat offenders proves that the misguided notion that a sociopathic criminal can be rehabilitated has just created more crime victims.

Part of their "debt to society" is beyond incarceration (which should be longer in any event in most cases). It's the loss of the status that non-felons have earned through their choices.

And one of those is the right to vote.

One has to ask. Why is the democrat party so in favor of felon's voting? Why would ex-felons be so receptive to democrat candidates?

That should give any rational person pause.

Yes, if prison is a felon's way of paying his debt to society, then why does he have to keep paying after that debt is paid? That doesn't make sense. I'm not entirely sure why someone would be against allowing these people to vote. They're people who have done something wrong in the past, they've paid for it, why keep penalizing them? If we expect these people to re-enter society and become normal people, just like the rest of us, how can we simultaneously prevent them from taking part of the same process that the rest of us do?

CP

Because their debt, in my view, involves more than their prison time.

I think that if they wish to vote they should jump through the exact same levels of hoops that they need to jump through in order to legally buy a gun.

That should weed out the repeat offenders who, unfortunately, are the majority of convicted felonies criminals.

Maybe I misunderstood you then Lord Helmet. Do you think that they should be able to vote with restrictions [if that's the case, then we're on the same side], or do you believe that they should not be able to vote. I certainly think that they should have to jump through some hoops, but they should still have some participation in society. But I do need some clarification as to whether or not you believe that they should be able to vote at all.

CP

You are going to have to explain this one. What loss of status have non-felons earned? Do you mean, by non-felon, anyone who has never been convicted of a crime or are you talking about people who have been convicted of misdemeanors?

I'm not an absolutist. I'm didn't state that felons who turned their lives around should NEVER be able to vote.

But the burden of proof is on THEM and it's not proven by the fact that some liberal parole board set them free from the joint.

And, that burden of proof should be at the same height as having their second amendment constitutional rights reinstated.

It is possible, but it IS difficult.

If we trust an ex-felon to own a gun, then we can trust them to vote.

You can't have one without the other. Again, they need to prove how well they have been rehabilitated.

As I said, the number of convicted felons who pass this strict standard will be a small minority. And that's exactly how it should be.

Interesting twists of logic in this thread. It seems that some take the stance that committing a felony crime, getting caught and convicted, equates to losing all constitutional rights.

In other words, the loss of citizenship.

A simple challenge: Quote me the law that says this is so.

I can quote the Constitution where the loss of citizenship is definately not allowed in our system:



An unusual punishment would be voter disenfranchisement due to committing a crime that does not involve voting fraud.

So someone knocks off a 7-11 and spends 5-15 in the slammer. Time in the slammer fits this crime, but taking away the right to vote does not.

During that 7-11 heist, say the perp kills someone, using a handgun. Revoking Second Amendment rights fits the crime. Revoking the right to vote does not.

An undertow of argument here is that criminals need to be persecuted for life, regardless of the crime. Well, then show me how the Constitution supports this logic. From what I see, it refutes this logic.

But if the felon kills somebody they have taken away not only that person's life but their voice and right to vote.. no? I could never agree with the notion to let a convicted killer vote.

Sleeper,

I understand your feelings about this question, but with the logic you are using, the only punishment befitting a murderer is death. That comes under the debate about capital punishment, and that's not the subject of this debate, so I'll not go there.

We are talking about all felonies, from committing accounting fraud to smoking pot. The question is whether all felons should lose the right to vote. But why? Did cooking the books make the individual's political views invalid? Are we supposed to not care what the felon's views are, because, oh I don't know, the person broke the rules? What, that means the felon can't follow any rules, and so the brain must be defective and therefore unworthy of political thought?

Should we also suspend First Amendment rights? That would quiet G. Gordon Liddy. I'm not sure if he can vote or not. Rush Limbaugh would have to quit his job. Child-molesting church leaders would lose the right to worship. My point here is that if one right unconnected to the felony can be taken away, all other rights can be taken away too.

I was talking about felons IN prison... Those who have served their time should be allowed to vote once again. The only ones I believe who should be kept track of are sex offenders as they have a sickness.

This is an interesting statement that aroused my curiousity for two reasons. I find your comparison between the right to own a gun and the right to vote rather curious. These two rights are important aspects of American society but should not be compared as equal, especially not in the case of ex-prisoners trying to rehabilitate themselves into society.

In fact, one can argue that the right to own a gun is only an aspect of the Amercian democratic ideology, contrary to the right to vote, which is an essential aspect for any democracy or democratic ideology.

Hmm, I voted "no" and now wish I could change to "with restrictions"- first off, all felonies are not equal - a person with too much pot is quite a different breed than the serial rapist- I think that this is a case were until restitution is paid to a real "victim"- there should be more than just not voting, but alot more restriction on freedom of the felon. For instance, IMO, there is no victim with the drug dealer- so, no restrictions. Now, I don't believe in EVER freeing ANYONE convicted in any type of felony death- from a drunk driver to a serial killer, anyone that causes someones death, should be punished until dead, period. - however, there are lots of felons out there that have no real victims, such as our lazy little pot smoker - so I guess a "crime by crime, felony by felony" component should be added, with the victim being "made whole" before LOTS of rights are restored, the least of which is to own a gun or vote.

for instance, Michael Milken should have to repay every one of his victims plus 100%- but instead, he came out of jail a billionare, hey, can't vote, but he sure is rich!

Our criminal justice system is truly one dysfunctional, screwed up system, without a doubt- it is just as racist as NT said, just as incompetent as Erasimusio said - and reforming the right to vote for felons is just not high on the priority list I think- there are far bigger priorities, and far bigger debates about those priorities, in the end.

What should also give rational people pause is why the Republican Party is so opposed to ex-cons voting.

Felon disenfranchisement began in the north in the mid-nineteenth century - at a time when half to three-quarters of the prison population was Irish. It flourished in the southern states in the 1870s through the early twentieth century - coincident with Reconstruction. What started out as an anti-Hibernian disenfranchisement evolved into an extension of the Jim Crow laws. Whenever and wherever these laws were enacted, I would argue, it had nothing to do with "punishment". It was done to keep the underclass from voting.

If we look at which party currently seems to be more dedicated to extending the franchise and favoring all classes rather than a ruling elite, I think it is easier to see why ex-cons might be more receptive to Democratic candidates.

I would agree with AuthorMusician. Removing the right to vote at all turns criminals into political prisoners. It would seem that lordhelmet is arguing that one party might be more in favor of political prisoners than the other. I suspect he's right.

OK here goes.

First off I feel that our current system of denying imprisoned felons a vote is just. but once they have served their sentence they should regain their right to vote and become members of society again.

I cannot see how we can expect them to re-enter society and all the responsibility it entails without allowing them the benefits and duties of citizenship.

Some crimes will have a life long stigma the ex- felon will have to deal with. Is it right that we as a society continue to punish beyond what the law proscribes?

Beyond murders, which I agree should lose their rights to vote for the rest of their lives, other felons, once they have gotten out of jail and paid their debt to society, if they should remain out of jail for 5-10 years, then their right to vote should be restored.

The point is that these people have violated the inherent social contract and thus, why should they get the rights that contract and the Constitution guarantee? They've shown contempt for the society, why should the society be obligated to listen to their views?

There are degrees of murder and manslaughter. Sentences are getting longer, sometimes including life without parole, for 1st degree and 1st degree murder with aggravating circumstances--that's capital murder in Texas.

Those murders getting out would probably be for a lesser degree.

I think they also should be allowed to vote after completing all probation and parole stipulations.

I don't see the logic in making someone wait 5 or 10 years after the sentence requirements are complete. To me this is just perpetual jeopardy.