I agree with your logic in a theoretical sense, however it falls apart if you consider other crimes other than murder, how do you choose which rights to take away from the felon, or do you just remove them all?

Another problem i have with your logic is that I do not believe the govt has the right to take away rights of the individual. I have my rights, I do not need a govt to tell me whether or not I can have them. Voting is somehting absolutely crucial to prevent the emergence of a tyranical govt and everyone should be able to vote to prevent this from ever occuring. Espcially given the fact how many black males are in prison. As it will lead to under-representation of these groups.

Rights are natural and are given to me upon my entry into existence, the govt has no right to take them away.

If you re-read my post you will see that I said "commit a crime against another person".

Victimless crimes should not be in the category.

But I fail to see the logic in allowing a murder, rapist, or kidnapper the right to vote, as they have taken away the rights of another human being.

Incarceration (I've repeated this several times) is a violation of individual liberty. A right. To argue that your rights cannot be taken away because you commit a crime is fallacious reasoning. If that were the case, no person could ever be punished for any crime, and society would deteriorate.

A person who commits a felony has shown direct distain and disregard for the law. Such a person then relinquishes his/her right to determine the process and enforcement of those laws until they have paid their debt to society. I might add that the law also recognizes the difference between self-defense and murder.

Soldiers and policemen are participants in the process of defending and/or enforcing the law (sometimes through physical force), and placed in a special position of trust and accountability. Soldiers and policemen who violate those laws and break that trust are also subject to punishment and the relinquishment of their rights.

I may not agree with all of the laws. However, I know that if I choose to violate them (especially the ones society perceives most important), I would be held accountable when caught, and would effectively relinquish my right to determine them in such an instance. If society believes that a rapist and murderer should not be free to roam the streets, then such an individual should probably not be given an equal say in how those streets are run.

I think that folks are falling into two groups here: those that believe that prison is about removing the person from society for a period of time and those who believe that prison is about rehabilitating the individual so that they can make a successful return to society. I think this is also the same argument we have with "mandatory" sentence time.

If you believe it's about removing the person from society, then here are some things to think about: (1) why let them back into society at all? (2) if you're ok with them going back into society after a defined period of time, what has the "system" done to make it easier for the person to be properly re-integrated into society so that they don't have to make a return visit to the pokey?

If you believe prison is for rehab, then you get to think about this: what is the "system" doing to actually rehabilitate criminals (usually little, by the way) and should they be able to vote prior to being completely rehabilitated?

I'm in between the two grounds on this one. I think that rehab is ultimately in society's best interest in most cases (the most severe cases don't get out anyway), because recidivism is just more expense on the taxpayers and the victims of their future crimes.

So, maybe we say that after someone has served 3/4 of their time required in jail that they regain some of the rights that the rest of society have, like being able to vote. Maybe we should also require that every prisoner with a term longer than 3 years is required to have at least a high-school diploma before they can leave jail. Just a "moderate's" thought.

I cannot understand why you view the law with such respect. How are the soliders in Iraq upholding or defending the law? I am not talking of soliders as individuals as you seem to have interpreted, I am talking of them as a collective unit carrying out the demands of the government. My problem with any harsh punishment and to a lesser degree incarceration in general (though i concede it is somewhat of a necessary evil) is subject to what the government defines as "right and "just". It is ok for a solider to kill for national interests but not for an individual reason, or in fit of rage. For me, I would be more forgiving for a criminal killing in a fit of rage than a pre-meditated government action that involoves the use of excessive force without reasoning in the international world.

My main reason for wanting prisoners to have a right to vote is as following:

The state is able to get away with crimes worse than any individual could possibly muster, and it is for this reason that I believe everyone in society should be able to vote - to prevent a government acting in a way contrary to the popualr will.
Think about this, if felons could vote, Goerge Bush would have lost his seat in Florida and consequently lost the election - since many balcks tend not be republican voters. We cannnot and should not underestimate the importance of adressing the problem of making democracy representative of the people.

This is not merely an issue involving the individuals rights as you suggest, we must consider the voting power of criminals as a whole. They could dramatcially affect the outcome of an election.

I can predict your answer to this, and in many you could accuse me of weaknening my argument since I have emphasized that criminals could play a very important democratic role (something not favorable to many here), but if anything the stance of the govt deeply affects their day to day life more so than an average person.

If the democrats won a landslide election, there may be a national campaign to end capital punishment, or conversely the Republicans might want to increase the scope of the death penalty. In other words the govt's stance could determine whether they live or die, and for that they deserve to choose the outcome.

Criminals should first be taken out of society to protect the freeomd of others, nothing else should change, I do not understand the eye for an eye logic of removing their rights becasue they have infringed upon someone elses, other than removing their freedom of movement. No other restriction is necessary or justified.

It depends on what they're in prison for. If it's for something like nonviolent drug use, gambling, or other victimless crimes, I'd let them vote.

Since when should SOMEONE else's value judgement dictate how I get to vote? That is the very antithesis of freedom.

Personally I believe that EVERY man should have the right to vote; even those convicted of treason.

I see nothing wrong with letting ex-cons take a few core civics classes in order to regain a right to vote. While in prison? Well, that's obviously another case. There is no reason to punish ex-cons after they've served their time. Continual punishment is something that has always been looked down upon in this nation, and I don't see any reason why we need to start by denying ex-cons the right to vote.

Since when should SOMEONE else's value judgement dictate how anyone should live? Isn't that the antithesis of freedom? By that measure, laws are the antithesis of freedom. Perhaps we should do without them, and allow felons all of the freedoms every other citizen enjoys.

An individual convicted of a felony should lose the priviledge of voting. Remember - we're talking felony, not misdemeanor. In my mind, the question is; Should it be a permanent loss? Perhaps for certain non-violent crimes, a certain period - say 10 years - after completion of sentence while maintaining a clean record and the priviledge is regained.

Armed robbery, violent assault, sexual abuse, rape and murder are all crimes for which the loss of the voting priviledges should be permanent.

Non-violent felonies like check kiting and extortion? The only problem I see is that a lot of non-violent crimes are what we would call "white collar" crimes while the more violent ones are more prevalent among the poor. We would be allowing felons from one social strata the privilege to vote in society, strictly upon their social class ranking in this country. I still believe that if has done the time, then they should be able to follow a lengthy process to get the right of suffrage back. I wouldn't worry about the sex offender or murder demographic. They will either not care to jump through the hoops to be able to vote again, or will be serving a life sentence in the case of the latter.

Here's what I don't get. Voter interest is lower in America than pretty much any democracy on the planet so taking away the right to vote probably won't be a strong deterrant.

Now, if the franchise is such an instrinsic right then in my mind there must be a very strong societal benefit from robbing that right from someone. Simple punishment does not qualify.

IMO, the logic follows this way:
1) Laws and their enforcement are fundamentally important to the preservation and protection of society.
2) Citizens who violate the greatest of those laws (felonies) show a direct and obvious disregard for the laws which are formulated to protect society.
3) The right to vote is fundamental to the determination and enforcement of the rule of law. It is the responsibility of every voter to act in the interest to society and balance the value of individual right to action with the impact those actions make on the public at large.
4) A person guilty of egregious criminal conduct has shown by their actions that they value their personal choice to commit mischief above the safety and welfare of the public.
5) The person should then pay their debt before society deems they are free to once again roam the streets, and thus have a say in how those streets are run.


Even simpler and more direct logic:
1)Society would cease to exist if criminals overwhelmed it.
2)Therefore, convicted criminals should have very little say, because their actions are obviously not in the interest of forming safe and stable society, which is the fundamental point of the voting process.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your logic is sound, though I would draw attention to the final point. And that was that "forming a safe and stable society is fundamental to the voting process.

This is obviously true, however it is not ALL that is fundamental, it is merely a small part of a wider point in voting.

Voting doesn't merely defend us from a tyrannical govt but it also helps in formulating a general will, or the desire of the majority. However it is also important to take into account the view of minorities who are often very under represented in a majoritarian voting system.

To convert this idea to the case in hand: Black and Hispanic People from a large proportion of the jails, by dis-allowing their right to vote you are decreasing their already very low levels of representation these groups have. If people in ethnic communities cannot democratically state their claims they are likely to become disenfranchised and turn toward away from society as they feel they are being excluded from it. In turn this could lead to more crime as there is no desire to maintain the status quo.

To be honest that post completely surprises me. As a conservative I would expect a much more broad understanding of franchise. What you are essentially saying is that people who would vote in a way that is detrimental to society should not be allowed to vote.

Elections aren't held to establish a stable society, they are held because it is the only way to establish a legitimate government. I can understand (if not disagree) with the revoking rights as punishment argument, but I find the suggestion that they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they will vote recklessly perplexing.

Well, that's one way to put it. The bottom line to what I am actually saying is, people who are such egregious offenders they have to be locked up to protect society should not have the right to vote, thus effecting society adversely through the voting process.

Edited to add: Paul Doran, rest assured that everyone who is incarcerated feels disenfranchised, with or without the vote.

[quote=Mrs. Pigpen,Dec 9 2003, 04:46 PM] [/QUOTE]
Edited to add: Paul Doran, rest assured that everyone who is incarcerated feels disenfranchised, with or without the vote. [/quote]
Yes, but what about the people outside of Jail, it is them was specifically referring to.

I don't disagree that there are some sound reasons to allow convicted felons the vote. IMO, they aren't nearly as compelling as the reasons against.

The criminal element would certainly appreciate the use of representation to lower their prison sentences and suit their interests in other ways. I don't believe that would be a good idea. Minorities, who are underrepresented as a voter base, are also disproportionately the victims of violent crime. It is as much in their interest to reduce the crime on the streets as anyone else. A convicted violent Latino gangmember does not represent my husband (as a Latino) any more than a member of Aryan nation would.

Once again, no matter what the crime-if felons have served their time, then their punishment is deemed as being served. It isn't fair to punish people after they've served their time. To continue to do so, is to engage in a practice that would be ruled unconstitutional in the courts. Sex offenders argue this pretense in regards to "Megan's law" While the safety of the people has to be balanced with the rights of the criminal, it still shows an underlying precept that the goal of our society is to bring people back into the various societal processes that they were separated from.(i.e.-hence the word "corrections") I wouldn't worry too much about a criminal party or interest rising up in this nation. Most ex-cons who learn their lesson don't deny that they earned their time. The more recalcitrant ones end up never leaving the system, so it would be difficult for them to form PACs and the like.

This thread is referring to felons behind bars only. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt after they've paid their debt to society.

NO!

They severly violated someone's rights and therefore should have none.

That is an excellent point and is something I failed to consider, perhaps I should direct more emphasis to class, since Pens are dominated by the Lower classes, though their political opinions are still varied as any other.


More directly at the topic, I obviously agree that Felons should be removed from society in order for the majorities protection however I do not need see any other need to remove further rights as punishment.

It comes down to rival conceptions of the ultimate aim of Prison. In my opinion its purpose is to remove the offenders from society for the safety of the majority, hopefully rehabilitate them and then supplant them back into society as harmouneousuly as possible. I see no need for punishment in reference to serious crime, since I do not believe its acts as a deterrence due to the fact many crimes are done in desperation, without a clear head or for other reasons an entirely rational person would not do. Other than perhaps drug related crimes on the part of the drug dealer, or other crimes done in cold blood as opposed to a man losing his temper and throwing his wife down the stairs. There is a definite difference, and although this is recognized in the eyes of the law, neither can actually vote.

If that is the case, then I'm unaware of anyone who would say that felons deserve the right to vote while still serving their sentence. Even when the whole Florida 2000 election fiasco was going on, the issue then was about the massive number of ex-cons who couldn't vote(as well as the false positives who were kept from voting, including a person who was a poll worker!) I don't see any reason why anyone behind bars should have the right of suffrage.

An incarcerated person who has knowingly and intentionally alienated themself from society does not share the same freedoms enjoyed by the rest of us. They are imprisoned for crying out loud! Should we really let criminals have any role in politics? No, absolutely not. The constitution does not give convicts the right to vote. In a previous post someone used the fact that some of our nation's founders committed acts that would be felonies by todays standards. I don't think that is relevant. I like to think we have evolved as a society since the days of slavery. And I hope we are still evolving. Lets not take a step backwards.

Icarus you fail to demonstrate WHY allowing felons to vote would be counter-productive.

The fact is that if prison-inmates are counted for the census, and prison populations influence where federal money goes, then they should be allowed to vote. I just don't see how committing a crime changes the fact that:

Obviously, liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness (and sometimes even life) are eliminated by the process of incarceration. Those rights ARE alienable, under certain conditions (due process of law), as spelled out in amendment V:


Edited to add: I don't see the justification for this under the "prisoners influence where the money goes, so they should get the vote" context. A person's behavior is so egregious the taxpayers are forced to pay for their incarceration, and therefore they should be able to determine how that taxpayer money is spent?

That wasn't really what I was suggesting. Many of the people in prison come from extremely poor areas that receive all sorts of federal and state aid. When those people are taken out of those community and places elsewhere the aid money goes with them.

The fact remains that you are basically saying that the franchise should be withheld as a punitive measure, and I find that perplexing.

Actually, (I can speak only for myself because other posters' opinions have varied) my take on this isn't withdrawl of the voting privilege for punishment purposes. It is strictly prudence, for similar reasons I would withhold the voting option to children and the mentally incapacitated. Those who have shown blatant and egregious disregard for our highest laws should not have a say in the process of their determination, since it is clear they are unwilling to abide by the laws of society over which they would be exercising their influence. After their debt is paid, they should be free to exercise their influence, but absolutely not before.

It has been adequately demonstrated through Constitutional citations in previous posts that there is not a legal basis for the right to vote argument. I realize that some will disagree but the Constitution is vague and this is my opinion. How would allowing a felon to vote be counterproductive? I am trying not to answer a question with a question. In our society we allow the judicial branch to determine what is evil. Apparently, there are a lot of evil people in our country as demonstrated by jail overcrowding. My point is that this segment of society would gain a loud voice. Enough to affect the outcome of an election? Who knows. But their efforts could help to negate the intentions of mainstream America. I think that is counterproductive. Not to offend the hippies. By mainstream I mean anyone not hurting Americans.

Why do you find that perplexing UJ?

When a person rejects what is "human" and acts like an animal, they have sealed their own fate. Freedoms are withheld as a punitive measure. That's the whole point of the penal system.

Some info:

If society's goal is rehabilitate the prisoner, and to help him/her become a productive member of society again, then there are other models of civic participation that could be explored, while leaving voting as the last pinacle to reach upon some limited conditions. Prisoner meetinngs and conventions could be held to hold each other accountable for their actions, as well as to make low-level decisions. That would teach them about participation, and why not? These are people who didn't learn how to communicate their ideas to others effectively, and learning to do so, would certainly help all of us(i.e.-how to approach someone you have a disagreement with, no you can't shoot at them, etc.) Yes, perhaps these civic groups would be tainted with gang and racial identity problems, but that would just educate them more about how life works-it's not fair, you just have to give it your all......legally.

Voting no, prison "steering committees" yes.

Yes, we need to remember that if we're going to throw around the "life, liberty..." clause, we must incorporate the "without due process of law" (14th Amend) as well.

Felons are barred by the Constitution from Voting and 90% of them would not vote if they had the chance, just like so many others who could vote but never bother to. I would bet 90% of those convicted are not and have never been Registered to Vote.

I do believe we need reform as to what a Felony is. Crime where there is no victim should not be a Felony.

Please cite your source for this.



You'd bet? That's not very constructive. It really helps to have actual sources so we have something real to debate.

Ok Jamie , I retract that 90% and say 50%, Do you understand that half the people elegible to vote do not do so, or do I need to document that also, and assuming the people in prison are less Civic minded or they would not be there, an additional 40% of them are likely not to vote even if they could.

Simple logic does not need documentation.

Simple logic may indeed need no documentation. But you do realize of course, that your figures are not simple logic, they are an assumption on your part unless you can cite any source to back it up. Any study that was conducted, any poll question that was asked of inmates, etc....

It's one thing to state that you believe "90% or 50% of convicts do not, or would not vote". I actually am inclined to agree with you, I don't see them as a particularly politically active group.

I think Jaime was well within the rights of an open and honest debate to ask for sources when you stated something as fact.

It's YOUR logic. I would like see numbers; Please don't think I'm insulting you by asking for facts. That's how a debate is conducted.

Did you ever see this? AD Survival Guide - Sources Section

FYI for all:

From: Types of Crimes Link





From: Law.com




To my knowledge if you are a convicted felon you can't:

Vote in most states
Own a firearm (I believe anywhere)
Hold a job that in anyway requires a security check (defense contracters and such)
Join the Military
Work at ADT (my company) due to the nature of the business
Get an explosives handling license
Be a member of any trade union (I believe)
Get a Private Investigator, Security Guard, or Corporate Security License (at least in my county in MO.).

Just to name a few.

If you are a convicted felon you loose a lot of opportunities. And you loose the right to vote.

I voted no in the poll. I did so because as human beings we have the power to supress our impulses. We make conscious decisions. A criminal is a criminal because the choose to commit a crime. Yes there are occassionally people wrongly convicted. There is an apeals process for that. As far as I know all rights are returned if a conviction is overturned (except for lost time and wages, not to mention damage to your reputation but that's what law suits are for).

As a human being if you make a decision to commit a felony crime then you are making the decision to accept the consequences of that crime if you are caught.

Anyone who so violates society by commiting a felony crime has no right to participate in societies choices for the future IMHO.

It is a felony, in GA and KY, to bring in a bottle of wine from out of state for your own use.

It is a felony, in VA, to get, well, what Monica was famous for giving Bill.

Other states are bound to have equally silly felonies. (BTW, if Bill could ever be tried, he'd be a felon for lying under oath -- but he could still be President!?!) There's an assumption that felons have done something bad. It's no longer an accurate assumption.

Well this seems to me to be a problem in those states. Why is the public not forcing these laws to be changed?

There are exceptions to every rule but in the vast majority of cases a convicted felon has commited a significant crime against society. In the minority of cases you mention the solution is to change those laws, not reward the real felons.

Some have said that the fact that felons can't vote is a neat trick that can keep as much as 1/2 the urban male population from voting. I'm not sure about the accuracy of that statement. I think that non-violent felons should be allowed to vote, but not to give campaign contributions.

Perhaps a more probing question is:
• How would our criminal justice system change if felons were allowed to vote?

Why can't I start a new topic? Please PM me the answer.

I think its a bad idea. If a bill is proposed that will, say, reduce the sentence on serial rapists, then considering the amount of prisoners we have incarcerated in the US, "THEN" think about the HUGE amount of voters that will try to get their friend "BUBBA" out of jail so he can bail them out. Thats my point of view, felons currently jailed should not be able to vote. The massive amount of prisoner voting will overwhelm the bill, most suburban people i know don't vote on small bills, hence the prisoner overwhelming the vote.

Should felons in prison be allowed to vote?

As other members have posted, the definition of a felony should meet the seriousness of the crime and that calls for reforming laws in some States.

IMO, a convicted felon while serving time should not be allowed to vote. Once a felon has served his/her time and fulfilled any additional legal requirements, then the right to vote should be restored.

I would agree, silly felonies should be repealed. However, they are not being repealed, so they must be considered.

So if I understand you correctly you are suggesting we change one law because we are not changing others?

This is the problem in this country, not addressing the problem directly. Another example of this is constantly creating New laws. We have laws for all sorts of things on the books but politicians insist on making new ones.

Example:

Where I grew up we had someone buy an old farm and turn it into a horseback riding school.

Soon the citizens were up in arms about traffic problems the horses created on the road the cut through the farm.

The town spend a lot of time and money drafting a law that basically said the horses had to stay in the shoulder, go with the flow of traffic, and only cross the road at official crosswalks.

Funny thing is, there were two different laws already on the books in that state that required this. Those laws were 50+ years old. Then there are also the existing laws for bicycles. Don't like the old law about horses, fine add horses to the law about bicycles. Nope, we need to make a new law.

Instead of enforcing them we decided to write new ones. This may be good for politics (look I am doing this for you) but it is bad or government as it cost money, time and adds to the confusion in our legal code.

What I am getting at is this. If your state has laws on the books that make silly crimes felonies then it is YOUR job as a citizen of that state to step up, bring this to the attention of the masses and elected officials and work to get it changed. If the elected officials won't address it the problem it is the job of the citizen not to re-elect them.

We as Americans need to start taking responsibility for our government again.

I don't want to sound naive, but I just don't understand why a convicted felon can't vote in the first place. Could someone explain this to me? Just because you've been convicted of a felony doesn't mean you can't make an honest conscious decision on who you want to vote for...

or could the fact that a convicted felon can't vote be punishment to the felon for their crimes...

There is nothing in the Consititution that explicitly ensures the right to vote. It details the many ways in which you cannot restrict the right to vote: race, sex, etc... But it never explicitly ensures everyone's right to vote. It is not a guaranteed right like, say, the freedom of speech, which is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution.

So, do I think those in prison should have the right to vote? No. They have broken the laws of the US and should not be allowed to participate in the process that ultimately determines those laws.

Do I think that the disenfranchisement should be permanent as it is in some states? No. I think it should be only for the duration of their incarceration.

I think that once any person commits a serious crime, they've forfeited at least a huge portion of their rights. This encompasses the right to vote.

On the basis of morality, I simply don't think that criminals and convicts should have any right to decide on the internal affairs of our government, no matter how minute and relatively inconsequential those affairs may be.

mim3 for the Maoist Internationalist Movement:

If mass-murderers can run for office, why not let felons vote for them?

The real question is when are we going to get politicians with the guts to tell
the patriots of this country that they have the most criminal nation on earth and that's why there's so many felons. This would hardly be an issue in most countries,
but in the u$a it can make the difference in elections, because the united $tates
leads the world in imprisonment percentage wise.

This debate is quite entertaining. The same people who who see no violation of a person's rights when they are taxed to pay the for the rent/food/ healthcare/everything else of some teenage girl who sexually "experiments" with "that cute guy in math class" are simultaneously outraged that people who steal/assault/rape/ and/or murder are not granted their "right " to vote. While I might disagree with the current classification of victimless "crimes" such as voluntarily trading mind-altering chemicals for cash ("drug dealing" as opposed to liquor sales-yeah right) as felonies, I certainly loose no sleep over the fact that mutants such as Ted Bundy, Jeffry Dahmer, and even Charlie Manson have been "denied" the "right" to help "choose" our "representatives". And nevermind those miscreants who rob banks or little old ladies at gunpoint, I see no reason not to deny the "right" to vote to those "harmless" young adults who think it's O.K. to shoplift CD's from Wal-Mart because "they are just a big evil corporation anyway". Of Course, I suppose by some people's ethics, my opinion will be considered "draconian". So be it!