I agreed that felons should be allowed to vote, with a few exceptions. Felons serving sentences under 15 years should still be allowed to vote, because they will still be going back to society and entering the populace once again. But I also believe that the Green River Killer should rot in the deepest, darkest pits of hell, because he is not a human beings. We do not allow animals to vote, because with our reasoning, they do not understand what a vote can do. I believe that people who kill willingly and for sport are to be treated the way they treat other people---like animals. Animals can't vote. But instead of just taking away their vote, I think they should fry as painfully as possible.

I think that there is a significant problem with being able to pick and choose whom gets to vote and whom does not by how horrible their crime is. My reasoning behind this is as such. If voting is a inalienable human right then even a violation of the social contract cannot deprive you of this right. If voting is not an unalienable human right and can be revoked by violating the social contract then shouldn't it be equally revoked against everyone who violates the social contract?

I have no doubt that the Green River Killer will find the rest of existance unpleasant unless he repents and God shows mercy. However, that does not mean that I think we should deprive him or anyone else of the right to vote. Frankly I think that the civilty of a society can be judged by how it treats it prisoners and if we deprive them of what I believe is an unalieable fundamental human right then we are violating our responsibilities to humanity.

This baffles me

What about that person who a murderer kills, their right to vote was taken away forever, plus their right to live!!!

I'm amazed that this is even a question being debated at all. People do vote their interests, and felons have an interest in guns being outlawed and in "soft on crime" judges among other things. It would IMHO be very unwise to allow them to vote.

Voting is not a primary right like life, liberty and property (and even those may be removed for cause subject to due process of law), but a procedural right; one for which the states are given the power to decide qualifications. They may no longer use literacy tests for voting because some states abused them to racially discriminate, but the states may still set qualifications otherwise.

Like abolishing the electoral college, this strikes me as something being pushed for partisan advantage. IIRC felons would vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Can't give you a source for that but I remember reading it in several different magazine or newspaper articles.

Giving prisoners the right to vote is absurd. Prisons are often located in areas with low population. In some cases the prisoner voters would rival, or outnumber, the voters of the municipality or county. I can see property taxes raised to build swimming pools and recreation facilities in the prison.

Incarceration in this country happens, (albeit to often) when the defendant has shown significant objection to the law of the land, if he did support such laws, s/he wouldn’t be in Prison. Therefore, the interests of the State (in the philosophical definition) is not to take into account the views and beliefs of an individual operating outside of the social contract. Upon the convicts release, either because of his/her reform, or at the time of the end of their sentence, finishing their dept to society, their rights to vote should be restored.

But could we claim that revoking the right to vote could be a ‘cruel and unusual punishment’, contravening the 8th Amendment? Certainly not.

The question was raised of whether voting was an inalienable right. The answer is perplexing. Rights given to the people by the state are done so in exchange for the consent of governance. Therefore, is it the people who consent, or the Government who represents and provides responsibility to determine if voting is inalienable? And if it is the role of the government to provide that right, on what basis did the people receive the right to vote, to, in turn, vote for a government.
It is my belief that voting is an inherent aspect of democracy, and it is democracy (despite my love of it) that is the mongrel development that hold so many loops and contradictions.
It’s a chicken and egg problem. What came first, The rulers allowing the people to vote in a democracy, or the people voting for a government that consents to their will. I would hope for the latter, but, again, as the history books tell us, democracy is a development from English sovereign rule that has been diluted down over time.

Back to my main point:

Incarceration is the final attempt in saving the soul of the convict. S/he is taken out of society for good reason, and is barred from the more common rights of society as well. To allow convicts to exercise political power would not serve the purpose of incarceration. Why are we providing them with even more responsibility, when we are smothering them in a bid to reform their character?

But what does need to be altered is the culture of convict hatred this Nation loves to keep. We are genuinely scared of anyone serving any time in gaol. Even if it be a few days. Maybe if we sought to solve big crime, reform social welfare and reform our judiciary, we wouldn’t have so many desperate citizens resorting to crime, and this argument would never happen.

The Declaration of Independence was written by a slave holding pedophile. Should Jefferson have had the right to vote? The principle is once again, government obtains its legitimacy by receiving the consent of the governed. That's what makes it different from a dictatorship or an oligarchy. The authority comes from the bottom up, not the top down. Being somebodies idea of a good guy has got nothing to do with it. That principle was written right in there by our niece raping slave holding 3rd president with the editing help of good old Ben, who fathered kids from here and gone by lots of different women I hear. We honor them for their contributions and don't disgrace their efforts by crucifying them for their short comings. These remarks about prisoners not being good enough to vote because of blah blah blah and blah blah blah suggest that the majority here simply have little respect for a fundamental democratic principle and think voting is something the blessed(Those who haven't been caught or judged) hand out like lollypops to the unblessed(Those who have) for good behavior.

People who break the law lose certain rights. A rapist, murderer,
drug addict, embezzler, etc. has broken the law. By doing so he
has forfeited his right to have a say in the political arena.

If he could have kept his nose clean he
wouldn't have lost that right. It's pretty simple, really.

You state a fact but it does a run-around my point. By denying prisoners their right to vote we do serious injury to a principle underlying democracy. If you don't believe in the democratic principle that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, whoever they may be, then a complacent acceptance of the present state of things should be no problem. If some small group decides democratically to overthrow our government and assume power, declaring the rest of us outside the loop of legitimate electors because of their belief in our unfitness, they will be applying in principle your view of things.

PS. Strange that Jefferson and Franklin the two founding fathers that I first described to point out the hypocrisy of our moralistic rationale for denying prisoners the right to vote should be the two you quote at the bottom of your post. Do you sense a little irony here?

Not a chance. Even though we do not have to earn the right to vote in this society, we can lose it for seriously violating the rights of others. This is the basis for civilized society. Newsflash: Felons are punished for being found guilty of committing serious crimes, and the consequences don't all end if and when their prison terms do.

I believe that if a person commits a crime that results in a prison sentence, the penalty should include the forfeiture of the right to vote for the period of the incarceration. It is not unreasonable to withdraw the voting rights of someone who has demonstrated an egregious lack of respect for the doctrine of the rule of law and the institutions and procedures which give effect to this doctrine. It is not unreasonable to seek to protect the prestige of these institutions by avoiding the unedifying spectacle of incarcerated felons casting votes.

However, to promote the prospects of rehabilitation, it is very important to restore the person's voting rights once the sentence has been served. To do otherwise is tantamount to expressing a complete lack of confidence in the ex-prisoner's willingess and ability to seek redemption. Imposing a permanent or unduly long suspension of voting rights sends the message that society does not welcome any effort on the part of the ex-prisoner to participate constructively in the political process. This can only hinder the rehabilitation process and increase the risk of disillusionment, despair, disengagement from society and recidivism. Encouraging ex-prisoners to become active citizens and to realise that they have a stake in how their society is organized is surely an essential part of any strategy to reduce the likelihood of a relapse into socially destructive behaviour.

I notice when people make the case for denying felons the right to vote it inevitably comes down to the fact that they are "different" in some negative sense from me. Kind of like woman and black people and even nonproperty owners were at one time. I'm curious, what do people who say no think about the principle of democracy? Deep down I don't think they can really support it. The objections to letting prisoners vote seem so utterly lame. They're not good people like I am. Us good people shouldn't let those bad people vote.

It's really an identity thing isn't it? I can't trade on my skin color, gender etc. etc. any more so we need to hang on to whatever trappings of exclusivity and superiority we have left. Nobody seems to seriously want to address constitutional principles or explain why a prisoner has any less right to peacefully manifest his interests in the public arena than anyone else. Hell he's not going to bop anybody on the head by voting.

I thought it was a fairly simple premise.
Yes, it's an identity thing. Felons are different than I am. I am better than someone who commits a felony.
Feel free to put yourself on the same moral plane as a murderer, pedophile, embezzler, rapist, or armed robber. But I shall not. Does that make me an elitist? Oh, gosh darn it, how will I ever sleep tonight?

I am befuddled by the fact that person X knows that by committing a felony, they will lose their right to vote (among other things). Person X willfully commits said felony, and loses the right to vote. And yet, some will come to their aid, even injecting slavery into the defense, to return to the felon that which they knowingly threw away.

Ah, welcome to the club. Thanks for confirming my point. Clearly it is an identity thing with you. Surely you don't want to be put on the same moral plain with the bad guys. I guess I wasn't aware that there was a built in morals criteria for voters. Shame that it didn't apply to a pedophile rapist like Jefferson. You don't read back very far do you?

Now let's get to my second question. How do you feel about democracy? Do you think perhaps folks who don't believe in democracy should be removed from the rolls because for them to vote would be the height of hypocrisy?

What kind of irrelevant and uneducated comment is this supposed to be for?
I have not attacked your argument on the basis any perceived intellectual shortcomings on your part.
The question for debate....as I recall is "Should felons in prison be allowed to vote?". I addressed it with my opinion. If the right to vote is a precious commodity to a citizen, then one would think that they would not endanger it by committing a felony. A felon, especially a violent felon, does not IMO care one wit about society or bettering it. So, consequently, I do not feel ANY sympathy for the loss of their voting rights.
I want a society where actions have consequences. As long as those consequences are well known to the public. Guess what? They are!

I'm really not sure where your fascination with some of the founding fathers is relevant in this debate. The question did not address or ask for diatribes about the moral shortcomings of some who lived 200 years ago. Surely it would make for good debate in it's own thread, but your little shot at my supposed reading background does little but embarrass yourself.

I see no modicum of logic in that statement. Being caught violating a law and not having the money to buy your way out indicts a person as not caring a wit about society or bettering it? Have you ever known anybody in prison? I have. Good people both of them who happened to get caught doing what a lot of voters do.

The Jefferson reference is perfectly appropriate. If anybody gets credit for being the father of American democracy he does. Your inability to appreciate the historical irony in light of the topic is sort of sad.

I notice you don't say 'being acquitted or exhonerated', but try and change the subject to avoid exposing the light of day to the GUILT of the indicted. Telling.


Yes. Your point?


Moral relativism, no standards for society. Great.


Spare your pity. And your historical ironies that have no bearing on the question for debate.

Once again........criminal knows results of crime if committed. Criminal commits crime. Pardon me while I don't shed a tear.

Cute the the way you avoided my question and offered a meaningless out of synch response.



The next quote of mine you offered is the point. Pay attention.




A meaningless posturing response.




The fact that you again miss the irony of the historical lesson and its absolute relevance to this discussion is in fact pitiful.



And once again you make it clear it's about parading your superior identity as a supposed law abiding citizen and not about any concern for democracy and justice.

It took you this long to figure out what I had already stated????

Yes, I am a superior, law abiding citizen. Do you know why? It's because I'M NOT A FELON!!
Oh, I get your irony....real witty. Next.
Feel free to skirt the debate question with your retrospective historical ironical anecdotal remarks. Don't attack me because I don't feel that they are relevant to the debate, and as such will not respond to it.

I indeed care about justice. My brand just doesn't include a bleeding heart and the sniffles.
Criminals make their bed and they must lie in it. Oh sorry if reality is meaningless to you.

If a person who was imprisoned for a felony is later found to be innocent of the crime and therefore wrongfully imprisoned, his right to vote should be restored.

I'm not going to take the time to read everything that has been said but it seems to me that it is pretty obvious. We elect leaders based on how they will handle issues that both directly and indirectly effect us. If you are in prison, the issues do not effect you, thus you should not have a say in which political candidate should handle them.

It is not about "moral relativism". If the country's issues and laws do not effect you, you should not effect the country's issues and laws. Democracy is not about giving someone a right as a human being, whether they are "good" or "bad". Democracy is about giving a citizen significance so the government can better suffice his needs.

You're kidding - right?

the difference is that "felons" are caught, while im sure plenty of felons are out there not caught and voting. also, plenty of people in jail are there by mistake or for wrong reasons. how can you justify this?

If my post is such a joke , why don't you explain to me why people are given the right to participate in democratic process.

The fundamental constitutional principle is that legitimate government is derived from the CONSENT of the governed. Whether in or out of jail you are still being governed-I mean laws are being applied to your existence, aren't they? You are not required to agree with that hallowed principle enshrined in our Declaration of Independence but you can't escape the bad faith in first claiming to support the constitution and the principles it is based on and then turning around and preventing your fellow citizens the exercise of those principles by denying them the same voting rights that you have.

I don't consider prisoners as part of the governed. They are in prison, they are given food, they work, they are given bathroom time, and they sleep. This doesn't seem to me like the schedule of someone who is effected by any major political issues.

Please remember that you can become a felon for: transporting wine across some state lines for your own use, when over 21 (but not beer); doing what Clinton did with Monica (the sex thing -- or the witness tampering, for that matter; or lying under oath!); failing to fill out forms in customs. You don't actually have to be a homicidal monster or a child predator.

And each of these silly laws has got to be a major political issue for someone deprived of liberty because of them.

So challenge and change the classification of such laws as felonies. I fail to see how because some 'silly laws' are felonies that means that felons (many of which are child predators and homicidal monsters and drug dealers and rapists) should be given the right to vote. If certain crimes don't seem serious enough to be classified felonies, we should correct that particular flaw, not change the policy for all felonies based on certain extreme situations.

I still see no persuasive argument for a felon, locked up in prison for commiting a crime serious enough to be labeled a felony, should be extended the ability to vote. Yes, they are still members of society, and the actions of government impact them. And the society and the government says that they have committed a crime that is serious enough that they do not have a voice in policy making until they have repaid a debt to society that they brought upon themselves. They had a voice, they chose to give it up by making a conscious decision to commit a serious crime. As far as I am concerned, they consented to giving up their right to freedom, their right to bear arms, their right to privacy, their right to vote (which isn't even guaranteed by the Constitution, as the others are) when they chose to commit a crime over living by the laws in place.

How about the constitutional PRINCIPLE that the very legitimacy of government rests on the consent of the governed. Laws do not always have a hallowed history. Laws have burned witches and returned slaves to their masters and thrown categories of people into extermination camps. The felons who are in prison may or may not be guilty and if guilty we know one of their principle crimes is getting caught. They are citizens and so the constitutional principle should apply to them. And yes, I know prisoner voting rights are not explicitly written into the constitution but the founding fathers also layed down a set of principles which it was assumed would be incorporated into law as the nation matured. We started out with white men of property having the exclusive franchise and look how far we have come?

Thought I would put my two cents worth as well. Convicted felons should and for the most part do lose their right to vote. As is should be, but that is not the sum of their loses.

They also lose their right to a passport as well. Most countries do not allow convicted felons to enter. This includes but is not limited to the United States.

Most have restriction on not meeting with other felons.

Lose of the right on own and bear arms.

Conviction on felony charges carry stiff penalities

The constitution enumerates many rights and privileges. Are you suggesting that prisoners should not be denied any of them? That prisoners should partake in all the benefits enjoyed by law abiding citizens? That the same people who have infringed upon the rights of others should maintain those very rights? That politicians and propositions should pander to a constituency of law breakers?

If not, then you at least concur with me that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and that prisoners should be restricted from some rights. And why not the rights that influence the direction in which society will go?

I guess I'm a lousy communicator. This is NOT about giving prisoners anything. This is NOT about judging their goodness or badness. I fully understand that they lose all sorts of privileges, rights and opportunities. The right to walk free is not in the same category as the right to vote. To say that a government gains its legitimacy by the right to vote is akin to saying we stay on the ground because of the law of gravity. It has nothing in common with a passport or letting somebody free to prey on the public.

Our founding fathers declared there were two categories of government.
1. Nonrepresentative government which was characterized by tyranny.
2. Representative government which involved the public electing their leaders.

The first violated the natural law of government and therefore was illegitimate because its law makers were not authorized by the people who were governed. The second received natural authority through having its representatives elected in competitive balloting.

To the extent that citizens are not allowed the opportunity to elect their representatives, to that extent the government is illegitimate and has no standing that deserves respect. This is what, in affect, our founding fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence. Now either I'm right or I am wrong about their ideas of what constitutes legitimate government. The prisoner voting issue I am addressing in this fashion. The question of whether they are deserving or not is irrelevant if you are arguing their RIGHT IN PRINCIPLE. Their right is embodied in the idea of legitimate government. The only point of argument that I can see would be the question of individual competency(retardation etc), but that, of course, would apply to the nonincarcerated also.

To be a convicted felon is a huge matter.

Our founding fathers thought a lot about the rights of the citizens and did an excellent job in that regard. The practise of denying the vote to a convicted felon extends back to the founding of our nation and even before there was a United States.

They established that there were penalities for crimes, such as the death penalty for major crimes and the lose of rights for convicted felons. Since these were established practises prior to and during the creation of the constitution then I feel that if the founding fathers of the United States had any problem with those laws they themselves would prohibitions against it into the Constitution like they did with the Bill of Rights.

So I do not believe that the intent of the Constitution is being violated by continuing those practises today.

The founding fathers wrote pragmatism as well as idealism into the original constitution. They also placed in the constitution an amendment process so that the principles underlying the constitution could be given life in future amendments. The original document gave its imprimatur to slavery and it took many decades and a war before racial equality began to be taken seriously and another hundred years before that equality was fully enshrined in law.

I don't know how long it will take for the incarcerated to finally get their right to vote, but until they get it we will, to the extent they remain disenfranchised, be constitutional frauds.

I don't know how long it will take either, but I sure hope that it is never.

With any luck the American people will reverse the trend of reducing the consequences for criminal acts. These people committed serious crimes and got caught, oh well.

Like the saying "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". As part of their punishment they lose the right to vote, guess they should have obeyed the laws.

I have some difficulty with this line of argumentation about the 'Principle' of what the US founding fathers intended.

Considering these same founding fathers chose to restrict the vote to white male land-owners, I have some difficulty with the idea that a government that does not allow EVERYONE to vote is somehow illigitimate according the the (supposed) principles they set forth.

That logic then means that the founding fathers were proposing a government system they knew to be illegitimate, as they were denying the vote to a majority of the adult population.

Convicted felons are not being discriminated against. They are being punished. They will get their right to vote when the debt they owe society has been repaid. Not one second sooner. They had the right to vote before committing whatever act landed them in prison. They were not stripped of their right, in my view, they gave it away. They decided the laws in place were not of enough importance and the consequences for their actions were not severe enough to keep them from committing a serious crime. We have a legitimate government. Simply because some of our population desires to be felonious in their actions and forfeit their right to vote does not change this fact.

The restrictions on voting were simply consistent with the practices of the time and were inconsistent with the principle layed down in the Declaration of Independence that legitimate government exists "by the consent of the governed." Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, made it very clear that slavery was inconsistent with the Declaration that he principally composed but he went along with a constitution that originally enshrined it because at the time there was no practical alternative. The constitution continued to support that shameful institution until we passed the 13th and 14th amendments. They understood pragmatically that they couldn't change everything at once but they could lay down principles that would allow the nation a peaceable evolution to a better condition.

The other two posters continue to miss the point. It's not about giving the convicts anything. It's about living up to this nations creed. If you take out "the I am better than they are so they shouldn't enjoy the right to vote like I do" and focus on the primary constitutional principle then the right to vote follows like night follows day.

This is beginning to sound like an echo-chamber. It is Dingo who "continues to miss the point". Felons in prison, as a result of breaking the laws of society, forfeit (for the time they are sentenced to) a multitude of "rights", some more fundamental than others. Numerous posters have listed the many examples of "rights" that are denied to the convicted for the duration of the time they are incarcerated and I will not reiterate them all again (as there are some who will refuse to see a point until it pokes them in the eye). I will opine however that it is absurd to accept that those who commit the crimes that bring prison terms forfeit their fundamental rights to "liberty" (you know...FREEDOM) and the "pursuit of happiness" (taking your family to the zoo, starting a business, flyfishing in Alaska, making a sandwich when you are hungry...) on the one hand, but take away their "right" to vote, why that's just crazy, it's insane, it's inhuman.

Now while there are those imprisoned for "crimes" that I do not consider to be "crimes" (i.e.- selling pot instead of Whiskey or Valium), that is a completely separate topic for another debate.

Regarding Dingo's assuming "paraphrase" of those of us who oppose convict voting "rights":



That is not my reasoning (at least in the way I believe Dingo means it- I stated my reasoning above). Nor (I am assuming) is it most other opponents primary reasoning (acknowledging that one poster did assert his being "better"). That is a subjective condition that I may or may not claim. If by "better than they are" Dingo means that I (we) think we are superior human beings, I will leave that up to others to judge. One thing I am absolutely certain of is that I am "better" at not raping, robbing, and/or murdering my fellow humans.

Regarding "constitutional principles", have you ever heard of the "due process" clause (5th Ammendment)? Perhaps you would like to fall back to the "cruel and unusual" clause (8th Ammendment) and make your case from there?

Arg, I will agree on one thing, "This is beginning to sound like an echo-chamber." I reiterate the constitutional principle "government exists by the consent of the governed" and over and over each respondent ignores it. Is there ANYBODY OUT THERE WHO HAS A CLUE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT?


No please don't because it doesn't address my point nor did 10 previous assertions of the FACT of what prisoners lose. Does anyone think I am arguing a point of FACT?


Total apples and oranges comparison. Equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were stated as endowments from our creator. It in affect said we are not creatures of the government but receive these endowments from God or nature. The government is in fact the subordinate tool of men. This was a radical view in the world of the divine right of kings. The government is our, the peoples, means to insure these rights, that is our instrument to protect equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But what is a peoples government? A government whose representatives are selected by the people. That is what keeps the government subordinate. To authentically carry out their mandate to be the people's representatives the people must elect them or their power rests on no more than myth, arrogance, terror and the assumption that the government is the true master. Do you get my point?

If you withhold the franchise from a certain category of the citizenry, as we did blacks and women, then to that group the government is a tyranny and to them the constitution does not live. Prisoners are people, they are citizens. Deny them the right to vote and you have created a tyranny within democracy.

The original amendments were a warning to government of its subordinate character to the individual citizen. As a group citizens could take away rights from other citizens through due process who had attempted to break rules of society set up to insure our inalienable rights. There is the inherent contradiction of the "greater good." To the murderer, "my life and the life of others is made freer and more secure by your loss of liberty." However he is still a citizen and his enjoying the right to vote is our insurance that representative government is alive and well and not compromised by a low level exclusive country club double standard.

His voting does not take away our right to vote. His killing does. And he is being held to account by a government that he participated in choosing. That has meaning. The lack of franchise makes him an animal in a zoo.

I wonder why some here think that the only punishment that a convicted felon receives should be their time spent in jail. Some offenders have their rights restricted for the rest of their lifes, such as sex-offenders, yet that is okay, even after they have completed their sentence. In fact I hear distinct silence over that, I wonder why?

Part of the punishment felons receive remains in effect for the rest of their days, that includes votings, foreign travel, etc.

Seems to me to fair and equitable that all murderers be executed, all violent criminals to remain in jail for the rest of their days. So I feel that letting them out is not fair to the rest of the non-criminal society. I would really like to know why anybody thinks that those type of individuals should have any right to same rights that non-criminals enjoy. The restriction on their voting rights is part and parcel of their original sentence. It does not violate the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence (though that has no legal significance), to have a permanent punish attached to a criminal act when convicted.

Again, I assert that we are not withholding anything from them. They choose to commit a felony and by doing so give up a whole list of rights.

Blacks and women were refused the right to vote based on something completely out of their control. Felons are granted the right to vote, until they decide the law does not apply to them. Their is a huge difference, and I see no parallel.




You're right, he is being held to account by a government that he particpated in choosing. And that government says his actions merit the removal of his right to vote.




I have never claimed to be better than anyone else. If I were convicted of a felony, I would lose my right to vote. I do not think I am better than someone convicted of a felony, as I know nothing about their life and what put them on the road to such an act. For all I know, before my life is over I could be in the same boat. And I still do not think felons in prison should be allowed to vote.


This is just one of those cases where we will have to agree to disagree.

It's absolutely parallel. Their voting has nothing to do with why they are there. They are still Americans and to be an American in the fullest since, if you believe in the principle of representative government, means you have a right to choose who represents you in government. Loss of the right to vote has no relevance to the crime and does, therefore, unnecessary violence to our form of government.





Perhaps I should have clarified that. I'm not talking about his right to vote before he went to prison although if he was an excon and because of that was denied the right to vote then it would apply. Basically if he can't vote while in prison then he is being held to account by a government he did not participate in choosing and the government in his case loses its democratic status and therefore legitimacy.





Because the principle of "government by the consent of the governed" is so profoundly imbedded in our form of government and the withdrawal of the right to vote is so arbitrary as it bears no relationship to the crime, ie you can be a murderer and still have intelligent ideas on foreign policy, just what might be the rationale for denying prisoners the right to vote? How about analogizing it to the exclusive country club where we have certain entitlements that nonmembers don't have. That at least relieves you of the burden of casting personal judgement but still retains the clubby voter exclusion as a low level, unprincipled denial of rights.

I think that I need a bit of clarification of the issue at hand.

So Dingo I would like to ask you a question, if a person is convicted of a crime and sentence to say five years in jail and given oh lets say a 50,000 dollar fine. If that person completes the time, but does not pay the fine, has that person paid their debt to society? Or does that person still have to pay the fine before they can be considered to have paid their debt?

Slim, a person chooses to be a Christian. Does that mean that it would be acceptable to exclude Christians from the franchise? A person chooses to be a conservative. Does that mean that it would be acceptable to bar conservatives from voting? Your distinction between chosen factors and factors beyond a person's control doesn't provide a sound basis for determining eligibility for political rights.

Stripping a person of a fundamental right such as the right to vote is not something to be taken lightly. A very heavy onus of proof rests on those who advocate such a policy. In a society governed by the rule of law, it is not acceptable to choose who may enjoy fundamental political rights and who may not based on visceral emotions. As a general rule, if a society is to be truly free, such rights must be enjoyed by all, including those towards whom you harbour contempt or disdain. A policy of selectively awarding fundamental rights is a policy which is ripe for abuse.

Well stated Nick. It's as if to say that the fundamental right that defines his citizenship in this democratic country, namely the right to vote for his political representatives, should be taken away because of one lawless act. The exclusion weakens a foundation stone of our system to satisfy a moment of spite and parenthetically to slyly leverage the uncaught one's vote.

L59, I have to say I can't make heads or tails out of your question or what relevance it has to the topic or any discussion that I've been a part of. Maybe a more discerning soul can take up the challenge.

Dingo

It is a straight forward question. It arises from the fact that you seem to agree that while a felon is in prison they can not vote, but think that right should be automatically restored afterwards, my question would be why?

As part of the sentence a convicted felon receives includes loss of certain rights for the rest of their lifes. Their punishment includes prison (often), fines (sometimes), loss of rights temporary (often), and permanent loss of rights (always). This is what happens when somebody is convicted of a felony.

So my question remains just because they have completed the jail portion of their sentence, does that fulfill their payment of the debt they incurred to society by their conduct?

Nick Too true, but that is why the defendants have a trial and right of appeal of the conviction, right of appeal of the sentence, etc. This is part of the sentence. If you are convicted of committing a felony and you may go to jail, you may face a fine, you will lose several rights including voting. The rights were removed because the person committed an act so heinous that the people (ie the government) deemed them to be unfit to be treated as the rest of society.

Last time I checked, being conservative or a Christian was not a felony. I'm not arguing that the right to vote should be taken away from someone because I don't agree with them. I'm arguing that the right to vote should be stripped from individuals that have committed crimes that show no respect or concern for the rights of society. If a person kills someone, rapes someone, molests a child, peddles narcotics, etc., they have shown a complete and utter lack of concern for their community.



Yes, that is what I think. An act that is bad enough to remove someone from society, strip them of their rights to privacy, bearing arms, et al should without a doubt leave them with no right to vote. After their debt to society is deemed repaid by the courts, I feel they should have their right to vote reinstated. At that point, they are re-entering society where they are expected to respect the rights of others, and so their rights should once again be respected as well.

Our views on this issue are polar opposites, and (as I said before), we will have to agree to disagree.