Where have you been? For at least 15 posts I have clearly stated I DO NOT believe prisoners should be denied the right to vote.



In other words we should do injury to the hallowed principle of representative government because a guy stole a pizza. I think you have your priorities upside down and yes I must say we are definitely "polar opposites."

Somehow stealing a pizza is a felony? Where the heck do you live?

Do I feel that this country would be more democratic if Charles Manson had the vote, heck no. Maybe John Walker Lindh could petition to institute Islamic law. throughout the country.

They are not in prison for stealing a pizza. And frankly I do not feel that the country really needs to here anything from them or anybody like them.

Yes I very proud to say that we will never agree on this matter.

No, but if he raped and killed the pizza guy we would have a good candidate for discussion. A felony conviction requires a little more than theft of a pizza, and if you live in a state that classifies such an act as a felony, you should probably be looking to either change that or change your address. A felony is a huge thing, it's not some kid stealing a candy bar or someone speeding on their way to work. It's somebody poisoning communities with narcotics, it's someone raping people, it's someone molesting children, it's someone killing another human being, it's someone stealing (but a little more than a pizza!).

Yeah a guy in California is doing 25 to life in California for stealing a pizza. It was a 3rd strike offense.

But I get it, you guys don't want to touch constitutional principles with a ten foot pole. As long as we talk about how "we feel" about Charles Manson voting then rational discussion is removed from the equation. Just keep it at the level of emotive images. In my view that ultimately leads to tyranny and savagery. Reason and the constitution are hung out to dry.

Clever tactic! Yeah, right....All the "guy" did was steal "a pizza". Can't let the full context interfere with the point you are trying to make. And then you accuse others of using "emotive images". Can anyone spell hypocrisy?

Of course it is only when later challenged that you admit:



Oh, I see, so the "guy" had committed two prior felonies and it was that important fact (which you initially omited so as not to blur your "emotive image" of a harmless pizza thief denied his voting right) that landed him back in prison.

You keep saying:



The truth is that many of us have (repeatedly) and you just don't like our responses. Our elected representatives have made laws and the judiciary has upheld them and felons in prison do not get to vote. This isn't some relatively new or rare situation. "Progressives" ruled the Supreme court for significant amounts of time over the last 100 years, and yet the denial of imprisoned felons voting rights has not been overturned. The vote is running 2 to one against on this forum. I'll wager it's 3 to 1 if not higher in the general population. I guess the vast majority of us opposed to felons voting are just not as enlightened as the supposedly non-"emotive" minority.

Umm, let's get some facts straight.

- link

Having been convicted of 5 previous felony convictions (6th strike offense), he was subject to a 3 strike law which had recently been passed in California. After outrage over a 25 year to life sentence, the judge ruling on his appeal decided that since the 3rd strike (or should we say sixth) was non-violent, it would only count as a second strike offense.

- link


Mr. Pizza Thief (Jerry DeWayne Williams) has been out of prison since 2001, serving nowhere near the 25 years to life you claim. And since California automatically restores the right to vote upon completion of prison term (link), probation, and parole, Mr. Williams can register to vote if he is no longer on parole or probation.




We have discussed whether it is constitutional to strip the rights of felons to vote. I think it is. You think it is not. I say the actual words in the Constitution allow for such action with due process, you say the underlying principal of our form of government does not allow it at all. You say I am being emotional and irrational in my approach. I say "huh?". I don't agree with you, so I am being emotional and irrational? Very constructive. You invoke images of tyranny and savagery in your argument, and then call me emotional?

The Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to vote. Not you, not me, not a felon. I think that while repaying a debt to society, a felon should not have the right to vote. After a sentence is completed, and they are returned to society, they should have their right to vote restored. It is constitutional, and IMO is the right way to handle the situation. You disagree, and that's okay. Neither of us is going to change the others mind, and that's okay, too.

The Washington Times has a fascinating article about this very issue, and it reminded me of all you fine folks who have posted on this thread. I've found some interesting items as well, most notably:

-Only three states have strengthened their anti-felon voting provisions since 1996.

-Of the three progressive states that reinstated felon voting rights after a minimum of just completing one's sentence, all three had GOP governors.

-Nine states since 1996 have gotten rid of some anti-felon voting provisions.

Interesting article. Nice spin as well (click on that link, read the article, and compare it to her "notable items"). Too bad it doesn't address the question in this thread which was:



In your "notable" observations, did you intentionally fail to differentiate between felons "in prison" and those who have served their sentences and been released? Did that distinction interfere with a point you were trying to make?
We have been (or should have been, if words still have any meaning) debating whether or not felons "in prison" (you know...behind bars...serving out their sentences) should be allowed to vote. In case you missed it, several posters who have opposed allowing felons "in prison" to vote, have also stated that they believe that once a sentence has been served and the felon has "paid his/her debt to society", their right to vote should be restored. This is my belief as well.

However! None of the examples you cite from that article would allow felons "in prison" to vote. They only address felon voting post incarceration.

I can't know what your thoughts/intentions were regarding the article you cited and your observations of same (which you characterized as "notable"), but I hope that you did not deduce from the article, or were trying to imply to us by citing it, that there is a significant movement afoot in the country to allow felons "in prison" to vote.

[FONT=Arial]If one has violated the rights of others, why should they have a say in the system in which they live? As far as I'm concerned, once someone has been convicted/proven guilty of a crime, they've LOST all of their rights simply because they failed to respect the rights of others. Furthermore, they don't work, & they don't pay taxes into the system, (which, ironically supplies them with shelter, cable, gyms, and meals - all FREE, courtesy of OUR hard-earned tax money - provisions they receive all for COMMITTING A CRIME. We don't even treat our Elderly and Homeless this well!) They get, (perhaps, more than) enough by having their basic needs met, and should therefore, keep thier (little green) mouths shut . If they can't abide by the law, why should they have a say in it?! Can you imagine if a murderer could vote to have his own sentence reduced?! He shouldn't even be alive to CONSIDER it! Capital Punishment should have been his due "reward"... - (But that's another discussion altogether!) [FONT=Arial]

The issue of prisoners' voting rights is currently being discussed in Australia. Under current federal laws, prisoners who are serving less than five years can vote in federal elections. The conservative government has proposed the abrogation of this right.

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

Saturday, May 15, 2004. 9:28am (AEST)

Govt moves to strip prisoners' voting rights

The Australian Council for Civil Liberties has condemned a Federal Government move to stop prisoners voting.

Under current laws, prisoners serving less than five years can vote.

The Government has moved a bill into Parliament that will change the Electoral Act.

It will withdraw prisoners' right to vote if they are serving a sentence of less than five years.

The Member for the federal seat of Lingiari in the Northern Territory, Warren Snowdon, says the move is discriminatory.

However, the Northern Territory's Special Minister of State, Senator Eric Abetz, argues that if a person is unfit to walk the streets they should not vote.

President of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties Terry O'Gorman says all prisoners should be given the right to vote and be involved in the democratic process...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1108899.htm

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

Do you think that it is good public policy to grant voting rights to prisoners who are serving sentences that are equal to or shorter than a specified period, while excluding prisoners who are serving sentences that are longer than the specified period? If your answer is yes, what would you regard as an appropriate sentence duration to separate voting prisoners from non-voting prisoners?

Too late to plead mea culpa? Just for the sake of conversation, how about allowing model prisoners in prison to vote? Make up a check-list and if they follow it and take rudimentary civics courses, they can gain the right to vote back. What do you think about that? There is little difference between a felon released from prison and beginning the process of gaining suffrage back, and a felon who perhaps has just three months left on his sentence and who has been a model prisoner during the length of his incarceration.

Great Debate!!



Mrs P. I have to say you have argued magnificently that the argument that prisoners should vote solely due to the fact it is their constitutional right is an erroneous argument. And I agree. However, the same logic that you use to invalidate that argument invalidates your own argument to why they should not vote. The only reasons that people seem to come forth with for taking the right to vote away from prisoners is that "They showed a disregard for the law" Well the fact is if you are purposefully driving 65mph in a area with a 55mph speed limit you are showing an "open disregard for the laws"

Now am I comparing speeding to murder?? Of course not! I am just stating that since I am sure (pretty sure) that no one believes that voting rights should be taken because of speeding, no one should be arguing that voting rights should be taken away because felony criminals showed a disregard for law.


Dingo,
I have to say you have changed my opinion, but also did the arguments of those against you. Initially, I was thinking that voting rights should be merely restored after incarceration, along the lines with what Mrs P. was saying. But as I further looked at their argument I realized my opinion was solely based on my desire and not of any need. I think that makes all the differences in the world. When we take liberty away from someone we do so from a need to keep society safe. When we take away their right to vote all the arguments consisted of a simple desire to deny them this right for the simple sake of doing it. I then realize what you are saying. Its not about the prisoners or helping murderers or rapist. It is about us. It is about how much we love democracy and to what level will we allow tyranny to exist. If I support the ability of society to take the rights of people to choose their government by voting because that is what society "DESIRES" then society has the right to restrict other citizens because it desires as well. Since I do not believe that society had the right to restrict people from voting simply because of race, sex, or economical standards, I can not follow the faulty reasoning of restricting votes out of simple desire and authority.

Droop out

Droop, there comes a time for discrimination - you can't and shouldn't compare disrespect for the law between such examples as speeding vs. rape and murder in terms of our country upholding one's constitutional rights for the sake & love of democracy. Simply put, the degree of the crime should fit the punishment. (I understand that this issue (prisoner's right to vote) was posted by someone in Australia where the laws on such are "under construction", but this could very well influence that of the United States, as well, so I will comment on this from an "American" standpoint.) America was founded by and on Christian principles, which seem to be eroding by the day due to excessive flexibility in interpreting one's constitutional rights ("just for being")/as an American citizen. If you've murdered someone, you shouldn't even be alive to have the option to vote - that's Biblical- (and personally, I feel the same outcome for rapists & molesters is justified, too). If you take away absolutes and moral standards, you're left with nothing but kaos. The turmoil our country experiences today is proof of this because we (as a society) have strayed from Basic Biblical Principles - the content of which ultimately lend to and found the Free Society in which we cherish to live and Democratic Rights we exhault.

Ardent Muse,
How many times do you think that line "there comes a time for discrimination" has been said in this country's history. I don't think you are arguing the merits at all. I understand that the good ol' days of the founding of this country would be a wonderful place to you, but I myself enjoy the lack of religious values that keep me out of chains.
At any rate, the argument of whether this country is based on Christian princlples or simply people who claimed to be Christian or that the lessening of those values are the cause of some sort of decay you see, is for another post. I'm not sure if the AD Moderators will let it go, because it is as religious, as it is a political debate.
Give me the reason why we need to take the felon's right to vote, or am I right to suggest that we take the right away only because of desire.
Droop Out

Regarding your viewpoint: "Desire" is subjective, and therefore, not a solid ground on which to base a standpoint.

Basic principles of morality, however, lie within everyone's realm of consciousness.
Everyone has an innate sense of right and wrong, so if one choses to do wrong, then there should be a consequence. Otherwise, why do anything right at all if the end result is the same in either case? To allow a convicted felon (who's violated people and the law) the privilege to have a say in the law, makes no sense. The law was designed to protect people from criminals, and if he doesn't respect it, why should he have a say in it, let alone perhaps alter it to his advantage? Again, it makes no sense.

So I might ask, what are you basing your "desire" upon?... and further, where do you draw the line? I believe discrimination IS arguable and that there's MUCH merit in it. To grant a criminal the same rights as a law-abiding citizen is as good as supporting the crime of the criminal itself. The quality of life we live is contingent upon where our beliefs lie, you see, and if you enable a criminal, then you've disabled our freedom (to live in a safe society). People have to know that there's a price for their actions, good or bad, and those actions should be dealt with accordingly. If not, then what are we defending in upholding constitutional rights?- the right of a criminal to continue his lifestyle while eroding yours? Do you want a criminal to be able to tell you what you can and can't do when he has no respect for you or your rights? As far as I'm concerned, a criminal has given up his rights once he's taken away someone else's.

Regarding religion: If you find my "religious" comments "offensive" or cause for "Moderator Review", then you're just using that as an excuse to deny the reality of historical fact simply because you find (the idea of) Christian principles offensive, or even frightening simply because they're Christian or "religious". America was, in fact, founded by Christian Men and on Christian Principles. In fact, the freedoms you enjoy today, are a direct result of what our founding fathers established and designed, guess what, for your benefit - Christian or not. Whether or not you are opposed to those principles for being "too religious", does not change the historical fact of their origin, and therefore, the mention of them should not constitute "fodder" for "Moderator dismissal" -(nor do I see it as "time for another post" since the two are intrinsically related.)