Spawned from the Ex-con thread...

I really feel this is part of the voter demographics battle on a partisan level. Besides that its silly to me, prisons have religious people in them also, and people who still think even if they did end up in prison for 5-10 with chance of parole, or maybe even a year. I feel that if you want to make a law that strips Americans of one of their most fundamental rights, you should have a very good reason, such as treason or being a spy. I don’t think ripping off another persons car or being caught with an ounce or marijuana should be grounds for that. I guess you could see the legal case this would be huh.


You do the crime you do the time. So much goes into stripping criminal’s freedom away and contact with the outside world. This effect i think is negative when it comes time to release said person back into society. Such things as having a community t.v, even if suspended in a case of plexi glass is important to keeping these people sane if that even exists anymore. Giving or taking away any trinkets of being a normal person will only boost the overall potential of such people being return convicts. The tax money prisons swallow is already immense. Not everyone that ends up in prison is a schizo that attacks people with chainsaws.

Charles Manson should have the right to vote. It's not a matter of my preference, the constitutional principle is quite clear. "Government exists by the consent of the governed." All adult citizens have a natural right to vote. It is this process that gives government its legitimacy. Nothing in the constitution about the franchise being limited to the law abiding and the righteous.

And consider this, some of our founding fathers were Indian killers, slave holders and pedophiles.

I think we should even consider the right to vote for people who are living here on a permanent basis if we are not prepared to grant them citizenship. That would seem to be constitutionally consistent.

Something to consider before voting in this poll. Prisoners are counted towards the demographic statistics of the jurisdiction in which they are incarcerated. These statistics are used to determine levels of aid from numerous sources at various levels of government.

I said no because when they broke the law of society, they lost their rights as a citizen in the society.

A mass murderer, for example, doesn't deserve his/her right to vote because he/she killed many people, thus breaking a rule of society, so that person does not deserve to participate in society roles

Besides, do you expect to be fair when they vote? I mean, you expect them to vote for the guy or girl who is for the death penalty?

I believe that they should have the right to vote by absentee ballot. First of all, being in prison does not mean that a person is not effected by the decisions made in the outside world. Additionally, the constitution grants all people over the age of 18 the right to vote. It says nothing about revoking this right while in prison, and while I realize that this is handled on a state by state basis, it seems as though the states should not have the authority to revoke rights that are granted by the constitution.

Also, while I know that emphasis has been placed on crimes such as murder where the prisoner will most likely be in for life, the vast majority of the people in prison will eventually get out. Allowing prisoners the right to vote promotes civic responsibility. I don't see how that can be a bad thing, and I also don't see how it's damaging to the people who are not in prison.

I put no, simply because of the strain it might put on politics when presidents are rushing to get the "prison population" vote. If prisoners are suddenly allowed to vote, what happens if a president had a policy to "Let out all those felons 10 years earlier because they already payed their debt to society?" I'm sure the ENTIRE prison population would vote for him.

In other words, Presidents try to do the most to be lenient on the people they're trying to get votes from. You don't want them to be too lenient on prisoners.

I voted yes because they are still members of society even though they are incarcerated in a prison. I don't care if they were busted with some cocaine or if they killed 5,000 people, they cannot have their voting rights taken away as that right is guaranteed unto them via the U.S. Constitution.



No, and I wouldn't expect that someone who was filthy rich would vote for a candidate in favor of raising taxes either. People vote however they wish. Of course someone in prison is going to vote against anyone who is in favor of the death penalty. Why would they vote for someone who is in favor of it? That wouldn't make sense unless, of course, they wanted to die. Either way, it is their Constitutional right to choose who will run the government as much as it is yours and mine.

in fact they ar MORE directly affected by decisions made on the outs. A governer's decisions can directly effect prisoners. they should have SOME say in who runs the state the are imprisoned in at least. I agree with the idea of using absentee ballots.

the only thing that should make one lose their right to vote is treason, (which should be a death penalty offense) and spying (again, death penalty, even if spying for "friends" IE, pollard)

In my reading voting is a constitutionally conferred RIGHT not a privelege. Like grace it only requires citizenship and therefore cannot be taken away for any reason short of taking up the citizenship of another country.

What reason other than harsh consequences does a citizen have to respect the laws of this country if he is denied the significant tie that links him to America, namely the right to participate in choosing the political figures that make the rules he is supposed to abide by.

Yes. Why is this even a question. Prisoners should be allowed to vote. They are still partt of society eventhough we have them locked up and out-of-sight. A large percentage of them will leave prison at some point in their lives and they have the constitutional right to have a say in issues that are affecting them. The law that deprives them of this right to vote needs to be revised as well as their loss of qualification for jury duty.

ok... so lets make this two sided,

While the prisoner is being incarcerated, they should not be allowed to vote, they have made a decision to leave the laws of the country that are there to protect our rights, so they shall lose theres for the time they are in prison. i am not going to allow death row inmates a vote, or gang bangers, or burglars, no thanks.

now the other side of the issue:

once they are released from prison, and have served their sentence, paid their debt, call it what you will. then they are allowed to return to society, and in their return comes their rights as american citizens, for they have returned to following the laws and thus should get their vote back for as long as they abide by the laws.

now i understand that argument, but i am having a hard time seeing why prisoners who have decided to break the law and show no respect for our society should get a say in what happens, they obviously don't want to abide by the rules, so why should they have a say in them?



Quane

I prefer some sort of compromise. Stay clean 10 years, get your right to vote back. To allow prisoners to vote is ludicrous. In some areas the prison population outnumbers the civilian population.

The type of crimes that send you to prison can vary, from being a serial killer to cable theft or something along those lines. To just say that any charge that results in a prison sentence strips you of all basic rights as a citizen is unsound. Not only are prisoners that are to be released back into society desensitized to reality, the lack of any reform for lengthy stays in such an environment cant be positive for such a scenario. If you are to take away such rights are they even citizens anymore or just prisoners, what else can we do to them? A simple right of being able to vote for a prisoner is something they should have. The only downfall I can see in it is Americas lack of political awareness, being able to vote would be one of the only things a prisoner has, so it might actually make a difference, that coupled with the booming prison populations in America and political leanings that might be a result of being a prison in the first place. Such as people from economically depressed areas. More or less I think that every American citizen regardless of prison should have a voice in our political system, save crimes of treason and or spying.

The 26th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


This does not state that the right to vote cannot be abridged, just can't be abridged based on age.

You're right, Hugo.

I did a little history refresher, and the states do have the right to decide what the voter qualifications should be, hence the reason why the Voting Rights Act had to be enacted in the 60s, because certain states were trying to circumvent the constitution by using literacy tests, poll taxes, vouchers of good character, etc. to disenfranchise African-American voters.

There are currently only two states that give prisoners the right to vote: Maine and Vermont.

Youre rights dont get restricted just because you committed a crime. Everyone has the right to a fair and speedy trial, and that doesnt go away simply because youre a child molester. I always thought that a right was something that cant be taken away and a privilege is something that can be.

Obviously not, Kimpossible, or a prisoner would never be incarcerated at all. That violates the fundamental right to liberty.

Prisoners do retain certain basic rights, though. The rights of access to the courts (as you mentioned) and of respect for one's bodily integrity.

I think felons ought to be given the opportunity to vote. After all, what is the goal of prisons? Simply to separate criminals from the rest of society? No, modern prisons aim to return felons as functional, productive members of society. Perhaps nothing can inspire this feeling of belonging to society than the ability to have an impact on it and vote.

Does a criminal mind have poorer judgement than any mind that isnt criminal? If you use that logic, we might as well take away suffrage from anyone whose IQ isn't up to par.

We can't turn what is an increasingly more governed republic into a corrupt aristocracy. Maybe we should consider why people commit felonies in the first place. It isn't erroneous to point out that perhaps certain political policies have left people in such grave economic situations that they had to committ felonies in order to maintain their way of life. Not to say that this type of behavior is justified, of course, but it still remains true that we cannot allow one group of people to determine who has worth in determing the worth of other people. What this means is that if certain people try to determine worthlessness by standards of criminal action or lack thereof for the purpose of seeing who can determine worth, then the irony of the situation is that the very people who claim to be superior in the determination of worth are using the wrong standards for the same procedure in the political arena.

exactly! This very important fact tends to fall between the cracks when discussing the prison and offenders. Let me point out that there are over 2 million people in prison in the U.S. today, that's 1/4 of all prisoners in the world?!? There is something very wrong with this picture, and over 50% who voted here want to take away their right to vote? I voted YES

(excluding drug offenses - they don't violate anyone's rights)

Convicted criminals obviously do not acknowledge the rights of others so therefore, why should their rights be retained? Once they are released, they should gain their right to vote back.

I voted "no." Once charged of a crime and sent to prison I believe one forfets his rights to vote.

I can just imagine the candidates campaigning for the child molestor's vote. great.

And is not the question at all--note that only felony crimes qualify. Felony crimes, by definition, are harsh crimes against society.

Keep in mind that one of the things they would be allowed to vote for would be judges. Do we, as a society, really want the criminals deciding who the best judges are?

Nope, you commit a crime, you shouldn't have a hand in determining the outcome of the country's future.

CP

I'm not fully decided, but leaning towards 'no'.
I can't get around the fact that convicted felons made a deliberate, conscious choice to give up their voting rights, and some years of their life, when they committed a felony.

There is three types of felonies if i remember correctly, and many possible reasons you can commit one in life, ranging from things society hates to some people may actually agree with in some parts of America or time.

Then after such, these people are buried away from society for a period of time. Then one day, poof back into the real world, debt paid.

I look at giving people that are prisoners the right to vote from more reasons then that of the criminally insane. It may help or motivate the people to care again or learn more or who really knows. Do certain judges come up that would be prime for criminals to vote for, or certain laws that criminals would like, like the legalization of child molesting, i mean what are you really saying.

Is ending up in prison for car theft the same as triple homicide, both are felonies.
Should it just blanket like that, is a prisoner an American citizen anymore?
Or is it easy to just say they are all scum, and who cares.

I've spent time on a few juries over the years. (Sometimes it seemed to be the only drawing I could ever win.) There, I would always be told that "felony" was defined by the risk the person on trial was exposed to. I believe that in Michigan, a conviction to over a year in prison makes one a felon; but it is based on my decades ago jury experience, and not any credentials to practice (or research) law.

A convicted felon, I have been told, can't work in a child care facility, practice in a licensed trade, work in a defense plant, etc., on release from prison. Decisions have been made by legislators that the public is best served if Dr. Kevorkian is not practicing medicine with a license, convicted child molesters don't teach school, convicted rapists aren't called into your home to fix your plumbing, and persons convicted of embezzling funds can't find work as Bank Vice Presidents. The label of "sex offender" in Michigan means a need to register as such for 25 years after release from prison. Similarly, the title of "convicted felon" stays with a person after release, unless a pardon can be obtained. To the best of my knowledge, they can't register to vote even after their release from prison.

Now. imagine a newly convicted felon in his prison cell..
Is he going to be allowed the privacy of a ballot box to cast a secret ballot?
Is a stronger inmate going to say, "Here, let me fill this out for you?"
Is a guard, or warden going to say, "This is just junk mail." and fill it out?
Absentee ballots in a prison environment could easily be corrupted, and destroy the one man, one vote concept. An illiterate inmate might not even be aware that he had registered to vote during his processing into the system.

Besides, does any candidate really want the support of the "Convicted Felons for John Dough" PAC? (Well maybe... "Get K. R., tell him we can't touch that with a ten foot pole! Can he find us a lightweight, easily managed, twenty foot pole?")

Should felons in prison be allowed to vote?

Should murderers, rapists and burglars be allowed to do their
respective crimes??


You don't reward somebody (by allowing him/her to vote) after
he/she has committed a felony..........it's like giving your child a cookie
when he misbehaves.

I voted no as prisoners should not be allowed to vote while incarcerated. Once back in society yes in most cases. But I also think that State Representatives should not be allowed to count the prisoners as constituents whereas they are included in the population tally increasing the number of seats a state can have.

If you are willing to remove their right to vote ( and if someone is getting out in 2005 why can't they have a say in who will be president when they get out) what other rights are we willing to remove from them? Would those in prison no longer have to pay taxes on whatever holdings they may still have on the outside? Taxation without representation?

Having the right to vote isn't any more like giving a misbehaving child a cookie than some of the other priveledges that our prisoners have: television, game rooms, weight rooms, libraries, internet access, etc.

Each of the activities that I listed are recreational in nature, and some of them can also play a role in the rehabilitation process. It's all about how the tools are used.

Voting is not even a recreational activity.

I hear what your saying Cyan, and voting is a right (I would also call it a privilege) of citizens, at least those who choose to exercise their civic duty. But if a citizen knows that committing a felony will take away their right to vote, and commit a felony anyway, isn't that a statement on their part that they are not desirous of remaining a good citizen of this society?

If a person can't live by the law of the land, why should we allow them to vote on those same laws?

Two million people in our prisons? That’s enough to seriously sway a vote. I can see the campaign promises now. Candidates will rally to lower time served for drug running or to legalize certain drugs all together and the prisoners will overwhelmingly vote to have that person installed. Imprisoned felons will vote in ways that harm society and influence criminal justice policy for the worse.

Imprisoned felons should not be allowed to vote.

These arguments are so flat its almost amazing. Could you imagine how an opponent or the American populous in general would react to say a president making promises to prisoners in order to gain votes, i mean i know such people basically by votes with tax cuts, but i really doubt a president would make it on the vote or our prison system, in particular if such was found out or obvious. Plus the free public at large pushes for some drugs to become legalized and punishments such as mandatory punishments being reduced or changed. I see no reason why such a blanketing of peoples rights are being taken away, not all people in prison are homicidal criminally insane individuals, some could actually be there for selling dope to help his/her family survive though a layoff, and may only be in for a year. I still se no positive reasons to take away voting rights.

Well, when someone commits a felony, I think that losing their right to vote is probably one of the last things that they are concerned about as far as punishment is concerned. The larger threat is the loss of their freedom, one of the most valuable rights that we have, but yes, committing a felony does make a statement about not having the desire to remain a good citizen.

Being in prison is not the end of the line, though. Most of the people are there because of drug related crimes, and they'll eventually get out. Before that time comes, it would be appropriate to try to rehabilitate these people in some way to get them back into society on a positive note. That includes providing a variety of services like education and counseling.

Teaching civic responsibility should be on that list too.

I have a question for the people who don't believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Would you agree to giving individual prisoners the right to vote after a certain period of time if they earned it within the prison system through completion of education programs and good behavior?

You ARE joking right nile? Politicians will do ANYTHING for the vote.

Right Down To Distributing Cigarettes to the Homeless

Yes and i remember that. I am also sure that did not help the image department. What does that have to do with my association, i mean homeless people are not federal prison convicts, there would be a difference in perspective of the two. I still feel that no president in his right mind would campaign on prisoners, its 2 million of 280 million people in the u.s. Plus prison systems are broken up as to not be all in one state for an electorate impact, the battle in California anyone? 54 electorate votes. There is no solid reason to strip "all" prisoners of voting rights, not on the base of why or how its done.

More or less it is excessive punishment getting carried away in inadequate forms.

Strictly conjecture on my part, but I would surmise that the majority of felons in prison (especially those not convicted of blue collar crimes) would hardly be conservative in their political leanings. The majority of groups, in my observation (and I have no links or data as of yet) who strongly advocate restoring the right to vote for felons are left leaning. As with the wholesale giveaway or rights attempts by many liberals, I can certainly see how they could be viewed as a voting block to be captured. So, with these behind the scenes maneuvering by said groups, no politician would have to publicly come out and campaign for the 'felon vote'.

To answer Cyan, I could probably buy off on the sort of proposal you mention, especially since I don't support most of the drug related penalties anyway, but I would certainly have to study such a program before supporting it wholly.

Since we have moderates, homosexuals, and minority politicians in all bodies of our political system, i see it difficult that the ability to vote for felons would hold that much sway. Again as how you put it the “felon vote” seems something that most politicians on a campaign would shun of reasons of public image.

Again the left as you imply being the only body that would want to give such individuals their right to vote back does not imply a group agenda of less then desirable laws in society such as the legalization of murder. I strongly find such an argument as false, for the simple bi-partisan or general weak nature of such an argument.

We are talking that regardless of the type of felony or conditions of such all felons lose that right. This is something that does not sit well with me for voting is a fundamental part of the right guaranteed to a u.s citizen. Unless that a prisoner is some other kind of citizen i think the stripping of such rights could easily get a second opinion.

Another thing to bring up is crime in the u.s never seems to stop, be it whatever type of crime it is. Clintons terms in office, a policy i don’t agree with, with saw a swell in prison populations do to policy that was slow to take any changes. I could get into the humanity of prisons on from multiple levels to show why its a quick and ineffective band aid to social problems in the u.s, that at the same time is a large source of tax requirements. The lack of wanting to rehabilitate prisoners and or deal with such social issues is not going to make the problem better, it will either stay the same or get worse. then you have the stubborn face in the needs of some kind of progressive reform, most likely as an image to gain votes or cement a position, also something i truly believe survives via ignorance.

Being able to vote would be like having a child right a letter or draw you a image as it might lead to reasons of such problems existence, not only on that but the implied image that society does not see the individual as pure scum. I advocate progression towards any possible positive outcomes, i get stonewalled most of the time by arguments that i don’t see as really bearing any fruit in reality.

I believe they should be allowed to vote once released from prison.

I voted, "yes", but only because it would be inconsistent to disqualify felons from voting when we still allow them to run for office, ie James Traficant.

If you don't play by the rules, you shouldn't have the right to choose who makes and changes the rules. If you go to prison, you have done something wrong. What difference does it make how wrong, it was bad enough to go to prison for!

Obviously the Declaration of Independence got it wrong. Instead of saying a government to be legitimate must have "the consent of the governed" they should have said government to be legitimate must "have the consent of those who stay out of jail."

Somehow it loses the the universal ring of the original.

I really don't think the founding fathers cared what convicted rapists, robbers, child molestors, drug addicts, and murderers thought. And guess what? It is open to interpretation, and changes are allowed to be made based on those interpretations. By allowing convicted felons to vote, you are in essence asking them how to live your life and mine. Would you ask a drug addict how to raise your child or ask a rapist what rules to live by? That is what you are doing when you let them vote!

Absolutely! When a criminal lands himself in jail he is forfeiting
those privileges and rights that we all take for granted...

I wonder how many of the people, who are in prison for felony crimes,
have ever exercised their right to vote (before they went to prison)
when they had the opportunity....probably a small percentage...

I'm sure many of the founding fathers felt the vote should be restricted to property owning white males as it was in the beginning. However they laid down a principle which you are or I might find onerous in practice but it is a foundation stone that establishes the legitimacy of our form of government. Natural government derives its athenticity by having its representatives who make the laws we live under chosen by those who are governed. It didn't note any exceptions because if it had the principle would have been diluted in favor of various forms of oligarchy which an exceptionalist few implicitly endorses. If prisoners aren't worthy of voting then who else lacks moral standing? Perhaps the unemployed or those on welfare should be knocked off the voter roles. Perhaps those who pay a large tax should be given a greater vote than those who pay a small or no income tax. The opportunities for pseudomoral rationalization of enhancing one person's right to vote over another is endless once the basic principle is broken.

Another important consideration is the principle is an important and stabilizing one because it addresses the danger of extra-legal revolutionary tendencies within the society with the inevitable response, "If you have problems with how this society is run you better go look in the mirror. These are your chosen representatives." The prisoner by virtue of his not being able to vote is relieved of any responsibility to consider his complicity in the laws and rules of that society, in fact by keeping him out of the loop he has no necessary tie to the law other than fear of consequences.

I have a book entitled 'Armed and Female'. When a large number of violent rape offender inmates were polled as to whether handguns should be legal, a vast majority voted NO. Enough said.

Obviously, most people vote to promote their own interests. Criminals would vote to promote theirs. They relinquish their right to liberty when they commit a crime (and are tried and proven guilty), and they relinquish their right to have a say in how our country should be run. After they serve their time and pay their debt to society, they can have their rights restored.

When criminals go to jail, they lose all rights. Therefore, there right to vote goes out the window as well.

But wait, he/she was allowed to vote before he/she was convicted, right?!?

So, by not bothering to look at the laws and live by them, they chose to disobey them. They could have debated said laws, tried to change what they felt was unjust, and then live by those laws, as many people do everyday! But instead, they chose to break the law and go to prison. Aren't laws put in place to protect other citizens? How else are laws supposed to stop people from doing bad things unless they make criminals fear the consequences? By giving them milk and cookies? Why should a convicted rapist, drug user, murderer, child molestor, thief, or any other social deviant have a right to say what is right or wrong? If you break the law, you should not have the right to change that law until you have repaid what you owe! If the court that we have set up says that is 12 years from now, then wait until then. After a debt is paid to society, then re-instate voting rights, I can find myself agreeing with that. But in the meantime, I don't care what you think! Your voice doesn't matter while you sit in a prison and live for free off of tax payer money because of the atrocities you have commited! Once you are free again, and start contributing to the society you want a voice in, then we can discuss your rights. Until then, you are insignificant!


Maybe they did, but we have decided as a nation that they were wrong. We no longer base rights on the color of one's skin, but I see no reason not to base it on the actions of an individual!

You've got to be kidding? What a majority feels is right action at any given moment is a basis for withholding the right to vote? Smoke some marijuana to handle the symptoms of a sickness and you should lose your franchise? It is simply ridiculous in a society where people break laws all the time(Try going over the speed limit, filing false tax returns) to assume that a convicted law breaker should lose all rights to choose his/her representatives, who are going to be making political decisions mostly in areas which have nothing to do with the prisoner's crime.



I would question that poll but so what? How many violent rape offenders employ hand guns to intimidate their victims? Should people who oppose private handgun ownership be deprived of the right to vote?

Representative government is a foundational principle. It's right there in the Declaration of Independence. Apparently a majority here are ready to jetison the principle in favor of some "feel good" notion of who gets to play the democracy game and who doesn't.