Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

[patrick1]

i could point out that over a quarter were born overseas and clearly came here after the convicts, or that whilst many australians do have some convict blood the amount of actual deportess was less then the British sent to North America, but I won't.

I'll just net-punch you instead. *punch*

Thats what Aussies are meant to do, right?

I was just kidding with ya Hugh.  I actually have a lot of long lost relatives in Australia.  Most if not all were convicts.  Ever hear of the beer Tooheys?  That is my last name although it is spelled a bit differantly.  One branch of the family got deported to Australia, the other side stayed in Ireland for a bit and emigrated to America.  Climatically speaking I got the short end of the stick.

And back on topic- no prisoners should get hard tack and water for the rest of their lives

[Hatman 🍁]

Voting is not a "right". Its a privledge much like driving is.

Um.... very few people have that opinion.

Earl AW-hypothetical-If someone killed a family member of yours, you believe they should be able to vote on the same issues that the general populace does. Inmates runninbg the asylum. Crime can be an abstract concept to people until it hits them personally.

Of course! I'm not a hipocrite.

Well, let's look at the murderer case for this: A murderer takes away a life. That life no longer can vote. So, why should the killer get to keep his right to vote if he has taken that right from another person?

For the same reason they have the right to shelter, air, food, etc.. I thought I stated this already.

And if voting isn't something everyone must do - there's a number of people who shouldn't vote(and thankfully many of them don't). There are great numbers of uninformed voters, who if they did vote would make uninformed decisions - do you really want idiots who have no idea what they are doing recklessly directing the course of the nation? Now I ask a similar question - do you want criminals directing the course of the nation?

I don't think letting criminals vote would alter any election results. If a candidate were to appease to them, the rest of the public would make sure such candidate would lose. Now if you get the weird situation where a majority of your citizens are criminals- well maybe you have bigger problems.

Now saying that there are some people un capable of voting- that is very anti-democratic of you. I know a guy called Stalin you might find a good friend in.

[Platypus]

Now if you get the weird situation where a majority of your citizens are criminals- well maybe you have bigger problems.

+2 brownie points

[minionofmidas]

Now if you get the weird situation where a majority of your citizens are criminals- well maybe you have bigger problems.

+2 brownie points

Looking at stuff like tax evasion, marijuana consumption, DWI...yeah, I'm VERY sure a majority of our citizens are technically criminals.

[John Dibble]

As I have mentioned, the right to vote is more important the life itself.

I have a gun to your head - you have two choices, vote and die, or don't vote and live. SERIOUSLY think about what you'd choose.


Meanwhile, while we're at this idea that prisoners have all these rights, why don't we give them the right to bear arms? I mean, since we're giving them the right to live, why not give them this right that everyone else has?

And another question - have you or a member of your family actually ever been a victim of a serious crime?

[Hatman 🍁]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I don't believe the dead should be able to vote for one thing, so I cannot pick an option. Might as well kill me without letting me vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "right to bear arms" is not a fundemental right, I am sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I live in Ottawa, of course not! However I see your point, so I thought of some pretty bad situations. I am a christian, so I have been taught to turn the other cheek, and seek forgiveness.  I can't see it changing my views. 

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I don't believe the dead should be able to vote for one thing, so I cannot pick an option. Might as well kill me without letting me vote.

Nobody said anything about letting dead people vote(you vote, then you die, not die and then vote - I'm sure someone who dies right after voting still has his vote counted). You asserted that voting is something everyone MUST do. Voting is not essential to my survival - I can easily live without doing it. My needs are pretty much food and shelter, beyond that I don't require much to keep breathing. And I assure you, if I threatened your life, you'd probably choose life over voting - they do it in dictatorships all the time, unfortunately.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "right to bear arms" is not a fundemental right, I am sorry.
[/quote]

If the right to bear arms is not fundamental, how is the right to vote fundamental? Back up both - why is bearing arms not fundamental, and why is voting fundamental?

While we're on prisoner rights, they really don't have a 'right' to nourishment - it is something allowed to them in many cases. In some cases, they have to earn it by growing it themselves. My opinion on rights is that they can only exist when people respect them. If someone else fails to respect the rights of others, there is no reason for their rights to be respected - if you kill someone you show you don't respect the right to life, you have broken the social contract, so society no longer has to respect your right to life and can execute you. If you respect other people's right to life, society has the obligation to respect your right to life. Same goes for property, speech, religion, ect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I live in Ottawa, of course not! However I see your point, so I thought of some pretty bad situations. I am a christian, so I have been taught to turn the other cheek, and seek forgiveness.  I can't see it changing my views. 
[/quote]

First on the Ottawa comment - that is a stupid, arrogant, and foolish way to think. "It can never happen to me" is an attitude that just begs for it to happen to you. Yes, it can happen to you, so don't be foolish enough to think you're invincible just because you live in Ottawa.

And trust me - until it happens to you, you can never even begin to imagine how it will affect you. I assure you, my views would likely be vastly different if my father hadn't been murdered. You can not even imagine what it is like to have something that precious stolen from you, and I hope for your sake that you never have to actually feel it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now saying that there are some people un capable of voting- that is very anti-democratic of you. I know a guy called Stalin you might find a good friend in.
[/quote]

I didn't comment on this one earlier, but I am gonna now. I merely asserted that it is good that many people don't vote - uninformed voters vote for bad candidates, candidates that simply look good but can't actually deliver. So, while I have no desire to force them not to vote, I think it is better when the truely uninformed voter decides not to vote. Think about it - if the average voter knows next to nothing about what the candidates stand for, the chances are high that enough of the uninformed voters will make a poor choice, forcing a poor candidate upon everyone! I say it's better if those people decide not to vote. Also, voting is like every other right - you do not have to exercise it.

Also, I am not a fan of Stalin, but I'm not a fan of democracy either - I'm a fan of a constitutional republic as a form of government. Too much power to the government leads to tyranny, but too much power in the hands of the people is also likely to lead to tyranny(the tyranny of the majority). Unrestricted democracy is the form of government where 51% can take away the rights of 49%(one reason I think that the right to bear arms is fundamental, so that 49% or less has the means by which to defend their rights when voting fails them). The best government is a one that trusts no branch of government nor the people with too much power - all sources of power have checks on them, so it is difficult for tyranny to arise. Currently the best balance is found in our own form of government, though it has leaned more towards democratic elements in recent decades.

[Hitchabrut]

No

[Redefeatbush04]

Yes

[KentonNgo]

If they are being held on trial, but not convicted on Election Day, then yes, because they haven't been found guilty of anything.

If they're convicted, no.

Once they're released, they've done their time, and should be able to vote again, at this point they are members of society again and should be part of the consent-giving governed.

[John Dibble]

If they are being held on trial, but not convicted on Election Day, then yes, because they haven't been found guilty of anything.

If they're convicted, no.

Once they're released, they've done their time, and should be able to vote again, at this point they are members of society again and should be part of the consent-giving governed.

On how the system should work, this pretty much sums up how I feel. MAYBE allow voting for minor infractions, but definitely not high level stuff.

[A18]

I say no, even for a minor crime like shoplifting. We have enough thieves voting already (what do you think the Democratic Party is for?).

Once they have been released, then yes.

[Hatman 🍁]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What I meant was that there is no point in voting if you are going to die immediately after you do it because that would be making a decision that effects everyone but yourself.  And well, living in this case is certainly not an option.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, for one thing more nations in the world grant you the right to vote than to bear arms.  A nation can still be considered free without the right to bear amrs, but democracy is essential to freedom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, maybe we can have them help out setting up the polling booths in order to earn their right to vote.  And even when you are executed, you still get to live until your execution. Therefore you should still be able to vote until then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was merely a joke, of course it can happen to me. We had two murders this week alone!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know about that, I have heard of many people who have forgiven the murderer.  I am sorry if you don't have the proper moral upbringing to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well it certainly shows....

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, for one thing more nations in the world grant you the right to vote than to bear arms.  A nation can still be considered free without the right to bear amrs, but democracy is essential to freedom.
[/quote]

Democracy wouldn't exist in the U.S. if we didn't use our firearms to get it - we'd still be colonists of Britain with no representation in Parliament, no votes for us. All government, even democracies, oft go towards tyranny - tyranny can't be overthrown with a vote in most cases. And just because a nation allows voting does not mean it is free enough. I can't find the source at the moment, but I have read of a nation where 97% of the electorate voted not to recognize the rights of minorities - democracy does not by any means gaurantee freedom from oppression. (also, if I'm not mistaken, famous tyrant Saddam Hussein was elected as president or Iraq - if I am mistaken I do know many other tyrants were elected into office)

FOUND IT: READ HERE

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, maybe we can have them help out setting up the polling booths in order to earn their right to vote.  And even when you are executed, you still get to live until your execution. Therefore you should still be able to vote until then.
[/quote]

Earn the right to vote by merely setting up polling booths? HA! Do you honestly think a murderer can earn back something like that so easily? Ludicrous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was merely a joke, of course it can happen to me. We had two murders this week alone!
[/quote]

Good, glad you realize that then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know about that, I have heard of many people who have forgiven the murderer.  I am sorry if you don't have the proper moral upbringing to do so.
[/quote]

'Proper moral upbringing'? What a self-righteous load. Sorry if that offends you, but that's my take on what you said. Rather arrogant if you ask me.

I can forgive a murderer, or someone who commits any crime really, but I don't just auto-forgive like some people - my forgiveness has to be earned. If a murderer is not sorry for his deed, is not honestly and completely in deep guilt for his crime against his fellow man, I can not forgive him. My father's murderer is as far as I know has not repented in any way for what he has done(from the trial, I could tell he didn't give a sh**t about whad he'd done). If I become aware that the man is sorry for what he has done, I can forgive him, but until that time he does not deserve my forgiveness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.