The criminal constituency

[opebo]

Non-criminals have more of a legitimate right to seek out their personal best interest.  Criminals have shown that they regard their personal best interests to be at odds with the best interests of the rest of society.

The most I would say is that ex-felons could have their voting rights back if they've stayed out of trouble for a period of time -- say, ten years.  That would be the most liberal position I would take on this issue, and even that is stretching it.

Okay, so we have the fact that their best interests are likely to be at odds with the population's best interests as a whole.

The same could be said of the owning class.

[dazzleman]

Non-criminals have more of a legitimate right to seek out their personal best interest.  Criminals have shown that they regard their personal best interests to be at odds with the best interests of the rest of society.

The most I would say is that ex-felons could have their voting rights back if they've stayed out of trouble for a period of time -- say, ten years.  That would be the most liberal position I would take on this issue, and even that is stretching it.

Okay, so we have the fact that their best interests are likely to be at odds with the population's best interests as a whole.

However, there's a very important question to be asked: is this a legitimate reason to restrict them from having a say in matters?  Should the group interest sufficiently trump individual interests to such a degree that we should entirely forbid people from participating in the democratic process who are deemed to be acting against the group interest?  What about people who are not ex-cons, but whose interests are nonetheless opposed to the interests of the population as a whole - should these people be disenfranchised as well?

You're sounding a lot more liberal than you might like to think.

My position on the issue is not based on group rights; I just discussed group rights because you brought it up.  It is a side issue for me.

For me, the issue is punishment of crime, and the supposition that only members of society in good standing should be allowed to influence the future direction of society.  This whole 'rights' mentality has gone overboard in my opinion.  There's nothing wrong with denying the right to vote to INDIVIDUALS who have grievously harmed society.

You do realize that you're basically saying that southern segregationists were liberal?   They denied voting rights to blacks as a group based on the idea that the blacks' interests were opposed to their interests.

[Gabu]

For me, the issue is punishment of crime, and the supposition that only members of society in good standing should be allowed to influence the future direction of society.  This whole 'rights' mentality has gone overboard in my opinion.  There's nothing wrong with denying the right to vote to INDIVIDUALS who have grievously harmed society.

But the point of voting is to allow the citizens to decide in which direction they want the country to go.  The case against murderers is a good one: the idea that they prevented the murdered person from having a voice, so they should lose their own voice as well as a compensatory measure.  However, it seems to me that the case is much weaker against people who have committed other sorts of felonies that still leave the victims able to vote.  These sorts of felons have not restricted anyone else from exercising their right to vote, nor do they cease to become citizens of the country, nor do they stop having interests at stake once they get out of jail.

It seems to me that the point of being let out of jail is to say that the person has done his or her time and has, as such, repaid his or her debt to society, and is ready to become reintegrated.  To forever deny them the right to vote thereafter, it seems to me, runs entirely contrary to this message.  It would seem to me that people are much less likely to reform if you give them no reason to desire to reform, and telling them that they can never vote again for the rest of their life, regardless of whether or not they stay out of trouble, is certainly not giving them a reason.

You do realize that you're basically saying that southern segregationists were liberal?   They denied voting rights to blacks as a group based on the idea that the blacks' interests were opposed to their interests.

That was mainly a joke, but there is an element of truth to it, in that it is generally considered "liberal" to feel that the group interest is more important than the individual interests of those involved.

[dazzleman]

For me, the issue is punishment of crime, and the supposition that only members of society in good standing should be allowed to influence the future direction of society.  This whole 'rights' mentality has gone overboard in my opinion.  There's nothing wrong with denying the right to vote to INDIVIDUALS who have grievously harmed society.

But the point of voting is to allow the citizens to decide in which direction they want the country to go.  The case against murderers is a good one: the idea that they prevented the murdered person from having a voice, so they should lose their own voice as well as a compensatory measure.  However, it seems to me that the case is much weaker against people who have committed other sorts of felonies that still leave the victims able to vote.  These sorts of felons have not restricted anyone else from exercising their right to vote, nor do they cease to become citizens of the country, nor do they stop having interests at stake once they get out of jail.

It seems to me that the point of being let out of jail is to say that the person has done his or her time and has, as such, repaid his or her debt to society, and is ready to become reintegrated.  To forever deny them the right to vote thereafter, it seems to me, runs entirely contrary to this message.  It would seem to me that people are much less likely to reform if you give them no reason to desire to reform, and telling them that they can never vote again for the rest of their life, regardless of whether or not they stay out of trouble, is certainly not giving them a reason.

You do realize that you're basically saying that southern segregationists were liberal?   They denied voting rights to blacks as a group based on the idea that the blacks' interests were opposed to their interests.

That was mainly a joke, but there is an element of truth to it, in that it is generally considered "liberal" to feel that the group interest is more important than the individual interests of those involved.

To a large extent, the whole issue is moot, since most felons aren't terribly interested in voting.  But in principle, punishment doesn't usually end with release from prison.  There is usually a period of parole following, during which the person, in theory, does not have full freedom.

Appropriate punishment, of course, is a totally subjective thing.  How do we decide what the length of a prison term should be for a crime?  Or the length and content of the overall punishment?  I think we'd all agree that 10 years in prison for littering is a little stiff, but beyond that, there is a lot of disagreement over appropriate sentencing.  Still, I think it's spurious to argue that a criminal deserves, and has a right to, receive no further punishment after what is usually a short prison term relative to the crime committed. 

Frankly, I think our problem is that we punish real criminals far too little, so it seems a little surrealistic to me that we're talking about lightening penalties in any form or fashion.  Every time a major crime is committed, it usually turns out that the perpetrator has a long record, and really should have been in prison to begin with.  A criminal is usually arrested multiple times before actually doing prison time.  We'd save a lot of trouble if we were tougher about locking them up at the outset.

As I said, if I put on my real liberal hat, I could go along with restoring voting rights to felons who have avoided any trouble with the law for a period of time after their parole is over, say 10 years.  But I think the idea that felons doing time in prison have a 'right' to vote is just another liberal obscenity.

[David S]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok then I, as a purse thief, work to pass laws making it legal for me to steal your purse. Still want me to vote?

OK, I'm a liberal.  By Libertarian Logic (tm), taxation is theft, so I basically want to steal money from your purse.  Still want me to vote?

No I don't want you to vote! But since you have committed no crime there is no reason to stop you from voting.

Your point about taxation being theft is a good one. Look at two scenarios;
1) A thief walks up to you and says give me your money. You say no. He then takes your wallet by force.
2) The government says give me your money. You say no. Then they take it from you by force. Further they redistribute it to the "Poor"  one of whom is the same thief who robbed you.

In either case money is taken, by force, from the person who earned it and given to someone who did not earn it.

[opebo]

To a large extent, the whole issue is moot, since most felons aren't terribly interested in voting. 

Only due to the desperation of poverty.  The same is true of the non-felon poor, an almost indistinguishable group.  These people are oppressed, and see no point in voting within a system designed to enslave their class.