Voting Rights for Ex-Felons

[dazzleman]

Laws that take away felons right to vote are an attempt by the Southern States to limit the participation of blacks in the political arena, since they are a much larger percentage of the prison population than in society at large. These laws are probably due to blacks being overwhelmingly Democrat, not just their race.

The problem is that by saying felons should have the right to vote, the Democrats look soft on crime, which has always been a problem for us.

Southern states not letting people vote, gee what else is new?

Well then, blacks can stop being a much larger percentage of the prison population than in society at large.  Problem solved.  Frankly, it's disgusting to scream racism over this, since this is within the control of blacks if they choose to make it so.

Right is right, regardless of the racial impact.  What are going to propose next -- that a strict quota that would force the release of large numbers of black prisoners be implemented?  I see that as the possible next great liberal initiative.

Democrats appear soft on crime because they largely ARE soft on crime, and this is perfect example.  I see no reason to lighten up on criminal penalties while we still have a high rate of crime.

This is just a blatant attempt by Democrats to gain more votes.  And so it seems that a very high percentage of violent felons would vote Democratic given the chance.  What does that tell you?

[Ebowed]

Why give felons the right to vote?  To win elections.

Why prohibit felons from voting?  To win elections.

It's a double-edged sword, really... I'd cautiously reply "because they're citizens" to question 1, but you'd reply "because they're felons" to question 2.

Anyway, I'm not really concerned with winning elections when thinking about this issue, because while the felons of today will vote Democrat, the felons of tomorrow could vote Republican.  Party is a stupid thing to worry about in the long scheme of things.

[dazzleman]

Why give felons the right to vote?  To win elections.

Why prohibit felons from voting?  To win elections.

It's a double-edged sword (along with "They're citizens" to question 1 and "They're felons" to question 2).

No, they should be prohibited from voting because of things they have done that cause them to legitimately forfeit that right.  It is part of their punishment.  Society has right to punish people who do us wrong.  This 'uncondtional rights' mentality has gone too far, way too far.

[Ebowed]

Oops, you caught me before I edited.  Might wanna check the rest of what I said in the previous post.

I agree that society has the right to punish those who do us wrong - that's a given.  I just disagree with the way you think we should do it.  Am I soft on crime?  By some standards, probably.  It is my token liberal issue in many ways.  I don't know what you are referring to by the 'unconditional rights mentality' though.  I do think some rights are unconditional, such as the right to life.  The right to liberty is not, because by putting criminals in prison we take away that right.  Whether the right to vote should be is up for debate... I don't really any see any reason not to let them vote, in the long scheme of things.

[dazzleman]

Oops, you caught me before I edited.  Might wanna check the rest of what I said in the previous post.

I agree that society has the right to punish those who do us wrong - that's a given.  I just disagree with the way you think we should do it.  Am I soft on crime?  By some standards, probably.  It is my token liberal issue in many ways.  I don't know what you are referring to by the 'unconditional rights mentality' though.  I do think some rights are unconditional, such as the right to life.  The right to liberty is not, because by putting criminals in prison we take away that right.  Whether the right to vote should be is up for debate... I don't really any see any reason not to let them vote, in the long scheme of things.

Well, it's not because of party that I oppose felons voting.

I see no reason to lighten up penalties against felons.  This is simply lightening up penalties, and it is a ploy for votes by the Democrats.  Now that tougher sentencing is finally producing some results, the Democrats want to undo it and give criminals a free pass again.  They never learn.

[Emsworth]

I don't think that the "They're citizens!" argument is appropriate. I doubt that any of us believes, for example, that insane citizens should be allowed to vote. It could be argued that criminals, like insane people, are unfit to participate in government.

[Ebowed]

Well, as I've already explained, it is not a ploy for votes in my case.  It is certainly the case for many people.  But the same could be said of Republicans who want to stop Democrats from winning votes by restricting the felons' voting rights.  There is an equal amount of hypocrisy, fueled by a hunger for short term political gain.

Now, while you've made a valid point about loosening penalties, stop and ask yourself - does any person think right before committing a murder, "If I do this, I won't get to vote!" and decide against performing their henious crime?  I don't really see restricting voting eligibility as an effective crime deterrent.

[dazzleman]

Well, as I've already explained, it is not a ploy for votes in my case.  It is certainly the case for many people.  But the same could be said of Republicans who want to stop Democrats from winning votes by restricting the felons' voting rights.  There is an equal amount of hypocrisy, fueled by a hunger for short term political gain.

Now, while you've made a valid point about loosening penalties, stop and ask yourself - does any person think right before committing a murder, "If I do this, I won't get to vote!" and decide against performing their henious crime?  I don't really see restricting voting eligibility as an effective crime deterrent.

I don't care whether it's a deterrent or not.  I agree -- most lowlifes don't care about voting anyway.  But once again, as a matter of principle, I see no reason to lighten up on punishment.  Maybe I'd agree to it if a few years were added to prison sentences.  Is that a deal you'd make, or that the Democrats would support?

The status quo in most cases is that felons are restricted from voting in some way.  That was a bipartisan consensus from the past, before the days when Democrats were pro-criminal.  Now it's the Democrats who want to change it.  If it obviously wasn't about votes before, and now it is, and it's the Democrats who want it change, then who is the party that wants it changed to look for votes?

[Ebowed]

Well, in response to your second paragraph, I can only say that repealing the permanent ban on voting for felons in Nebraska had bipartisan support, and we both know Nebraska is not a very Democratic state.

I don't know how the Democratic Party at large would react to a compromise that would give felons voting rights in exchange for longer prison sentences.  I think some felons would see that as forsaking them for votes.  I'd support it, though, because I'm all for long sentences.  I think a long sentence is fair, as long as they don't kill the guy at the end of it.

[dazzleman]

Well, in response to your second paragraph, I can only say that repealing the permanent ban on voting for felons in Nebraska had bipartisan support, and we both know Nebraska is not a very Democratic state.

I don't know how the Democratic Party at large would react to a compromise that would give felons voting rights in exchange for longer prison sentences.  I think some felons would see that as forsaking them for votes.  I'd support it, though, because I'm all for long sentences.  I think a long sentence is fair, as long as they don't kill the guy at the end of it.

That seems reasonable overall, except that I disagree on the death penalty.  Still, you're far from the typical Democrat, who probably favors shorter sentences and voting rights, as a method of 'rehabilitation.' 

Witness the defense by liberals in Vermont of the judge who gave a man who raped a little girl over a period of years only 60 days in jail, because 'punishment solves nothing' and the man really needs 'treatment.'

[opebo]

I don't think that the "They're citizens!" argument is appropriate. I doubt that any of us believes, for example, that insane citizens should be allowed to vote. It could be argued that criminals, like insane people, are unfit to participate in government.

As far as I know, Emsworth, there is no test given at the polls to determine the sanity of the voter.  They probably represent a significant portion of the electorate.

[Speed of Sound]

Sure. The person payed thier time, so now they are re-instated all of thier rights that they lost.

[??????????]

Sure. The person payed thier time, so now they are re-instated all of thier rights that they lost.

What about the person who was murdered? Do they get their rights restored...opps nope, they were murdered.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sure. The person payed thier time, so now they are re-instated all of thier rights that they lost.

What about the person who was murdered? Do they get their rights restored...opps nope, they were murdered.

While there are still some loony judges who try to protect vicious criminals, by and large most of those judges have been either removed from the bench (California basically cleared the Supreme Court of the Brown appointees a generation ago) or they have gradually been brought under control, hence, most convicted felons serve reasonable sentences.

We do need to get rid of sicko judges like the scumbag in Vermont who treats child molesting like a petty offense.

[dazzleman]

Sure. The person payed thier time, so now they are re-instated all of thier rights that they lost.

What about the person who was murdered? Do they get their rights restored...opps nope, they were murdered.

While there are still some loony judges who try to protect vicious criminals, by and large most of those judges have been either removed from the bench (California basically cleared the Supreme Court of the Brown appointees a generation ago) or they have gradually been brought under control, hence, most convicted felons serve reasonable sentences.

We do need to get rid of sicko judges like the scumbag in Vermont who treats child molesting like a petty offense.

But punishment solves nothing Carl.  What all criminals really need is treatment and rehabilitation, not punishment.  Will punishment bring back the person they murdered?  It serves no purpose.  And as far as protecting society goes, society creates criminals because the owner class deliberately oppresses and impoverishes the vast majority of people.  How this can happen in a Democracy is beyond me, but the owning class makes shrewd use of religious prejudice to get people to vote against their own interests.  Therefore, society does not deserve protection against criminals until it revokes the conditions it deliberately imposes that lead to crime.

How does that sound to you?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sure. The person payed thier time, so now they are re-instated all of thier rights that they lost.

What about the person who was murdered? Do they get their rights restored...opps nope, they were murdered.

While there are still some loony judges who try to protect vicious criminals, by and large most of those judges have been either removed from the bench (California basically cleared the Supreme Court of the Brown appointees a generation ago) or they have gradually been brought under control, hence, most convicted felons serve reasonable sentences.

We do need to get rid of sicko judges like the scumbag in Vermont who treats child molesting like a petty offense.

But punishment solves nothing Carl.  What all criminals really need is treatment and rehabilitation, not punishment.  Will punishment bring back the person they murdered?  It serves no purpose.  And as far as protecting society goes, society creates criminals because the owner class deliberately oppresses and impoverishes the vast majority of people.  How this can happen in a Democracy is beyond me, but the owning class makes shrewd use of religious prejudice to get people to vote against their own interests.  Therefore, society does not deserve protection against criminals until it revokes the conditions it deliberately imposes that lead to crime.

How does that sound to you?

LOL.

I think you have got a pretty good parody of Opebo and his ilk.

[Akno21]

Sure. The person payed thier time, so now they are re-instated all of thier rights that they lost.

What about the person who was murdered? Do they get their rights restored...opps nope, they were murdered.

Murder isn't applicable here because a murderer will never get out, and will never be an ex-felon. Murderers should get life.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry, but most people convicted of murder do eventually make parole.

However, they have generally spent seven to more years in prison for their crime.

Moreover, the most heinous muderers either get executed, or life WITHOUT parole.

[Akno21]

Sorry, but most people convicted of murder do eventually make parole.

However, they have generally spent seven to more years in prison for their crime.

Moreover, the most heinous muderers either get executed, or life WITHOUT parole.

I'll agree that murder is a special case, and I could see not letting murderers vote if they somehow got back into society, but I disagree with States' reasoning, which says that he's against ex-felons voting just because a murderer may be allowed to vote. You need to distinguish between types of crimes here.

[ATFFL]

Sorry, but most people convicted of murder do eventually make parole.

However, they have generally spent seven to more years in prison for their crime.

Moreover, the most heinous muderers either get executed, or life WITHOUT parole.

I'll agree that murder is a special case, and I could see not letting murderers vote if they somehow got back into society, but I disagree with States' reasoning, which says that he's against ex-felons voting just because a murderer may be allowed to vote. You need to distinguish between types of crimes here.

This has long been my stance.  If someone died as a result of your crime, you lose your right to vote, and other rights, unless you can find a way to bring them back.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I doubt that any of us believes, for example, that insane citizens should be allowed to vote.

I disagree, Republicans should be allowed to vote.

[dazzleman]

Sure. The person payed thier time, so now they are re-instated all of thier rights that they lost.

What about the person who was murdered? Do they get their rights restored...opps nope, they were murdered.

Murder isn't applicable here because a murderer will never get out, and will never be an ex-felon. Murderers should get life.

If only what you are saying were the truth.  Murderers are released all the time.  Most murderers are eventually paroled, as sick as that sounds.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sure. The person payed thier time, so now they are re-instated all of thier rights that they lost.

What about the person who was murdered? Do they get their rights restored...opps nope, they were murdered.

Murder isn't applicable here because a murderer will never get out, and will never be an ex-felon. Murderers should get life.

If only what you are saying were the truth.  Murderers are released all the time.  Most murderers are eventually paroled, as sick as that sounds.

Well obviously they weren't sentenced to "a life sentence with no possibility of parole".

[MODU]

Like I said.  If they are not responsible enough to follow the laws, they sure are not responsible enough to vote for those that make the laws.  Period.

[??????????]

Sure. The person payed thier time, so now they are re-instated all of thier rights that they lost.

What about the person who was murdered? Do they get their rights restored...opps nope, they were murdered.

While there are still some loony judges who try to protect vicious criminals, by and large most of those judges have been either removed from the bench (California basically cleared the Supreme Court of the Brown appointees a generation ago) or they have gradually been brought under control, hence, most convicted felons serve reasonable sentences.

We do need to get rid of sicko judges like the scumbag in Vermont who treats child molesting like a petty offense.

Murderers should not survive to see 25 years or more. The great majority should be quickly executed and to even think of seeing the light of day should be a very very dim hope for any murderer.