Dylann Roof, The Charleston Church shooter:

[crazytown]

Roof is on Federal Death Row, convicted of Hate Crimes. The man has lost his right to life but, Senator Sanders insists, he still has the right to vote.

Never mind the word ‘Socialist’, the Senator’s pig headed stand, that all inmates must get the vote, ends any pretense of electability..

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I agree.

I do not like to be negative about any of our candidates, but this stance from Senator Sanders has forced my hand.

[Celerity]

96. +1

[hlthe2b]

2. I absolutely believe those who've completed their sentences should be able to, sans any taxation.

fees, fines, or anything else, but I can't go as far as Bernie on this...My guess is that because VT and ME are the only two states that do not remove voting rights while incarcerated, Sanders somehow thought this was typical and boxed himself in based on that misperception. Once again, suggests his earlier formed opinions, policies, statements haven't been "revisited" in quite some time.

[47of74]

3. I think the right to vote should be absolute with only two requirements

Those being that the person be a US citizen that has reached the age of 18 and cannot be taken away for any reason whatsoever. And name voter suppression and electoral fraud in the Constitution as offenses punishable by death.

Too often things like this are used to ensure that only certain people can vote in this country. It's time for all Americans to be able to vote. I know people may not like the idea of inmates voting, but I think there has to be trade offs for a sustainable, democratic society and this has to be one of them.

If people don't want incompetent who write in General Zod or the likes of Roof choosing our leaders they have to get out and vote. (And to be honest, Zod would be improvement over that orange fornicate we have in there now).

[WeekiWater]

4. I agree with Sanders on the issue.

I fully understand how in the minority I am on this. That's why I also understand how foolish it is for Sanders to address it as he does. It actually hurts a cause that is important to me. A cause I agree with Sanders on yet he is still so short sighted that he will harm it.

This has to be something slipped into a comprehensive package. There is no need to address it on the campaign trail as a stand alone issue. It harms all progressives.

Sanders is even the person for the job on this one. He just needs to stop talking about it. When accomplished Democrats actually get together on comprehensive criminal justice reform the Amendment King needs to sweep through at the last minute with this. If it fails it fails. If his vote is needed it might just be added to a larger package.

[crazytown]

5. If you have lost the right to life

you have lost the right to vote. It’s simple and logical.

[WeekiWater]

10. I disagree that the state should have the power to kill, either.

I don't find either one to be "logical."

[demigoddess]

29. something like this

if you have taken away the right to life from someone else, maybe you shouldn't vote
if you have taken life away from someone for their religion or race, you really shouldn't vote.

[Eugene]

47. One loses the right to life when the appeals run out, not before.

[crazytown]

49. Capital Offense

A criminal charge that is punishable by the death penalty. Crimes punishable by death vary from state to state. These offenses may include first degree (premeditated) murder, murder with special circumstances, rape with additional bodily harm, and the federal crime of treason.

A person convicted of a capital offence can not assert a right to life against the state. They can assert a right to judicial revue of the conviction.

[forgotmylogin]

71. I have no problem with *currently incarcerated* criminals not voting.

And that's the easiest way all around to do it logistically - if you're in jail and unable to reach a polling place in person, you can't vote.

This should apply to life in prison or locked up for three days - you're in jail on voting day, tough luck. The prison system should not have to transport people to a poll or let prisoners vote by mail or set up a poll facility for the prisoners. Behind bars = can't vote.

As long as you are logistically able to reach a polling place or mail a ballot from your residence, and you're legal to vote (IE right age, in the correct district, registered) there shouldn't be a problem, whether you've served your time or are out on parole and not violating it - say by crossing state lines to reach a poll - it should be fine.

[crazytown]

73. On release you should be entitled to all the freedoms

of a c’Citizen. You have regained your freedom of movement, your freedom of speech, freedom against unreasonable searches, you regain the vote IMO.

[forgotmylogin]

74. Exactly. (n/t)

[sheshe2]

82. Exactly.

Murdered men and women had their right to vote taken from them. The children in Parkland had almost reached the age to vote, and now it is gone. Why the hell should their murderer have more rights than those they took from them.

I disagree wholeheartedly with Sanders. Only after they have served their time should they get back their vote.

[crazytown]

85. You bring to the argument the passion

that my rather sterile treatment lacks.

There is a heart breaking video of a well spoken female middle school student asking Beto a question about gun violence. She breaks down when gets to the part ‘When I come to school I’m scared I won’t come out. What follows next is something every parent knows- the cries of a terrified little girl.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=464929707596869&id=223055747744143&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2Fbetoorourke%2Fvideos%2F464929707596869%2F&_rdr

(At 9.50 )

[sheshe2]

88. That was heartbreaking and I understand her fear.

We saw that recently in the suicides of some of the survivors. I believe it was a dad from Sandy Hook and two students from Parkland.

Instead of his focus on letting convicts vote he should address school shootings and the criminal justice system, ie Ferguson.

Two things. I don't believe in the death penalty and GUN CONTROL needs to be addressed first.

Thanks.

[crazytown]

89. I'm 100% against the death penalty

It doesn’t change my argument about capital offenses.

What actionI action will you take to protect us’ I expected her to say, as children do when confronted with evil ‘I don’t understand’.

[intheflow]

97. You are not allowing for exoneration.

People are put on death row and are later cleared of the crime when new evidence emerges. But according to you, they're basically dead the second the gavel comes down.

[Codeine]

98. In a just society one doesn't lose either.

I’m no supporter of Senator Sanders but I agree with him on this issue.

[MH1]

17. Well said.

I'm honestly on the fence on the issue itself, but definitely agree that it is harmful for Sanders to push it front and center.

I'm also against the death penalty but if a candidate made that a high-profile issue, I would question their electability.

The fact is that the President is supposed to represent everyone in this country. I know that I am in a minority in some of my views. For me, knowing that a candidate is sympathetic to my position is a plus. A candidate pushing a minority view to the extent they push away the majority of voters - that's a big minus.

[crazytown]

35. I abhor the death penalty

In countries that have long abolished it, and do grant the vote to inmate, like Germany, there is a special class that don’t get a vote for offences like hate crimes, terrorism and treason.

The Boston Bomber ang Roof would not get a vote under that system, and rightly so.

[peggysue2]

6. I've said this from the start of the discussion

This is a losing position. Period, full stop.

Allowing the incarcerated to vote may fly in Maine and Vermont but the rest of the electorate finds the position ludicrous. An individual does his/her time, then attitudes shift in favor of reestablishing voting rights on release. That's a rational and entirely reasonable argument. What Florida is doing by applying a voting tax on the newly freed is abhorrent and should be swatted down at the first opportunity. The real issue is revamping our criminal justice system, not giving prisoners the right to vote.

But mass killers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, etc. voting is not only unpopular; it's downright offensive. Particularly in an era where voting suppression is rampant for those who have never seen the inside of a jail.

[MH1]

20. Yeah, your last sentence.

"Particularly in an era where voting suppression is rampant for those who have never seen the inside of a jail. "

It's a pick your battles thing if nothing else. I'd much rather someone fight the clear and indisputable injustices than tilt at the windmills of a supposed "injustice" that most people won't even agree exists.

[sheshe2]

84. +10000, peggysue.

But mass killers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, etc. voting is not only unpopular; it's downright offensive. Particularly in an era where voting suppression is rampant for those who have never seen the inside of a jail.

Thank you!

[Uncle Joe]

7. Dylann Roof has not lost his right to life until he is executed and then the point becomes moot.

Thanks for the thread crazytown.

[crazytown]

9. If you cannot assert your right to life against the State

you have lost it.

[Uncle Joe]

11. The state will not allow Roof to be murdered even while on death row, ergo

Roof still has a right to life until he is executed.

[crazytown]

13. Nonsense.

[Uncle Joe]

15. If Roof has no right to life then why would the state keep him alive until his execution?

[crazytown]

18. Subject to the Constitution

the State can choose ,the time, place and manner of an execution as it sees fit. That the Sate chooses to stay an execution conferrs no rights on the condemned.

An inmate can contest the manner of execution as cruel and unusual punishment.

[Uncle Joe]

22. It always confers the right of a death row inmate to appeal his/her conviction.

That's why they don't just kill them after conviction.

Joe Arridy (April 15, 1915 – January 6, 1939) was a mentally disabled American man executed for rape and murder and posthumously granted a pardon. Arridy was sentenced to death for the murder and rape of a 15-year-old schoolgirl from Pueblo, Colorado. He confessed to murdering the girl and assaulting her sister. Due to the sensational nature of the crime precautions were taken to keep him from being hanged by vigilante justice. His sentence was executed after multiple stays on January 6, 1939, in the Colorado gas chamber in the state penitentiary in Canon City, Colorado. Arridy was the first Colorado prisoner posthumously pardoned in January 2011 by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a former district attorney, after research had shown that Arridy was very likely not in Pueblo when the crime happened and had been coerced into confessing. Among other things, Arridy had an IQ of 46, which was equal to the mental age of a 6-year-old. He did not even understand that he was going to be executed, and played with a toy train that the warden, Roy Best, had given to him as a present. A man named Frank Aguilar had been executed in 1937 in the Colorado gas chamber for the same crime for which Arridy ended up also being executed. Arridy's posthumous pardon in 2011 was the first such pardon in Colorado history. A press release from the governor's office stated, "[A]n overwhelming body of evidence indicates the 23-year-old Arridy was innocent, including false and coerced confessions, the likelihood that Arridy was not in Pueblo at the time of the killing, and an admission of guilt by someone else." The governor also pointed to Arridy's intellectual disabilities. The governor said, “Granting a posthumous pardon is an extraordinary remedy. But the tragic conviction of Mr. Arridy and his subsequent execution on Jan. 6, 1939, merit such relief based on the great likelihood that Mr. Arridy was, in fact, innocent of the crime for which he was executed, and his severe mental disability at the time of his trial and execution."

George Stinney, a 14-year old black boy, was electrocuted in South Carolina in 1944 for the murder of Betty June Binnicker, age 11, as well as Mary Emma Thames, age 8. The arrest occurred on March 23, 1944 in Alcolu, inside of Clarendon County, South Carolina. Apparently, the two girls rode their bikes past Stinney’s house where they asked him and his sister about a certain type of flower; after this encounter, the girls went missing and were found dead in a ditch the following morning. After an hour of interrogation by the officers, a deputy stated that Stinney confessed to the murder. The confession explained that Stinney wanted to have intercourse with Betty, so he wanted to kill Mary to get Betty alone; however, both girls fought back and that is when he killed both of them. This case still remains a very controversial one due to the fact that the judicial process showed severe shortcomings. An example can be made out of this case by showing how the judicial system does not always properly orchestrate.[22] He was the youngest person executed in the United States. More than 70 years later, a judge threw out the conviction, calling it a "great injustice."[23]

Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in December 1989 for stabbing a gas station clerk to death. Subsequent investigations cast strong doubt upon DeLuna's guilt for the murder of which he had been convicted.[24][25] His execution came about six years after the crime was committed. The trial ended up attracting local attention, but it was never suggested that an innocent man was about to be punished while the actual killer went free. DeLuna was found blocks away from the crime scene with $149 in his pocket. From that point on, it went downhill for the young Carlos DeLuna. A wrongful eyewitness testimony is what formed the case against him. Unfortunately, DeLuna’s previous criminal record was very much used against him.[26] The real killer, Carlos Hernandez, was a repeat violent offender who actually had a history of slashing women with his unique buck knife, not to mention he looked very similar to Carlos DeLuna. Hernandez did not keep quiet about his murder; apparently he went around bragging about the killing of Lopez. In 1999, Hernandez was imprisoned for attacking his neighbor with a knife.[27]

Jesse Tafero was convicted of murder and executed via electric chair in May 1990 in the state of Florida for the murders of two Florida Highway Patrol officers. The conviction of a co-defendant was overturned in 1992 after a recreation of the crime scene indicated a third person had committed the murders.[28] Not only was Tafero wrongly accused, his electric chair malfunctioned as well – three times. As a result, Tafero’s head caught on fire. After this encounter, a debate was focused around humane methods of execution. Lethal injections became more common in the states rather than the electric chair.[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

P.S. Just for the record, I believe Roof is guilty as sin but he nor anyone else on death row has lost their right to life by the state until they have been executed.

[crazytown]

26. Every sentence is subject to judicial review.

Perhaps I should say, I am 100% opposed to the death penalty, no matter how heinous the crime. I don’t believe the State has the power to take an individual’s life. In legal terms, it is IMO, Ultra Vires the State - that is beyond it’s power. Like an individual, the Sate has the power to take life in self defefence in defence of it’s citizen, but that’s it.

I don’t get into moral arguments or the risk of wrongful execution. The Constitution should be amended to withdraw from Government, a power which all tyrants and totalitarian regimes hold close to their chest.

In jurisdictions that linger have capital punishment like Germany, the law sets out a class of inmates who no longer have the vote including those convicted of hate crimes and terrorism.


I know the way I express things sounds arrogant. I’m usually open to argument but not on voting rights for capital offenders.

[sheshe2]

90. By saying...

Roof still has a right to life until he is executed.

He has lost his right to vote when he took theirs and nothing you or the candidate say will change that.

Fact is.

sheshe2 (55,564 posts)

82. Exactly.

Murdered men and women had their right to vote taken from them. The children in Parkland had almost reached the age to vote, and now it is gone. Why the hell should their murderer have more rights than those they took from them.

I disagree wholeheartedly with Sanders. Only after they have served their time should they get back their vote.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287108701#post82

HE TOOK AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE. MURDERERS DO NOT GET MORE RIGHTS THAN THEIR VICTIMS. FULL STOP!

[Saviolo]

8. Everyone focuses on a few high visibility cases

Dylann Roof, the Boston City Bombers, etc...

But what that ignores is the hundreds of thousands of people who are in jail for possession of tiny amounts of marijuana, a policy that vastly disproportionately targets POC. There is no hiding the fact that the wealthy and the white in the USA are treated (on the whole) differently by law enforcement from poor POC.

So, no. I don't care about Dylann Roof's one vote, but hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised people who were imprisoned for mere possession of a drug that is legal in Canada and several states in the USA:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/drug-war-statistics

[crazytown]

12. The question is whether ALL inmates should be entitled to vote.

That is what Senator Sanders demands. I would have thought those lawfully convicted of a capital offence, have forfeited their right to vote along with their right to life itself.

[Saviolo]

16. If you start drawing lines anywhere, you can start drawing lines everywhere.

It's no secret that the GOP has been trying to suppress black voter turnout for decades, and they are still nakedly attempting to do so by closing voting stations in low-income areas and neighbourhoods traditionally populated by majority POC. This is happening, it's visible. They're closing offices for people to acquire the IDs they need in order to vote. If you start saying, "Okay, just capital offences can't vote." the GOP is going to move that line to "Also, any drug offences, including non-violent, because they are supporting foreign drug cartels that are the enemies of the USA." The number of capital offences currently in prison is statistically insignificant, but the number of non-violent drug offenders in prison is massive.

[crazytown]

21. The line between s capital offence, and those whose

sentances can not involve death is the clearest, sharpest distinction drawn in criminal law. There is no slippery slope here - it’s black letter law.

[Saviolo]

70. I still feel like the arguments again just reek of white supremacy.

From today's toon roundup by JHB:

[crazytown]

72. Well Roof is a white supremacist

by giving him the vote you are empowering him to encourage his disgusting brethren.

[Saviolo]

81. But again, my point is:

His one single vote will be countered by hundreds of thousands of POC who have been imprisoned for basically nothing. By focusing on a few singular high-profile cases, this erases hundreds of thousands of POC who are victims of the -system- of white supremacy, not just one individual white supremacist monster.

[JI7]

23. the problem in those cases is them being in prison

[ZeroSomeBrains]

14. What about those innocent men and women behind bars?

If you were wrongfully convicted of murder and are a black man sentenced to death, one of the last things you can do before wrongfully executed is vote. As many circumstances that you can give of people who you think shouldn't vote there are countless other innocent people who lost their rights who deserve a chance to vote. I think those people should not become an afterthought in this conversation.

[shenmue]

19. People convicted of low-level crimes should have their rights restored.

I don't believe in the death penalty. Anyone convicted of nonviolent offenses should receive their right to vote. Violent criminals however, nope.

[ancianita]

24. Nope. The guy gets his one vote. It's about democracy, not Bernie.

"Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic candidate ..."

Prisoners represent only .01% of the registered voters of this country. Don't act like his call for democratic rights is some zero sum undermining of justice.

They are still Americans. Serving their time for wrongdoing. Not losing their voting rights.

Don't look for points of outrage that justify exclusion.

You can disagree, but "pig-headed stand" or "pretensions of electability" are a step too far.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

27. I completely agree

Think of all the innocent people behind bars who could at least give their opinion on who should lead this country. Their voices shouldn't be forgotten in this conversation.

[crazytown]

32. This is electoral poison.

Willie Horton killed Dukakis. This will kill Senator Sanders. That’s what I mean about electability.

[ancianita]

34. I disagree. It's only a continuation of his inclusive "Not me. US." from years ago.

[crazytown]

38. Dukakis has a 17% lead.

After the Willie Horton add it was -4%

A vote for the Boston Bomber would blow Sanders out of the water.

What a hill to die: Votes of inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes.

[ancianita]

41. We'll get back to see if your comparison stands. I think you're reaching, since BS supporters

know what we've known for years -- that Willie Horton and the Boston Bomber were blatant boogeymen manipulations to lower "electability" in the eyes of voters.

They won't get fooled again. A point of difference here or there is not a hill for any of them die on.

Your hill to fight right now is not Bernie's "hill" at all. I don't think you know or understand Bernie very well.

.01% of Americans getting their voting rights, and your finger wagging about that stand, or presuming to know what it means about Bernie and his campaign, says more about you than about Bernie.

Go ahead. Have that last word.

[crazytown]

44. "They won't get fooled again"

[WhiskeyGrinder]

25. I believe people who are incarcerated should not lose the right to vote.

I do not think it is a useful campaign issue, and I do not support Bernie Sanders.

[ancianita]

33. Agreed

[BlueTsunami2018]

28. Yes, this is a ludicrous stance that will never play in the mainstream.

Saying that felons who have served their time should regain their rights is one thing. Saying that pedophiles, serial killers, Mafia thugs and Crips should be able to vote inside prison is ridiculous.

[crazytown]

31. The attack ads would make Willie Horton

look like measured criticism. This is insane. Bernie should swallow his pride and back off.

[NurseJackie]

30. Excellent.

Never mind the word ‘Socialist’, the Senator’s pig headed stand, that all inmates must get the vote, has ended any pretensions of electability.

Excellent.

[jberryhill]

36. Oh good golly, yeah, Roof will be the deciding vote

[murielm99]

37. This is a sideshow.

Bernie is unelectable even without this.

[crazytown]

40. From 95% unelectable to 100% unelectable

There’s a difference between being sealed in a coffin, and buried 6 feet under..

[world wide wally]

39. What is so difficult in separating violent criminals from nonviolent criminals?

[mahannah]

42. Socialism has nothing to do with it. He has the right to vote. And capital punishment is wrong.

[DoctorJoJo]

43. As I've Said Before--This Stance Makes One Unelectable, In My Opinion; However, ....

... I DO support full restoration of voting rights once debts to society fully repaid.

[BigOleDummy]

45. Exactly!

And well said

[hedda_foil]

46. The discussion is a little silly. Even if he were elected with a veto proof Congress, it won't pass

[jberryhill]

56. Congress doesn't decide who votes, incidentally

The US government doesn't run elections.

[Bettie]

48. Did he specifically say Dylan Roof?

Or did he say incarcerated people?

Are you aware that there are many, many people serving very long sentences for, say, having a little weed in their pocket?

Isn't it more likely (by far) that rather than specifically being "nice" to Roof, he's thinking that our mandatory sentencing and "three strikes" laws might affect some people who deserve the right to vote?

[eggplant]

50. Can we stop saying his damn name, please?

https://nonotoriety.com/

Whether he has a vote or not will make zero difference in any election.

Continuing to speak his name is where the real harm is.

[samnsara]

51. yeah...I'm not liking his suggestion

[pdsimdars]

52. It's because Sanders is a clear thinking person, not one ruled by the throes of passion

There are all kinds of horrible people who can vote. Citizens are allowed to vote. Prisoners have not been stripped of citizenship. Get beyond your passions. Being ruled by passion is not being in tune with your higher self.

[mvd]

53. Well I do have a problem with certain felons voting

I won't let one issue get in the way of my Sanders support - to me, it is not even one of the more important issues - but I feel it is better to restore rights after felons serve their time. The severity of the felony can also be taken into account. BTW, I am strongly against the death penalty. I started out supporting it in some cases, but I came around and have been against it for a long time.

[George II]

54. It's not a big issue, but it's a sign of a candidate's judgement.

[crazytown]

57. There are two arguments.

The first is that subject to due process of law, if you have lost the the right to life, you have lost the right to vote. This class of crime are capital offences:

A criminal charge that is punishable by the death penalty. Crimes punishable by death vary from state to state. These offenses may include first degree (premeditated) murder, murder with special circumstances, rape with additional bodily harm, and the federal crime of treason.

Some have argued here that an death row inmate has a right to life right up to the moment of execution. This is legally absurd. The meaning of a capital offence is sentances to lose your life. It has no other meaning.

The second argument is that defending the rights of heinous criminals to vote is politically insane. This is not an argument of principal, it is an argument from real politik.

Senator Sanders has refused to compromise on matters of principle throughout his career. That is to his credit, but this stand is a bridge too far. It is fatal IMO.

[mvd]

60. As to the first argument..

my stance is more of a moral one. Just would hate to see someone like Roof voting.

I do not think the stance makes Sanders unelectable. It is the things that affect people personally like the economy that will carry a lot of weight IMO.

[spicysista]

55. I don't support the death penalty, ever.

Once a person's debt to society has been paid, their voting rights should be restored immediately. The Senator is not in a good political place on this. He should move to another topic.

[Skittles]

58. I cannot say what I really think of Bernie Sanders

it is not allowed here

[crazytown]

59. We are on the same page.

I try to be civil and reasonable.

[Skittles]

95. I think speaking the truth is reasonable

but......lots of snowflakes here

[Kurt V.]

76. That's not true. you can say whatever you like.

[Skittles]

87. no, you cannot

ESPECIALLY the truth will get you hide

[Kurt V.]

91. i never worry about that. plenty of my post have gone to jury. it means nothing

to me. trust your instinct.

[Skittles]

94. LOL

uh.....OK

[johannsyah]

61. I believe the incarcerated don't lose their rights to vote,

theirs are just suspended till they've done serving their times.


but one thing I disagree is I despise death penalty.

[crazytown]

65. I abort the death penalty

In jurisdictions that have abolished it like Germany, there is a special class of criminals who lose the vote while incarcerated , including those convicted of hate crimes, terrorism and treason.

[sop]

62. Effective leaders should be a bit more deft when choosing their political battles

Taking a public stance on voting rights for the incarcerated seems so Quixotic. There are many other changes needed to reform our electoral system, Sanders should concentrate on achieving those first. Sometimes you have to save the oceans before you can save the whales.

[George II]

63. Anyone who feels he should vote has a judgement issue.

[NurseJackie]

68. Or supports a candidate who's falling behind in the polls.

Whatever "internal polling" that may have been done to convince BS that this should be a centerpiece issue, was deeply flawed.

But, no matter... I personally think that BS should run hard with this. This should be his signature issue of his entire campaign.

[progressoid]

64. If Dylann Roof had been convicted and incarcerated in Maine, he'd still have the right to vote.

[NurseJackie]

66. Good thing he wasn't.

[progressoid]

69. You know that felon voting rights disproportionately affect people of color right?

https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/felony-disenfranchisement-a-primer/

[crazytown]

77. Mass incarceration is voter suppression.

No argument from me. That criminals convicted of hate crimes, terrorism, first degree murder must get the vote is another matter. Dylann Root is a white supremacist. He doesn’t get the vote to support his KKKGOP buddies, IMO.

[NurseJackie]

79. Better to solve THAT problem first, than to give voting rights to paedophiles, rapists, murderers?

This is a losing issue. I think BS should embrace it and make it the centerpiece of his campaign.

[crazytown]

67. Indeed

And it is a travesty that someone convicted of Terrorism retains the right to vote

Morally, I’m in favor of non-violent inmates getting the vote. Mass Incarceration is a form of voter supression.

I am not in favor of people who employ political violence getting a say in politics.

[mcar]

75. Agree

[Kurt V.]

78. ppl in prison absolutely should have the vote. but there must be guidelines. if you're never

going to return to society, no.

[crazytown]

80. If you are released you regain the rights as a Citizen

Freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom against unreasonable searches. You must also regain the right to vote IMO - nothing else (but crude politics) makes sense.

You can bet if the majority of people released were white Republican voters, the GOP would set up automatic re-registration.

[Kurt V.]

83. You're right about the gop. but a con should have say so in the society they'll return to

[aikoaiko]

86. I'd vote for him.

[Agschmid]

92. Do you support the death penalty?

Just curious.

[crazytown]

93. I am 100% to the death penalty

In jurisdictions that have abolished it like Germany, there is a special class of criminals who lose the vote while incarcerated , including those convicted of hate crimes, terrorism and treason.

In the USA, if SCOTUS does not strike down capital punishment as cruel or unusual punishment, then the Constitution should be amended to bring America into line with the civilised world.

In this OP, I was making an argument from the law as it currently stands.

After abolition , we should go to something like the German model.

I am also 100% opposed to terrorists getting a vote while interred. It is beyond belief that Roof, a white suprematist, could get a chance to vote for his Ariyan buddies while inside.