How do you feel about felons' voting rights?

[funkybutt]

I've always been under the impression that felons couldnt vote, but aparently they can in many states, mine included.


feel free to explain your position if you like.

[Cerridwen]

1. Oh wait...

Did you mean the felons in the w/h and congress? >They< shouldn't be allowed to vote on anything!

:evilgrin:

[amber dog democrat]

2. If felons can be president or

serve in the house and senate, why can't they vote as well.

[bluestateguy]

3. There are felons and ex-felons

Once a felon has repaid his or her debt to society full rights of citizenship must be restored, otherwise we are admitting that such persons have not been rehabilitated, and they might as well be back in jail.

[funkybutt]

6. good point

you may have swayed me from the fence.

[RoeBear]

15. Restore ALL their rights?

Even their GUN rights?

[69KV]

61. Sure

Unless it was a violent felony, why not?

The penalty for violent crimes like murder, rape, armed robbery etc should have lifetime loss of gun rights written into the penalty for breaking that specific law anyhow. But why should nonviolent offenders such as simple drug offenses be included??

[iverglas]

91. interestingly, and as I'm sure RoeBear knows ...

Restore ALL their rights?
Even their GUN rights?

... Canada -- which does not disenfranchise prisoners (and has never disenfranchised paroled prisoners or other persons convicted of criminal offences) -- treats people who have completed their sentences exactly like everyone else when it comes to firearms acquisition and possession.

You know ... Canada, the home of firearms controls.

Of course, people in prison are prohibited from possessing firearms; that's kinda justified.

And people on parole are probably mainly prohibited from possessing firearms; again, justification wouldn't be difficult to provide.

(There are in fact, undoubtedly, people on parole for some offences who require firearms for subsistence hunting, and in particular Aboriginal people, who have firearms licences and firearms. There is a disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in prisons in Canada, just as there is a disproportionate number of African-American people in prisons in the US. But we actually give Aboriginal people favourable treatment in other respects, one of which is recognition of their ancestral hunting rights.)

But anybody else is free to apply for a firearms licence, which, if granted, enables him/her to acquire firearms.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/f-11.6/sec5.html

5. (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.

Criteria

(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or ... a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous five years,

(a) has been convicted or discharged <found guilty but not convicted> under section 730 of the Criminal Code of

(i) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted,

(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code <firearms-related>,

(iii) an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment), or

(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(1) or (2), 6(1) or (2) or 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; or

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.

Certain criminal convictions must be considered in deciding whether to grant a firearms licence, but no criminal conviction is an absolute bar to being granted a licence.

Ya may not like the Canadian system for licensing people to acquire and possess firearms -- but the fact is that it is applied equally to everybody, prisoners whose sentences have been completed included.

[Baltimoreboy]

45. Exactly

We only let them out because their sentence is done. Most violent offenders shouldn't get out.

[eyesroll]

4. Once they're out of jail...

Permanent disenfranchisement sends the message: "We will never forgive you. You're not allowed to participate in society because of what you did." It's a punishment that's many times disproportionate to the crime -- rob a liquor store at 18, can't vote at 72? Sell your brother some pot, never vote again?

In jail, I'm not sure. On one hand. inmates are still citizens. But from a logistical standpoint, it may be tough (who votes where? home precinct or jail? Since many high-security prisons are located in otherwise sparsely populated areas, people voting from jail could end up skewing the vote of the people who actually live there).

[mandyky]

21. And no longer on parole

Once a felons obligation is paid, voting rights should be reinstated.

[Walt Starr]

40. They already skew the vote of people who already live there

The people who already live there get an abnormally high representation level because of the census counting those prisoners as living in that area.

[Mr.Green93]

5. restore all rights

[Ayesha]

10. some yes, some no

IMHO murderers and sex offenders should not have the right to vote. But, I don't think they should ever be let out of prison, either, so basically I'd say that if someone is truly rehabilitated and therefore deserves freedom, they deserve the right to vote as well.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi Ayesha!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

7. I guess you didn't see the Episode of Oz...

.. where the small town's population WOULD NOT be able to counter any mass voting of the correction facility located in it?

Or how do you handle the voting rights? Let them vote in their Hometown elections altho they may not have been there 20 years?

Let them vote in blocks in small rural towns and elect people who would support whatever demands they make?

It's not so much the issue, but the devil in the details!!!!

[funkybutt]

9. People can vote while in jail?

i've never seen that episode of OZ (that show was a little graphic for me) but you raise a good point...another that i hadn't thought of. that's tricky as hell

[yardwork]

32. No, inmates aren't allowed to vote.

The question is whether or not somebody convicted of a felony should be allowed to get their voting rights back after they are released from prison. I don't think that murderers and rapists should be released from prison, so the question for them is moot.

But what about some kid convicted of possession when he's eighteen? A felony. He serves his time and is released from prison. Should he be allowed to vote when he's 48 years old and hasn't been in trouble with the law since then?

Consider this: Most of the people convicted of felonies in the U.S. are African-American males convicted of drug offenses, such as having cocaine in their possession.

Now, isn't it convenient that African-American males, who tend to vote Democratic, are the ones being incarcerated for doing things that a lot of wealthy white males - people like George W. Bush - do as a matter of course but never get in trouble for doing?

Think about it.

[theHandpuppet]

47. Excellent points

millercenter.virginia.edu/.../commission_final_report/ task_force_report/hansen_chap8_disfranchisement.pdf

Disfranchisement of Felons
Task Force on the Federal Election System
John Mark Hansen
July 2001

Summary of conclusions

1. States currently deny the franchise to 4.2 million people on account of current or prior felony conviction. Every state but two disfranchises felons in current incarceration. Eleven states disfranchise felons for life.

2. One third of the people denied the franchise because of a felony conviction have already completed their sentences. The disfranchisement rate in the 11 states that permanently deny
voting rights, 5.1 percent, is three times the rate in states that impose no disability beyond the period of incarceration, probation, and parole, 1.7 percent.

3. Felony disfranchisement has particular impact on the African American electorate. Nearly 7 percent of black Americans cannot participate in the electoral process because of a felony conviction.

<snipping>

In states that permanently deny to felons the right to vote, the impact on the electorate is sizable.

The percentage of the voting age population disfranchised by felony conviction in states that disfranchise forever ranges from 3.2 percent in Maryland (which disfranchises permanently only upon a second felony conviction) to 6.2 percent in Alabama and Florida. No state that does not practice permanent disqualification has a rate of felony disfranchisement that exceeds Maryland’s, the lowest among permanent disfranchisement states. Of people currently disqualified by a felony conviction, one third are felons who have already completed their sentences.

As is well known, disproportionately many African Americans pass through the justice system, and consequently the impact of disqualification for felony conviction is especially dramatic for the black electorate. Nearly 7 percent of black Americans cannot participate in the electoral process because of felony convictions. Because 95 percent of felons are male, the felony disfranchisement rate for black men is almost double. All but one state, Hawaii, records felony disfranchisement rates for blacks that are larger than disfranchisement rates for whites and others, in most cases several times larger.

The impact of permanent disqualification is especially striking. The only states with African American disfranchisement rates that exceed the least of the rates in permanent disfranchisement states, 7.6 percent in Maryland, are states that disqualify felons during the term of their probation or parole. In states with small African American populations and lifetime disqualification, like Iowa and New Mexico, disfranchisement rates for black males exceed 40 percent. The lowest felony disfranchisement rate for blacks among the permanent disqualification states, Maryland’s 7.6 percent, still surpasses the highest felony disfranchisement rate for whites and others, Florida’s 5.1 percent.

The impact of the separate provisions for felony disqualification can be seen in estimates of the effect of recission. Repeal of permanent disfranchisement would reduce the number excluded from the electorate on account of felony convictions by about a third.

Much More....

[69KV]

59. That's a 2001 article

I should point out that since that article was published, four states have repealed their lifetime disfranchisement laws: New Mexico, Delaware, Wyoming, and Nevada. Maryland also repealed their lifetime disfranchisement law for 2 or more felonies.

That leaves only seven states where ex-felons still lose their vote for life. *None* of them are in the western half of the country and none are in the northeast.

Guess which states those are, and what part of the country they are mostly located in? A hint, one of them is Florida.

[theHandpuppet]

124. Thanks for the update!

Do you have a link where the updated info is provided? I'm trying to keep abreast of current voting laws and would like to bookmark any site with such info.

[achtung_circus]

17. What we do in Canada

is that prisoners are allowed to vote in their home town, address of record. That way Kingston, Ontario doesn't elect a Biker Gang to Parliament.

[funkybutt]

20. I'd take a biker gang over OUR current administration any day

i'll bite :)

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. Considering how well Junior handles a Segway and a mountain bike....

...I don't even want to picture him on a Hog :puke:

[Walt Starr]

41. that's the only sensible way to do it!

Bravo for the inteeligent people of Canada.

I may have to emigrate from the Oppressive States of Amerika and join the sensible people of the North.

[blm]

8. Once they have served their time, then YES.

But, not while they are serving.

[Nikia]

11. If ex felons could vote, Gore would have been president

The law banning ex felons from voting was intended and continues to be intended to decrease the number of black men voting. Many black men who were kept from voting weren't even ex felons.

[Killarney]

12. In jail = NO

Once they have done their time and gotten back out of jail, they should have their voting rights back with the rest of their freedom.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

13. Former felons....

I've always been under the impression that felons couldnt vote, but aparently they can in many states, mine included.<<

The persons stricken and banned from the voting registries in Florida were FORMER felons who had already had their voting rights returned to them in their respective states.... but when trying to vote in Florida... someone in the governors mansion made it just this side of impossible for them to get clearance to vote... two great sites on this... www.gregpalast.com www.unprecedented.org (watch the flash splash screen)

[NewHampshireDem]

14. I too would draw a distinction between felons and ex-felons ...

I know they are often lumped together, but I think they should not be. Folks in prison should not be allowed to vote--I see that as part of the punishment. I do believe that once they have completed their sentence--including their parole--they should have their franchise restored.

However, I am not sure I'm in favor of restoring "all rights." Would that include the right to own a gun as well? (Just asking--don't want to start a flame war or take this off-topic.) :)

[Djinn]

16. In Australia

prisoners serving a sentence of less than 5 years are still entitled to vote (there was some mumuring from the conservative party about changing that recently but I think this is still the case) and once you have served your sentence you get your rights back - that's surely the whole point.

I imagine serving prisoners vote in the electorate in which they lived immediately before being sentenced, Australians can still vote if they've been living overseas for a few years so not technically living in that electorate anymore isn't really an issue.

If the sentence you're serving is less than five years then the chances are you'll be released within the term of a government so I think it's reasonable you should get a say in it, I wouldn't really care if they gave ALL prisoners the right to vote - I don't think it'd make THAT much difference here, our prison population isn't that big.

If we could find a way of preventing Murdoch newspaper reading folk from voting THAT I might support :evilgrin:

[JohnLocke]

24. Murdoch -- Australia's most infamous citizen.

Take him back! Take him back! :D

[Djinn]

30. God NO

besides he's not a citizen anymore - legally he's ALL yours! :evilgrin: though to be fair we've been lumped with his insipid son

[JohnLocke]

34. Son?

Murdoch has a son?

[Djinn]

35. He's got two

with his second wife - Lachlan and James, plus a daughter with his first wife another daughter with Wendy Deng his third wife who is preganant again (or may have had the second child by now) Viagra's best customer apparently

[JohnLocke]

37. LOL.

[IronLionZion]

53. Well, Australia was a penal colony

so they don't count :evilgrin: :P

[kayell]

19. You need another choice or several

In general I don't believe in restricting voting rights, except for those convicted of vote tampering in some way.

[against all enemies]

22. Why can a state restrict a person's right to vote in Federal elections?

I don't understand, it seems to be an unequal treatment of voting rights. Isn't than unconstitutional?

[Nile]

43. Because many state and local candidates are on the ballot.

If you have ever voted you would have noticed that election day includes local candidates also.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. If we had some rationality to our criminal justice system-

whereby only violent or predatory felons, those dangerous to society (such as environmental polluters), and thieves who've ruined peoples' lives (like Ken Lay) were convicted of felonies, then I might be able to support disenfranchisement of felons.

However, we currently have a situation where millions of African Americans are unable to vote because of convictions under a "drug war" that were for the same sort of "crime" that George W. Bush has essentially admitted to committing when he was young. Until we stop prosecuting millions of people for non-violent, victimless crimes, I cannot view the widespread disallowing of felons to vote as anything other than what I think it is: An anti-democratic political tactic.

[TroubleMan]

25. I have a felony conviction....Here's my perspective

Taking a felons right to vote away was originated by the Jim Crow south to keep blacks from voting. A person, no matter what the crime, should be able to vote after they are released from the correctional facility.

You punishment is to serve the time, pay the money, do the community service, ect. Nowhere does it say in the state or federal code that if you, say for instance sell drugs, that part of the punishment for that crime is losing your right to vote. It's not listed as part of the punishment in the code forbidding such activity. For instance, let's say you look at the code for writing a bad check in Georgia, it might say you can be fined up to X amount, an/or you can be sentenced to no more than X years/days in jail. When you've paid up and/or served the time - your punishment's over. You shouldn't be punished in perpetuum.

Also, it's extra-judicial. Mandatory minimums aside, a judge is supposed to look at each crime individually when sentencing. He/she then decides a punishment to fit that crime - not base it on what someone in another court got sentenced for the same crime. A law that punishes you forever and after you've paid your debt to society is not only unfair, but it doesn't meet the criteria for the punishment fitting the crime. This law treats a convicted pot smoker the same as a serial rapist - they both have the same sentence, and no judge, jury of peers or mitigating circumstances can change that.

Concerning voting while in a correctional facility, I'm ambivalent. I see good arguments for and against it. The argument for it is that voting should be an inalienable right. It would be very easy to do. Logistics in jail are easy, because every second of every day you know where every inmate's at - or are supposed to. For the above mentioned Oz situation, you just look at the driver's license/identification card, and each inmate who wanted to vote would be given an absentee ballot for the address on that ID. It would be given to them in a secure location, they would fill it out right then, and put it in the box. That would be real easy to do.

The strongest argument I can see against voting while incarcerated is that not all the people that run these facilities are trustworthy. The chance for undue influence (from a guard or a group of inmates) and/or voter fraud is very high in a lot of facilities around the US. Also, what goes on in prison pretty much stays in prison...if one guy whistle-blew he risks getting killed, and nobody wants to believe a convicted felon anyway. The fraud would be very hard to prove, because the people who are accused of committing the fraud control the cameras, pay the guards, and control the quality of life and safety of any witnesses. I'd rather not vote than have Wackenhut change or control my vote.

Oh if you wondering what might conviction was for ... don't worry it wasn't murder or a sex crime or anything like that. Let's just say it was mostly drug related. Other than that, I'm not going to say anything more about it.

Voting is an inalienable right as far as I'm concerned, and should never be taken away for any reason.

[funkybutt]

29. thanks for your perspective

it was obviously very well thought out and from a point of view important to the topic. The war against drugs so oppressive. Something needs to be done about the mandatory minimums.

[iverglas]

44. Canadians agree

Voting is an inalienable right as far as I'm concerned,
and should never be taken away for any reason.

Well, it isn't actually an "inalienable" right, since you can "alienate" (give away) the right by giving up citizenship. What it is, is an inherent right of citizenship, and persons convicted of criminal offences do not lose their citizenship.

And, well, the Canadian Supreme Court agrees. Not all Canadians are enlightened "liberals". In fact, the very illiberal new Conservative Party tried to make an issue of this in the recent election, along with abortion and the firearms registry and same-sex marriage (guess what? they're opposed to the whole lot of 'em). But commitment to the constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and confidence in the courts to apply it to protect those rights and freedoms, are pretty high here.

What I'm amazed at in this thread (and whenever it comes up) is the number of people who talk about how convicted persons' voting (or other) rights should be "restored" at some point, but just don't seem to have any notion of how they can legitimately be taken away in the first place.

Nobody loses, or can be denied, the ability to exercise rights simply because they're not nice people.


Edit:

Meant to say -- the problems you raise regarding the administration of balloting inside an institution have an easy solution. It isn't prison officials who conduct the electoral process, it's electoral officials, unrelated to the prison system.

And the candidates are entitled to have observers present in the US, I assume. Up here, we're called "scrutineers", and polling stations are crawling with them during voting. We observe the process of voters being stricken off the list and given ballots, the ballots going into the box, and the ballots being counted when the polls closed (yes, I know, and archaic concept;) ) and can challenge any irregularities on the spot or later. Candidates would want to pay particular attention to polls in prisons if problems seemed possible.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. spot on

[troublemaker]

95. Concerning voting while in a correctional facility

people in prison should be allowed to vote. Why the hell not? Democracy is supposed to represent the citizenry, no some social-engineers fantasy of an ideal citizenry.

No group of citizens has a greater (or more legitimate) interest in the nature of government than the incarcerated.

[yvr girl]

26. You're in prison to be punished

When you are convicted of a crime, you forfeit some rights. I think voting rights should be included.

Once someone has served their time, their debts are paid, and they should get their rights back.

[iverglas]

80. Does an inmate forfeit citizenship?

When you are convicted of a crime, you forfeit some rights.
I think voting rights should be included.

Don't you folks know what the word "unalienable" means? To "alienate" something is to dispossess one's self of it -- to give it away, sell it, transfer it, etc.

Fundamental, "unalienable" rights, like life and liberty, can never be forfeited. Other rights, like rights of citizenship, cannot be "forfeited" without forfeiting the citizenship itself. And cannot be taken away without taking away the citizenship itself.

Our ability to exercise our rights can be interfered with, if there is justification. But we really cannot forfeit the rights, and they really cannot be taken from us.

Some people who have been convicted of criminal offences are denied the ability to exercise their right to liberty. The justification in many cases is obvious: the public has to be protected from them. In other cases it is less obvious, and the deprivation of liberty is purely punitive. Our societies pretty much agree that a degree of punishment is appropriate when people commit crimes.

But people are not in prison *only* to be punished. In fact, in the case of the need to protect the public, punishment isn't even the rationale: the segregation from society is not to punish the prisoner, but to protect society.

People are also in prison to be rehabilitated. Most of them are going to be released in the shorter or longer term, so we try to rehabilitate them in OUR interests, not just theirs. Obviously there isn't much rehabilitation going on in prisons in the US, but that isn't the inmates' fault.

Denying the ability to vote doesn't protect the public; it doesn't rehabilitate the offender. It sure does express society's disapproval of what the offender did, and punish the offender. But so would a daily whipping. Some people might consider that to be a justified violation of rights, but most don't.

Why is denying the ability to vote *justified*? "I think ..." just IS NOT justification.

Once someone has served their time, their debts are paid, ...

This notion that people are in prison to "pay a debt" is really just nonsense. How does the time that someone spends behind bars pay for a homicide, or a robbery, or a burglary? When the time is up, does the dead person come back to life? Is the theft victim's stuff returned? Has anyone's loss been compensated for by the unpleasantness endured by the offender over that time? What new math might produce this result?

People who are in prison do not lose their rights. They do not lose their right to liberty, for instance; they are temporarily prevented from exercising it. The right to liberty is UNALIENABLE. It cannot be taken away, and cannot be "lost". The liberty itself may be interfered with, where that is justified.

The vote is not an "unalienable" right, but it is an automatic right of citizenship. All citizens have the right to vote, and no non-citizen has the right to vote. The right to vote cannot be taken away unless citizenship is taken away. And people in prisons are *not* non-citizens.

The exercise of that right, too, can be interfered with or limited with justification.

But we really just can't say "you have traded your ability to exercise your right to vote for your commission of a crime". We have to justify taking away that ability. Otherwise, we could also just say "you have traded your left hand for your commission of a crime". There really are limits on what we can take away from people, in any particular circumstance.

Certainly, most USAmericans think that those limits exclude very little. They "think" it's just fine to take away people's life for the commission of a crime. (Note, again, that persons sentenced to death *do not* lose their right to life; they lose their life, in what many in the US regard as a justified violation of the right to life.) But thinking something is not the same as offering justification.

... and they should get their rights back.

They have those rights all along. They are citizens of the United States. That is the same as saying they have the right to vote in elections, because that is what your Constitution says. ... But yikes, I'm making assumptions. My Constitution says that; yours doesn't.

http://sharpton2004.org/index.php?menuID=Page&pid=6

Most Americans believe the legal right to vote in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only provides for nondiscrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments respectively. The U.S. Constitution contains no explicit right to vote!

Even though the right to vote is the supreme right in a democracy, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore constantly reminded lawyers there is no explicit or fundamental right to suffrage in the Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia besieged Gore's lawyer with inquiries premised on the assumption there is no constitutional right of suffrage in the election of a president, and state legislatures have the legal power to choose presidential electors without recourse to a popular vote. Only a Voting Rights Amendment can fix these flaws.

But that's not really here nor there for our purposes. Your Constitution does say:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To deny a citizen the ability to vote without justification is a denial of equal protection, just as it would be a denial of equal protection to deny anyone the ability to exercise any right without justification.

Folks at DU spend a lot of time criticizing the Bush administration for its cavalier attitude to the US Constitution, when it comes to denying people the Bush administration doesn't like the ability to exercise rights.

I don't see much difference between denying prisoners the ability to vote and doing the various things that the Patriot Act allows the US govt to do to people. And I think that a lot of "liberals" need to some serious self-examination in this area, among others.

[wuushew]

82. I agree 100%

Your post should be the last one required on this thread but unfortunately I predict this conversation to exceed the three digit mark.

[iverglas]

85. I wish it would!

... unfortunately I predict this conversation to exceed the three digit mark.

Unfortunately, I anticipate continued lack of interest in discussing the actual issues, sigh. This is an issue on which many (dare I say most) people are quite comfortable with their opinions, although they are based on nothing but prejudices and received wisdom and are contrary to their own values -- simply because it doesn't affect them.

Normally, looking at something like an egregious rights violation should cause people to sit up and say "hey, this isn't consistent with my core values!" They will suffer from the dissonance of seeing that they support an action that offends those values. That's often the process by which people abandon policy positions based on prejudice and begin to advocate for better policies.

A white person 50 years ago in the US didn't really need to think about segregation, because it didn't affect him/her. But a white person to whom values like "equal worth of all human beings" are genuinely important can't tolerate, for long, the conflict between "I believe in the equal worth of all human beings" and "African-Americans must sit at the back of the bus". The suitcase of roiling rationalization they're sitting on busts open, and they have to say "I can no longer support segregation, because it causes me discomfort to support a policy that violates my core values".

What I'm asking is that people take a look at their core values -- things like the equal worth of all human beings. And take a look at how their society's adherence to those values is expressed in their Constitution -- things like the right to participate in the democratic processes of their society, and the right to equal protection of the law (which means that the ability to exercise rights cannot be arbitrarily taken away). And then ask themselves how denying prisoners the right to vote is consistent with those values.

If someone said "I think that African-Americans should be required to sit at the back of the bus", or "I think that women should not be allowed to vote", or "I think that parents should be allowed to beat their children", not many people would just say "okay, it's all a matter of opinion, so yours is as good as anybody's". Most people would say you are advocating an unjustified violation of other people's rights, or at least something that amounted to that. ;)

The best tack to take may well be to demonstrate not just how denying prisoners the ability to vote conflicts with the core value of equal worth, but also how denying prisoners the ability to vote is not in the interests of the person who advocates doing it, or his/her society. That's when that niggling conflict between one's values and one's actions often becomes problematic.

In a case like this, where the victims of the rights violation are so obviously the disadvantaged members of the society (people of colour, the poor ...), we likely find that people to whom the core value of the equal worth of all individuals is important, and who already integrate that value into other aspects of their thinking, feel that conflict most keenly.

It might be hard to persuade someone that it is in his/her personal interests for prisoners to vote (particularly someone who gets great emotional comfort from pointing fingers at other people, and blaming them, and feeling superior to them). But it's beyond me how anyone could argue that it is in society's interests to deny any of its members the ability to participate in electing a government.

[AP]

27. Wrong question. Q should be "when do you think they should be returned?"

[iverglas]

74. Nope; right question: what justification is there for violating them?

How can you possibly ask when the ability to exercise rights should be restored without justifying denying that ability in the first place??

Do people at DU really think that people can just have their rights taken away because we don't like them? Perhaps just because we always have? Any other rights we might like to apply this reasoning to?

What on earth is the logic behind denying someone the ability to vote while incarcerated, or after? Does this aid in rehabilitation? Not bloody likely. Does it persuade people not to commit further offences once they are released? How? Does it deter other people from committing the same kind of offences? Hardly needs answering.

In its 2002 decision on this issue, the Supreme Court of Canada said:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2002/vol3/html/2002scr3_0519.html

As to a legitimate penal purpose, neither the record nor common sense supports the claim that disenfranchisement deters crime or rehabilitates criminals.

By imposing a blanket punishment on all penitentiary inmates regardless of the particular crimes they committed, the harm they caused, or the normative character of their conduct, s. 51(e) <of the law denying the vote> does not meet the requirements of denunciatory, retributive punishment, and is not rationally connected to the government's stated goal.

It's really very hard to argue with that. And I don't notice anyone even trying.

Lastly, the negative effects of denying citizens the right to vote would greatly outweigh the tenuous benefits that might ensue. Denying prisoners the right to vote imposes negative costs on prisoners and on the penal system.

It removes a route to social development and undermines correctional law and policy directed towards rehabilitation and integration.

In light of the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in penitentiaries, the negative effects of s. 51(e) upon prisoners have a disproportionate impact on Canada's already disadvantaged Aboriginal population.

Obviously, USAmericans can read "African-American" for "Aboriginal".

38. The theoretical and constitutional links between the right to vote and respect for the rule of law are reflected in the practical realities of the prison population and the need to bolster, rather than to undermine, the feeling of connection between prisoners and society as a whole. The government argues that disenfranchisement will "educate" and rehabilitate inmates. However, disenfranchisement is more likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy than a spur to reintegration. Depriving at-risk individuals of their sense of collective identity and membership in the community is unlikely to instill a sense of responsibility and community identity, while the right to participate in voting helps teach democratic values and social responsibility (testimony of Professor Jackson, appellants' record at pp. 2001-2). As J. S. Mill wrote:

To take an active interest in politics is, in modern times, the first thing which elevates the mind to large interests and contemplations; the first step out of the narrow bounds of individual and family selfishness, the first opening in the contracted round of daily occupations. ... The possession and the exercise of political, and among others of electoral, rights, is one of the chief instruments both of moral and of intellectual training for the popular mind ... .

(J. S. Mill, "Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform" (1859), in J. M. Robson, ed., Essays on Politics and Society, vol. XIX, 1977, 311, at pp. 322-23)

To deny prisoners the right to vote is to lose an important means of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility.

How can anyone even argue (even if anyone were doing that) with the plain common sense of something said 150 years ago? John Stuart Mill, one of the leading lights of modern liberalism.

What purpose is conceivably served by formally disenfranchising people, many of whom are already so thoroughly disenfranchised in practice? How can it not be obvious that enfranchising them -- providing them with some sense of meaningful connection to their community and society -- is the only way we're ever going to deter them and others like them from offending?

The symbolic meaning of disenfranchisement pretty much amounts to: We're not going to give you (and your family and peers) a job or an education or a decent place to live or a safe community to live in, and now we're going to make sure that you don't have any say at all in any of it. Can we all say "alienation"?

40. It is a message sullied, moreover, by negative and unacceptable messages likely to undermine civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law. Denying citizen law-breakers the right to vote sends the message that those who commit serious breaches are no longer valued as members of the community, but instead are temporary outcasts from our system of rights and democracy. More profoundly, it sends the unacceptable message that democratic values are less important than punitive measures ostensibly designed to promote order. If modern democratic history has one lesson to teach it is this: enforced conformity to the law should not come at the cost of our core democratic values.

Seems to me that you folks could capitalize the "D" on that "democratic values" and have a true and important statement.

And is there really any way that whatever sense of smug self-righteousness that anyone might get out of pointing fingers at persons convicted of criminal offences and saying "you're a horrible person and you can play in our electoral games" is going to outweigh the harm done by disenfranchisement, or the benefit of including those people in their society's most fundamental decision-making process?

I guess I know what Jerry Springer's guests would say. But then I seldom expect them to be either rational or "liberal".

[Tactical Progressive]

28. I believe that everybody should vote, even from in prison.

It's a responsibility as well as a right. I can't see how it could hurt anyone you are trying to rehabilitate to maintain that avenue of responsibility towards the outside world. It could only help. Since nobody is required to vote, the choice to vote is done out of some sense of societal responsibility, which is an appropriate action for anyone being rehabilitated.

[bobbyboucher]

31. Is this linked to the WSJ Op/Ed page?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[funkybutt]

111. uhm...what? n/t

[rocktivity]

33. Once they've done their time, made restitution

and/or satisfied their probation or parole, why not?

:headbang:
rocknation

[Sugarbleus]

36. In my state, once a felon is off parole, he can vote again...

If the felon does all his or her time inside, then they are free to vote again. Do your time, then go and vote.

[proud patriot]

38. The option I pick is not on your list

A felon must serve their time both incarcerated
and on parole . Once they complete this process
I feel their voting rights should be restored .

[Walt Starr]

39. Felons should be allowed to vote EVEN IN PRISON!

They are counted in the census as being in the town closest to the prison, so that area gains additional representation based upon the prison population.

They should at least have a right to vote so long as they are contributing to the political clout of the area they are imprisoned in.

Part of the reason Texas gained representatives after the last census is the fact that Texas is home to the largest number of outsourced prisons. Private corporations take prisoners from all over the country into facilities they run in Texas, thus inflating the population figures for Texas giving them an unduly high level of political representation when compared to the number of people who have a right to vote.

[69KV]

57. My position too

I haven't yet seen any convincing argument why prisoners shouldn't be able to vote. In most other countries of the world, they can.

[DemBones DemBones]

60. Your point about the census is a good one

and I was not aware of this.

[Walt Starr]

71. That's why little redneck fuckwad towns that host corporate outsoruce

prisons have WAAAAAYYYYY too much political clout. They have the political clout of hundreds and at time thousands of people who cannot vote.

[iverglas]

42. more about inmates' constitutional right to vote in Canada

The whole thing hasn't quite shaken out yet, as far as the rules for provincial prisons (sentences of up to 2 years) and federal penitentiaries (sentences 2 years and over). (Criminal law is federal in Canada, it's just the administration of the institutions that is divided.)

But basically, the leading decision was made by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 5-4 decision in Sauvé, in 2002: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2002/vol3/html/2002scr3_0519.html

Denying the vote is a pretty much prima facie violation of the constitutional right to vote (set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the 1982 Constitution):

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The Constitution also guarantees equality before and under the law:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(interpreted to include any analogous grounds of discrimination, i.e. against a historically stereotyped and vulnerable group)

Once a violation is proved, the govt. has the opportunity to justify the violation under s. 1:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Court found that there was no justification:

To justify the infringement of a Charter right under s. 1, the government must show that the infringement achieves a constitutionally valid purpose or objective, and that the chosen means are reasonable and demonstrably justified.

The government's argument that denying the right to vote to penitentiary inmates requires deference because it is a matter of social and political philosophy is rejected. While deference may be appropriate on a decision involving competing social and political policies, it is not appropriate on a decision to limit fundamental rights.

The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the rule of law and cannot be lightly set aside. Limits on it require not deference, but careful examination.

The framers of the Charter signaled the special importance of this right not only by its broad, untrammeled language, but by exempting it from legislative override under s. 33's notwithstanding clause. The argument that the philosophically - based or symbolic nature of the objectives in itself commands deference is also rejected.

Parliament cannot use lofty objectives to shield legislation from Charter scrutiny. Here, s. 51(e) is not justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

Essentially, the Court said that this is not an area in which Parliament can exercise its discretion to make policy decisions, it is an area in which Parliament's decisions will be examined by the courts very closely because of the hugely important and fundamental nature of the right in question.

The process of constitutional scrutiny is not identical in the US, but has a good deal in common. The decision, or at least the full headnote I've quoted that bit from, would be worth reading for people who want to consider the real issues before forming an opinion.

[theHandpuppet]

46. Not enough options to vote on

Here in WV a felon may register or re-register to vote once they have served their time and finished parole. Seems fair to me. If the courts mete out a finite sentence for a crime then I don't see the justification for the govt stripping this same person of their right to vote *for life*.

I have a neighbor -- great guy, wonderful family man, volunteer in the community, works his butt off at two jobs -- who is a Vietnam Vet (Army) who got messed up after 'Nam and got involved with drugs. Went to prison for a time, but got his life straightened out and has been clean and sober for over twenty years. Are some of you actually saying this man should, for the rest of his life, be denied the basic right to vote? How compassionate, how forgiving, how decent of you!

I'm just glad this man and his family are my neighbors. There are among some of the very best people I know, and I'm sure they wouldn't pass a like judgment on any of us.

Edited to add: Here are the voting rights and/or restrictions for those who have committed felonies, listed by state: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/voterights.htm

[erpowers]

48. Voting Rights for Felons

I believe felons should get there voting rights back after they have served there term in prison. I would be okay if they did not get their right to vote back until after the had finished their probation. After that they should be restored their full rights

[slackmaster]

49. They should have ALL civil rights restored

The moment their sentences and any summary probation have been completed.

[Baltimoreboy]

54. Voting rights for rapists and murderers

Not a chance.

[slackmaster]

55. If they aren't worthy of voting, they aren't worthy of liberty

People in jail should not be allowed to vote.

[Baltimoreboy]

62. I'm OK with that solution

I wouldn't let them vote. Child molesters also.

[wuushew]

63. Why? People in jail pay taxes as well

Violent and sexual offenders no doubt have valid opinions on zoning laws, state referendums and the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

I guess while it is easy differentiate the classification of their crimes on paper I fail to see a clear marker on the slippery slope of judging their character/mental state as a basis for denying some people the vote and not others.

[Baltimoreboy]

66. Not a paper difference

Murderers, rapists, child molestors all pose a threat to society and the members of the society and I don't want them making decisions on laws.

[wuushew]

67. How do societies decide what is right or wrong in the first place?

Within the framework of the Constitution lawmakers draft and vote on laws to regulate public behavior, or conversely referendums and public ballot initiatives serve to enact these laws.

Murder is defined the way it is because an overwhelming number of people agree on its definition and the appropriateness in sentencing for committing it. I fail to see why those who have committed crimes are not entitled to vote in the process of the determination of these laws since they are currently or will be affected by them in the future.

If you are arguing that sexual and violent offenders are mentally incapable of voting then I ask why such defenses are not sufficient to prevent their conviction of a crime, nor why non-criminal addictions like smoking or gambling are not sufficient to bar people from voting on restaurant bans or construction of new casinos.

Hopefully in any society the number of non-criminals always is significantly lower than the general population, but if it is not then what we have is clearly a failure of democracy. Small communities should always take into consideration ALL the pluses and minuses before constructing large prisons. Denying criminals the right to vote locally is just pandering to bitchy property owners who NEVER EVER want their taxes raised and is the same problem that causes school and social service underfunding. Civic justice is always more important than accumulation of personal wealth.

I guess you are arguing for some form of moral absolutism which I reject.

[Baltimoreboy]

68. Just morality

And I don't want anyone who is violently dangerous voting on laws.

Just call me a bitchy property owner who hates rapists, murderers and child molestors. Free from jail or not, they remain a threat.

[wuushew]

69. But yet Bush and Cheney still can vote

depsite being directly responsible for the deaths of 10-20,000+ people. Since it is politically difficult/impossible for them to pay for their crimes I don't have many other ways of achieving an egalitarian society.

[Baltimoreboy]

70. When they are convicted of rape, murder or child molestation

Then we can have this conversation.

[troublemaker]

94. Tough-guy blather

It seems that everything's a special case based on your personal emotional reactions.

I really don't know how child molesters would vote, but I know how you would vote because you've demonstrated an ignorant contempt for democracy throughout these posts. So if I could strip anyone of their voting rights it would be YOU.

Funny how that works.

[iverglas]

98. I'd back you up

But you don't seem to need it. ;)

[Baltimoreboy]

104. Just violent felons

They aren't special cases through our doing, it's through theirs.

I only have contempt for violent felons. If you don't like that, I couldn't care less.

[TahitiNut]

51. Police States don't want their victims to have any say.

When the number of ex-felons becomes a significant voting bloc, the problems of that society are far more severe than mere voting. If it weren't for the fact that the US is imprisoning people at a greater rate than any other "first world" nation, this wouldn't be as visible an issue as it is. We're seeing ourselves become an outlaw, fascist, police state. (And one general election isn't going to do much to correct this.)

[69KV]

56. You have just hit the real issue right on the head!!!

What's going to happen when over 50% of Americans are felons or ex-felons?

As a society we had better be asking ourselves that question, because that is exactly what is going to happen a few decades from now if current conviction and incarceration rates continue.

[BlueJazz]

52. Being the Good friend of a Trial Lawyer, I'll tell ya',

..going to prison or even being charged with a crime has more to do with how much money, you or your family have, then whether or not you've perpetrated any hardship on society.

Poor folks head to the slammer for drug offenses while affluent people get their charges dropped down to misdemeanors and are assigned to "drug rehabilitation"

Children of the wealthy who do crime (stealing cars, drugs, shoplifting merchandise from stores etc) are often sent to counselers and are assigned terms as "just a prank"

Black/poor defendants are called "scum of the society" and are swiftly and harshly dealt with.

Anybody who believes otherwise is sadly misinformed.

THAT'S the Main reason why all rights should be given to ex-cons.

[DemBones DemBones]

58. I don't think felons in prison should vote, but

once they've "paid their debt to society," why shouldn't they be able to vote? In theory, they've been rehabilitated in prison and are starting a new life.

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

64. do you mean felons or ex-felons?

If you mean ex-felons, I think you should change the wording of your poll, or better yet, start a new one.

[Cat Atomic]

65. I'm amazed that it's accepted. It's just a way to disenfranchise the poor.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. It's simply a way to disenfranchise the poor...create felonies

out of poverty crimes, take away their vote and nullify their voice...works real well in many southern states...thank goodness only about 10 or 11 states do it anymore.

[Baltimoreboy]

75. Manufactured felonies or real ones

So, you oppose felons losing their voting rights for drugs crimes and such. What about traditional felonies like rape, murder and child molestation?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. Once they've paid their debt via punishment, there is no reason

to disallow them to vote.

[wuushew]

77. Vengeance against criminals does not trump fighting racism

and racism is rampant in our criminal justice system. The gains in enfranchising more voters more than compensates the illusionary threat of some sort of organized rapist or pedophile Political Action Committee.

[Baltimoreboy]

79. Not a PAC, just a pack

Of murderers and rapists. None of whom should be voting -- ever.

Focus on the important stuff. Fight for voting rights for NON-VIOLENT offenders. Don't try to make us the party of murderers and rapists.

[Bridget Burke]

87. You're proposing to remove existing voting rights.

In Texas, felons regain that right two years after the end of imprisonment, probation or parole. Some states are tougher (like Florida), others not so stringent.

These people are walking the streets now, living in your city, driving on the same roads you use. Do you want them constantly reminded that they are just not good enough, no matter what they do? Or do you want them to regain this one link to membership in the community?

Of course, making the Democrats "the party of murderers & rapists" is a big Republican talking point. Thanks for the reminder.

[Baltimoreboy]

88. Yes, I am

I don't want violent ex-cons voting.

And no, it wouldn't impact those already out because it wouldn't be retroactive.

And I am the one arguing against the talking point because I think this is a stupid politcy.

Ultimately, I DO "want them constantly reminded" about what they did.

[wuushew]

90. Also in some states you can have gun rights but not voting rights restored

which is absurd given the "public safety" arguments being floated around here. All that accomplishes is removing the possibility of another potential vote against Bush and the strengthening of the NRA.

Please someone help me find the link to a 60 minutes program that had this exact same topic. I looked very hard but can't find it. Again this is a huge Southern states problem and they continue to amaze me with their overflowing progressiveness.

[kaitykaity]

78. None of the above.

I think people who have served their time and paid their
debt to society should have their voting rights restored.

(I made a stupid mistake and was convicted of a felony
almost 15 years ago. I've very grateful Oregon restored
my right to vote once my probation was over.)

[iverglas]

81. let me ask you too

I'm dragging this thread around because I'd really like a few people to give this question some thought and maybe take a shot at answering it. My other posts address the issues that need thinking about.

I think people who have served their time and paid their
debt to society should have their voting rights restored.

And what do you think JUSTIFIES denying them the ability to vote in the first place?

[kaitykaity]

83. Conviction of a crime carries consequences.

Loss of some rights is one of those consequences.
Besides, even if the entire prison population could vote,
how many of them actually would? Do you know?

I haven't read your arguments yet about why all felons
should be allowed to vote, so I don't have anything else
to say about it.

I think your post is antagonistic, and I don't really feel
like being antagonized today.

Sorry.

[iverglas]

86. the moon is made of green cheese

Conviction of a crime carries consequences.
Loss of some rights is one of those consequences.

Does your saying it somehow make it so? If it is so, is it therefore necessarily right?

Being black used to carry a lot of consequences, too. Ditto being female, and being many other things. Funny how those consequences just weren't tolerable in a decent society.

Besides, even if the entire prison population could vote,
how many of them actually would? Do you know?

Do I care? What, is the fact that someone doesn't want to vote justification for denying him/her the ability to vote?

I think your post is antagonistic, and I don't really feel
like being antagonized today.

Charming, I'm sure.

I wonder how many prisoners feel like being disenfranchised.

[kaitykaity]

96. Yeah, like the attitude is going to swing my sense of

this issue over to your way of thinking.

NOT.

So you've lost one possible convert because
of the charming way you went about asking me
the question.

Not very smart, to my way of thinking.

:eyes:

[iverglas]

97. well I wonder

So you've lost one possible convert because
of the charming way you went about asking me
the question.

Were you actually planning on examining the basis of your opinions and considering changing them, had you never known of my existence at all?

Let me ask: did you read any of the other posts in this thread before posting your own opinion?

If not, and I'm willing to bet quite a lot on that option, why on earth would I think that you were actually planning to examine the basis of your opinions and consider changing them?

It's a clever person, a person of great integrity, who refuses to examine his/her own opinions and consider other people's because someone else was mean to him/her. Or who says that's the reason.

Yes indeed, people should be denied the ability to exercise fundamental democratic rights solely on the basis of how nice iverglas is to people who propose to do that. If I may quote you:

Not very smart, to my way of thinking.

And if I may respond: knowing what I do about that way of thinking, that opinion is about as worthy of my consideration and concern as the one initially expressed.

Ad personam argument may be good enough for some people, as the basis of their own opinions, but it doesn't do much to sway mine. And using it to sway anybody else's is nothin' but demagoguery. I'm sure that wasn't what you were doing, of course.

[kaitykaity]

101. Blah, blah, blah.

You ever read Plato? Socrates? Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance.

I have, and I know rhetoric consists of both form and
substance.

See, you lost me on the form before you could ever engage
me on the substance.

Your fault.

And I'm not going to let you batter me with some
latin or some high-sounding nonsense into engaging
on the substance.

[iverglas]

102. I hesitate mightily

But heck, you're still reading, so maybe you'll learn.

And I'm not going to let you batter me with some
latin or some high-sounding nonsense into engaging
on the substance.

An ad personam argument (the inclusive way of saying an ad hominem argument) is an argument that attacks the speaker and not what the speaker said.

Telling someone that one is not going to consider what s/he has said because s/he was not nice is an ad personam argument. It is actually no argument at all. And when one does it in public for the purpose of persuading other people not to listen to the speaker, or to regard what the speaker is saying as unworthy of consideration or somehow wrong, it is demagoguery. Just fyi.

You ever read Plato? Socrates? Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance.

No, my young friend. I do not have a degree in philosophy, or a degree in law; I did not bust my ass for many years practising law with the aim of enabling people to exercise their fundamental rights; I never taught that law to budding lawyers so that they could do the same; I have not spent many more years than that in the study of things like human rights. I'm sure that my complete lack of credibility on issues like these was obvious.

I have, and I know rhetoric consists of both form and
substance.

That would be really relevant and important if we were discussing "rhetoric" here.

What we're actually discussing is the existence of justification for violating some people's fundamental rights.

I doubt that you were ever taught that anyone's lousy rhetoric was good reason for dismissing his/her ideas. In fact, if you've studied all that stuff, I'm sure you must actually have learned about the invalidity of ad personam argument.

One of my favourite web sites has some advice in that respect:



http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/
(permission to reproduce granted there)

[kaitykaity]

107. See, you're not listening.

I'm being perfectly reasonable in saying that when you
started this little tete a tete, you started by copping
a serious attitide.

And I told you that by copping an attitude, you had lost
me as a possible convert to your way of seeing this because
you copped an attitude.

I'm using myself as an example for you to learn from in
the wider world. Because if you want people who aren't
die-hard DU shit-flickers like myself to listen you, you
need to stop copping attitide so that your listener won't
do what I did and tune out EVERYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE TO
SAY.

Oh, and by the way -- lecturing me with this latin BS?
You might be right about the ad personem or whatever.
It might not be "valid argument" to turn away from someone
just because they're being nasty. But people do it all
the time.

[iverglas]

109. yes ...

It might not be "valid argument" to turn away from someone
just because they're being nasty. But people do it all
the time.

But sincere people of good will who voluntarily enter a discussion of an important public policy issue, by stating an opinion, don't claim anyone else's attitude as their excuse for not defending or examining their opinion.

If you want to use yourself as an example of someone who does that, it's up to you.

If I were concerned about the opinions about what I say that are stated by people who blat out an opinion about something, and in so doing have already demonstrated no interest in the world in considering other people's opinions or any relevant information or argument that other people may have to offer on the subject, I'd have let you know by now.

The fact that someone pretends to be engaged in discussion of an issue doesn't mean that I have to believe that s/he actually is.

And I told you that by copping an attitude, you had lost
me as a possible convert to your way of seeing this because
you copped an attitude.

Let me say it one more time.

From very long experience, I have concluded that if someone actually *is* a possible "convert", s/he considers what other people have to say about a subject, often *before* making his/her pronouncement on it.

I have also found -- having indeed achieved a number of "conversions", particularly in the area of reproductive rights -- that challenging someone to reflect on the logic or decency of their own position is simply not a deal-breaker, since reasonable, decent people are generally at pains to ensure that what they say and do is consistent with their values.

When I hear someone expressing actual pride at closing his/her mind to such challenges for whatever non-reason s/he chooses to assert, I really don't feel a loss.

[kaitykaity]

115. Again, you are not listening.

People who enter discussion boards do it all the
time.

I'm not talking about people here.

I'm trying to tell you, for your own obviously difficult
and stubborn edification, that if you had started this
tete a tete with courtesy, I might have taken the trouble
to discuss the issue with you.

My point has been consistently that I will not trouble
myself to be abused by someone who is trying to tell
me how wrong I am about something.

No one else with half a mind will either.

So if you want to have a rational, reasonable discussion
with someone and try to change their mind about something,
try being a little bit nicer about it.

[iverglas]

123. I hear just fine

And here is exactly what you are saying.

You learned in a "rhetoric" class that people often respond to the emotional tone of what is said to them rather than to its content.

(And I pointed out that this is exploited by people who *want* others to respond to their emotional tone rather than to the content of what they say, and that such people are called demagogues.)

You used this fact, which is nothing but an empirical observation, as an justification for your refusal to listen to the content of what I said.

It just doesn't work that way, my dear child.

What you are offering is not an argument for refusing to listen to the content of what I said, it is a big ugly excuse. And that's dignifying it some.

My point has been consistently that I will not trouble
myself to be abused by someone who is trying to tell
me how wrong I am about something.

And my response *still* is that I don't give a shit.

Because someone who offers this kind of trumped-up excuse for not listening to what is said to him/her, AFTER s/he volunteered to participate in a discussion, has no interest in participating in a discussion and never did.

So if you want to have a rational, reasonable discussion
with someone and try to change their mind about something,
try being a little bit nicer about it.

You seem to be under the impression that I have tried to change your mind about something, and this may be your problem.

Here is the sum total of what I said in my initial post to you:

I'm dragging this thread around because I'd really like a few people to give this question some thought and maybe take a shot at answering it. My other posts address the issues that need thinking about.

<quoting you> "I think people who have served their time and paid their debt to society should have their voting rights restored."

And what do you think JUSTIFIES denying them the ability to vote in the first place?

The really obvious thing going on here is that you don't think you need to explain or defend the positions you publicly take about matters of important public policy. In this case, the matter in question is the violation of the rights of other people.

You regarded me asking you to explain/defend the position you had voluntarily stated in a public forum as rude, or mean, or some other irrelevant thing. That's not an uncommon reaction among people who can't explain/defend their opinions, and people who think that they should never be asked to explain/defend their opinions because their opinions are just as good as anybody else's (and probably better).

I don't subscribe to that opinion. I expect people who volunteer to state their opinions in public, particularly when they state their opinion that it is just fine by them for someone else's rights to be violated, to respond to question or comment reasonably and decently.

And I just don't fall for schoolgirl tricks like citing analyses of the way in which human beings respond to what others say and how they say it to justify refusing to engage in discourse civilly.

If you don't want people to question you and your opinions, your best course of action would clearly be not to bother announcing them to the public.

And if you actually expect someone else to believe that you have any intention of engaging in discourse, then your best bet is to do it, and not play games. They might trick some, but not me.

[Baltimoreboy]

108. Losing the right to vote is much like parole

Even though their CRIMINAL sentence might have passed, there are still effects of their crime.

Parole or probation mean that they may gradually be accepted back into society. Lack of voting means they never truly will be 100% accepted.

[iverglas]

110. yes, and pineapples are like prunes

"Losing the right to vote is much like parole"

The right to vote is a fundamental right of citizens.

Liberty is a fundamental right of human beings.

People's ability to exercise their rights may be restricted by society, where society demonstrates compelling reason for doing that.

I haven't seen you come up with any reason at all, other than your own preferences. Your preferences really just aren't grounds for denying someone else the exercise of rights. If they were, i.e. if someone else's preferences were grounds for denying you the exercise of your rights (the necessary corollary to your position), then -- as I think has been pointed out -- you might be finding yourself on a slow boat to China very soon.

Parole or probation mean that they may gradually be accepted back into society.

Actually, what it means is that there are still valid grounds for restricting their liberty in certain ways.

Lack of voting means they never truly will be 100% accepted.

Yeah, I guess it does. And I guess you can reject anybody to any extent you think wise and decent -- but society really has to have somewhat better grounds for what it does, when what it does involves violating a fundamental right of citizenship.

Since that doesn't concern you, there isn't much left to say.

Except to express delight that where I live there are a lot fewer people who "think" like you, and condolences to anyone in the US whose rights are violated, and lives ruined, because so many people do.

I do note that I've said quite a number of things in this thread -- offered facts and argument for my position -- and you haven't bothered to address any of them, preferring just to keep restating your opinion. I haven't a clue why you decided to do it in response to this post of mine, but there ya go.

[Baltimoreboy]

114. The right to life is a fundamental right

Murderers violate that and lose their rights in return.

Liberty is a fundamental right of members of a society. Criminals have voluntarily given up those rights. They have broken the contract that binds society.

Violent offenders remain a threat -- always. They are the worst of the worst our society produces. They should not be choosing our elected officials. Thankfully, they typically are not.

Parole or probation can last years or decades. Many criminals never live to see those rights returned.

Limiting voting is one means that for restricting their liberty in certain ways.

It is the right of society to set criminal sentences. We have done so. While we may reach a point to let criminals out of prison, we reserve the right to send them back for petty infractions (parole violations) and for the worst offenders (felons) we reserve the right to continue punishing them till the day they day. That punishment doesn't have to be in prison.

Personally, I will never accept a rapist or murderer back into any dealings in my life under any circumstances.

[noiretextatique]

84. it's completely arbitrary

there is no compelling reason to deny felons or ex-felons the right to vote. there is certainly no compelling reason for democrats to support the disenfranchisment of (mostly) poor people caught in the war on drugs criminalization scam.

[Redleg]

113. I agree with that.

Once a person has served their sentence and completed their parole, that person should be allowed to vote.

[troublemaker]

89. This is the most reliable question for spotting a closet Nazi

I've actually asked people this question on dates. There are a thousand reasons to like or dislike Bush or Republicans, but if someone thinks the government gets to strip people of their right to vote for any conceivable reason whatsoever he/she is a potential Nazi.

Voting is the definitive right of citizenship, not a privilege like driving and automobile on public roads.

Hence adult citizens can vote. Period. There is no fine print.

The government may never judge the motive or merit of any vote. If it could the government would act like any threatened institution and simply discount all votes cast for change in government as "wrong."

And if any question remains, imagine this: There's a proposal for a new highway that would alleviate traffic jams but would require demolishing a number of houses in its path. The highway proposal is to be decided by referendum. Should everyone get to vote on the highway, or should people whose houses are in the way be barred from voting because they are too close to the issue and they'll just vote out of self interest?

Now apply that scenario to the issue of prison reform.

[iverglas]

92. heh heh

In a word. Although I might say "fascist". ;)

Somebody who thinks it's just fine to deny someone else the ability to exercise a right, just on a whim ("I think ..."), might just be dim or not in the habit of engaging in critical thought.

But somebody who says it's just fine to deny someone else the ability to vote just 'cause, that's somebody with a pretty tenuous commitment to democracy itself.

[noiretextatique]

118. the article

"america's pathetic liberals" come to mind...again. i need to print it our and post it near my computer.

[banana republican]

93. They have paid their dues

why should they continue to be punished..

[Amarant]

99. Don't forget why republicans love

taking the vote from former inmates. They're racist pals make sure there is a massively disproportionately high number of minorities (i.e. likely democratic voters) who will no longer be able to vote.

This also may be why repubs don't commit more crimes than they probably want to - as they would lose the repub party votes.

[HEyHEY]

100. "Paying your debt to society" is just that - once finished - you're square

Let ex-felons vote. Suppose some guy gets busted on drug charges at age 19, when he's 40, with a wife, kid and a business - he shouldn't be allowed to vote????

[iverglas]

103. and of course you know ;)

... because you're Canadian ;) ... or at least because you read some of these posts ... that in Canada (apart from not having things called "felons") we not only let former inmates of penitentiaries and prisons vote, we let people who are currently incarcerated vote.

Because that's what our Constitution (which expresses our core values as a society, and in particular our belief in the equal worth and dignity of all individuals), as interpreted and applied by our Supreme Court, says we must do. Not that Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party gang acknowledge those core values much.

Prisoners really are just not paying a debt to society. They are being prevented from harming society by being segregated from it; they are being deterred from committing further offences; they are (theoretically) being rehabilitated so that they can be reintegrated into society; they are being punished for their illegal actions; and they are experiencing society's disapproval of what they did.

Civil law is about paying debts. Criminal law is about deterring crimes, protecting society and punishing offenders. No debt is paid by offenders who are sentenced; it just isn't possible to "pay" for a crime.

Prisoners, and people on parole or under other forms of sentences, are deprived of the ability to exercise certain rights for a certain period of time. Anything beyond what is rationally necessary for the purposes of the criminal law just isn't allowed.

[HEyHEY]

116. Youknow what really bugs me

I've seen a couple of Canadian TV shows that talk of Felonies and mistameanors. Seriouly, do the friggin writers not understand we don't use those terms?

(Thos who are curious, we call them indictable offences and summary convictions)

[iverglas]

122. and ...

Attorneys. And ninth grade, and grades (that's "marks"), and cub scouts ... and stop me while you still can. ;)

And yes, even on the bloody CBC.

[laylah]

105. They have paid their debt

to "society" and the victims...to stigmatize and punish them beyond their sentence is just plain WRONG...just my VHO, of course.

Jenn

[Baltimoreboy]

106. I'm sorry I raped your daughter or killed your son

But may I have my vote back now?

No.

[noiretextatique]

117. we have a mass murderer acting as pResident

what does commiting a crime, even a heinous one, have to do with voting for a political candidate? i'm not seeing the "logic" in your argument.

[Baltimoreboy]

119. I'm not voting for him either

But he hasn't been convicted, these felons have been.

[noiretextatique]

120. convicted of vote tampering?

it would make sense to restrict those convicted of that crime from voting. as to other crimes...it doesn't make much sense.

[HEyHEY]

121. I think we AFTER they get outta prison

Not too many rapists/murderers are given five year sentences

[Redleg]

112. I believe that once felons have served their time and completed

their parole they should be re-enfranchised.