Sorry I didn't agree with you but thanks for saying I think like a facist, coming from you it gives me warm fuzzies.

You can't defend your position beyond 'Its a right!' and no, its not, the supreme court said so.

HEY! I was the one that said you were like a 'facist' (you mean fascist, right?).

Cynth, you're acting like 9/11 happened because some 17 year old with a hard-on got a fake ID to get beer so he could nail the future alcoholic chick at the graduation party.

They found a terrorist's passport, remember?

No, I'm stating that fake identity and misrepresenting who you are is even more important in today's world. If you don't think so, that's you. Personally, I do.

You don't find that to be a felony offense. I do. There's lots you can do with fake papers.

I know it's ever-so-slightly off topic, but...I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that if we're going to play the post-9/11 game, then perhaps instead of evaluating our draconian penal laws in light of how safe the streets aren't because we're busting potheads, or how secure the country isn't because we're putting away teenagers making fake IDs, perhaps we might think about how the tens of billions of dollars we piss away every year pointlessly trying to keep people from smoking weed, or high school kids from drinking beer and going to strip clubs, might better be spent upping the ratio of shipping cargo screened in our ports from 1% to something less chillingly laughable; or perhaps coming up with a way not to have trains carrying toxic chemicals, flammable materials, or poisonous gases routed through our major cities each and every day; or providing actual training of TSA agents so that our airport security isn't an international joke, or enough air marshals so that each and every flight actually has guards on board.

Let's face it: who we send to jail, the way we enforce our criminal laws, and the way we treat our criminals, has absolutely jack squat to do with national security. It has everything to do with what color the criminals are, and who stands to profit from disenfranchising them, and who makes money off the vices that are legal, and has interests in keeping the illegal vices illegal.

Amen, brother.

Are you trying to say everyone's not treated equally in the US justice system?

I guess that would explain why folks like Jeff Skilling who as part of the Enron scheme bilked countless victims of, likely, billions of dollars. Many of whom lost their entire retirement savings. Is that why a guy like that is sitting in a Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota. A low security prison housing male inmates. A prison that formerly served as a University of Minnesota campus until 1992.

Wonder how many people of color siting in places like Angola for theft of less then $10,000 doing 25 years would trade places with him?

Another example of why we need a sarcasm tag :thumbsup:

Sock it to em!

Really? A tag? Thought I was laying it on pretty thick.

I'll try harder next time. It's hard work. We're working hard. Nine-Elev....

C'mon! One of these tag lines has to still work, right?

Oh I got it. But it was just a crossover from the scientology thread.

Roachboy, have you saved a seat at the "not playing" table for me? I'm done here and could use an adult beverage. :)

Post #38
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...88#post2398588

indicates that Ustwo is not interested or capable of a discussion on the subject of felons losing their voting rights. Below is another "sampel" of the writing of the author, Edward Feser, of Ustwo's lengthy article included in post #38.....supposedly to support Ustwo's objection to parolee voting:
I don't think I have read an article as offensive and partisan as Feser's, have you?

....This is what the controversy is really about. Bush, with no official recount permitted by the US Supreme Court to be completed in 2000, was leading Gore by about 500 votes. Bush's brother Jeb and Florida Secretary of State, a woman who simulataneously served as Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign chairperson, spent $4.3 million dollars to subcontract a voter purge list of 7purported felons, disqualifying 57,700 from the voting registries, and many did not discover this until they attempted to vote.
<h3>So they used a phoney felon purge list in Florida in 2000 to steal the US presidential election, and if you read on, you can see that Paul Weyrich advocated doing this, all the way back in 1981:</h3>
So, what this is "all about", can be found at the first few links in the goolge searh results, here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ge&btnG=Search
...it's about voter "caging"....preventing people from voting, and the national Republican party agreed in court, in a cease and desist order in the 1980's, to stop doing it, but they never did......

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what link there is between committing a felony and voting. How does voting contribute to their criminal activity?

I don't find it has anything to do with that.

I believe that jail time is not a deterrent to some criminals, criminal records are not a deterrent. And maybe for some the idea of becoming disenfranchised and losing a few of key civil rights like the right to bear arms and the ability to vote. People don't care about it thinking that it doesn't matter anyways, they'll still carry a gun, but when they actually attempt to participate within the system, they can be and will be denied.

Any statesman will not be so willing to help someone who isn't a voter as there is no reciprocity, just benevolence.

LOSING THE VOTE

that may be true, but so what, the person didn't go to jail. He got what he wanted, he didn't want to go to jail. There's no free lunches here in this world and that's what people seem to want. To get over or get something for nothing.

Understand that when there is due proces there is alot weighed here. Judges don't go callously into the night just incarcerating people without letting them know of the ramifications of pleading guilty. Pleading guilty removes another right to speedy trial. You waive that right by pleading guilty because they don't care how long until they follow due process.

The conservative position seems pretty clear to me......do the crime, not only should you do the time...you should be penalized for life. No second chances at a right of citizenship if you screw up once.

I guess the compassionate part comes in with the argument that they can move to another state.

BTW, nice cherry picking of ONE quote (probably the least relevant since most convicted felons - even the innocent ones - dont volunarily trade a guilty plea for the right to vote) from the Sentencing Project document. :thumbsup:

Felons not being able to find a job really has nothing to do with losing the right to vote.

While I won't hire a felon, I've never asked anyone if they voted in the last election as a criteria for hiring.

What is at issue here has nothing to do with the fairness of the system after you are out, but judgment, and once you are a felon I see no point in trusting your judgment on the next judge. All other issues are ancillary, and quite frankly I find the concept that because they can't vote they don't feel they 'belong' to society completely ludicrous.

Sure hes a rapist and a thief, but if he could ONLY vote and see he MATTERS , maybe he will change his ways!

Bullshit.

Well, my first post here on a sensitive subject. Sorry to blow dust off this oldie but goodie.

I personally am subjected to the lifelong punishment.

I worked as a nurse. Had a great career and family. My wife left me in the middle of the night while I was at work. I came home to an empty house. She had moved to her parents house taking EVERY possession with her. I had a pillow on the floor and piles of clothes, thats it.

I MISTAKENLY went to her parents house when they were not home, used a key and entered to get some of my stuff.

Felony burglary conviction, license gone and life sucks.

Now fast forward 15 years. Life is better, the ex still is bitter and tries to taint our daughter, but she is too smart.

Life is still hard, the problems. PA cannot expunge until you are 70 years old, 30 to go!

I cannot be a scout leader for my kids. I cannot be a volunteer in their school. I cannot be a baseball, basketball, football coach. I cant even sell used cars. Sure, I might be able to work at the salvation army.

Can I vote, yes, HELL YES, do I, HELL YES.

Criminal activities are at an all time high. People make mistakes. In the old days, they were taken home, scolded at the station, DUI drivers were driven home. NO ONE told us or educated us that this is a lifelong tattoo. There needs to be a place or point in time where someone can be whole again.

This part confuses me, maybe I'm missing something. So you have a felony conviction in the USA and can still vote? Is this something unique to your state? Which state do you live in (if you don't mind me asking)? Did you have to take Cynthetiq's advice and move to another state?

And on that note, I believe the rest of your post paints a pretty decent picture as to why offender stigmatism is very real... And punishes someone long after the offense has been paid for.

As a probation officer, I must attend sentencings for the defendants. Last week, I had a case where a twenty-one year old guy got convicted of a felony (drug related). He had spent time in a treatment facility and had letters from the counselors commending him on his behavior while at the facility along with letters from past employers. He completed the treatment, came back to face his punishment and the judge gave him his sentence, but also added that if he completed his probation without a problem, she'd remove the felony off of his record. So this guy has the chance to get a fresh start and hopefully he will take advantage of it.

This is just one example I have. I think a judge is more willing to remove the felony conviction if the person does seem regretful and makes an effort to get back on the right track. Plus, their criminal history has a lot to do with it.

So the sentence was probation? First offense, personal use?

And that is where the check and balance is in this country. The lawyers challenge the laws and a judge determines the outcome. I'm all for that kind of interpretation.

Sorry to revive an old thread, but I was cruising the John Howard Society's website and found this position paper:

http://www.jhslmbc.ca/files/articles/RightToVote.pdf
This offers a good summary of my general views on the subject. A fine ruling.