Felons and Voting - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

savmesom11 · 02-10-2008, 06:29 PM

In a couple of states (I believe Kentucky & Virginia) a convicted felon has his/her voting rights terminated permanently. It is possible for their rights to be restored with a pardon from the governor but this can take years to process. What do you think about a person's voting rights being terminated indefinitely? Do you think that these states should adopt the same procedures as the majority of the country and restore said rights once the debt to society has been repaid or do you think this privilege should remain revoked? If you believe the right should be restored, then after how long? What process if any should be in place? Should only certain felons rights be restored or all felons?

I believe that once a debt to society has been paid a person voting privileges should be restored without a process in place. I don't think it needs to be reviewed by anyone and the completion of parole/probation is suffice to make this determination. I also think this should apply for all felons, violent or non.

Tully Mars · 02-10-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savmesom11

In a couple of states (I believe Kentucky & Virginia) a convicted felon has his/her voting rights terminated permanently. It is possible for their rights to be restored with a pardon from the governor but this can take years to process. What do you think about a person's voting rights being terminated indefinitely? Do you think that these states should adopt the same procedures as the majority of the country and restore said rights once the debt to society has been repaid or do you think this privilege should remain revoked? If you believe the right should be restored, then after how long? What process if any should be in place? Should only certain felons rights be restored or all felons?

I believe that once a debt to society has been paid a person voting privileges should be restored without a process in place. I don't think it needs to be reviewed by anyone and the completion of parole/probation is suffice to make this determination. I also think this should apply for all felons, violent or non.

I agree. Done the time then you should be free to live the same as everyone else.

SSJTWIZTA · 02-10-2008, 06:48 PM

yeah. whats the story behind that anyway? why cant you vote if you have a felony?

snowy · 02-10-2008, 06:56 PM

My problem with laws like these is tied into my problem with mandatory minimums. We have made a lot of drug-related crimes into felonies, and in doing so, have dramatically increased the number of felons, especially those with lower socio-economic status. So by restricting felons who have done their time from voting, we are disenfranchising many of the poor in this country, as well as people of color.

Works nicely for rich white men, doesn't it?

MSD · 02-10-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSJTWIZTA

yeah. whats the story behind that anyway? why cant you vote if you have a felony?

Jim Crow laws.

savmesom11 · 02-10-2008, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

My problem with laws like these is tied into my problem with mandatory minimums. We have made a lot of drug-related crimes into felonies, and in doing so, have dramatically increased the number of felons, especially those with lower socio-economic status. So by restricting felons who have done their time from voting, we are disenfranchising many of the poor in this country, as well as people of color.

Works nicely for rich white men, doesn't it?

Onesnowyowl - oooohhhh we are one in the same. It amazes me that our government can silence nearly entire classes of people thereby eliminating the need to merge the gaps between them. God forbid we actually right some of the wrongs of this country, lets just continue to disengage them from society it's so much easier.

SSJTWIZTA · 02-10-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

Jim Crow laws.

oh, im reading up on those now..go wiki.

Tully Mars · 02-10-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

My problem with laws like these is tied into my problem with mandatory minimums. We have made a lot of drug-related crimes into felonies, and in doing so, have dramatically increased the number of felons, especially those with lower socio-economic status. So by restricting felons who have done their time from voting, we are disenfranchising many of the poor in this country, as well as people of color.

Works nicely for rich white men, doesn't it?

Couldn't have put it better myself.

host · 02-10-2008, 08:03 PM

We've discussed the way felon voting list "purging" has been used as a republican "minimuze the vote" "Op", over on the politics thread, for at least four years...here's an excerpt from on of my old posts:

Consider that, in 2000, we were told that republicans, Bush-Cheney won the popular vote in the state of Florida by about 500 votes, over the rival democratic candidates, Gore-Leiberman. Bush-Cheney had "help", though:
...the flawed history of state of Florida felon "voter purge lists", from Oct., 2004. There is much more info at the link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=55

....but here are excerpts of two main supporting points from the link, above:
Florida is one of six states that permanently strip voting rights to felons for life unless they petition to have them restored. One election-law expert who usually represents Democrats said the release of the list will rekindle the debate over disenfranchising voters. <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/02/State/Felon_voters_list_mad.shtml">http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/02/State/Felon_voters_list_mad.shtml</a>

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/felons/
Florida scraps list of suspected felons barred from voting

Monday, July 12, 2004 Posted: 3:59 PM EDT (1959 GMT)

(CNN) -- Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood has decided to scrap a list that was intended to keep more than 47,000 suspected felons from voting in November.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush agreed with the decision, his spokesman said Monday.

"The list will not be used," said Jacob DiPietre, a spokesman for Bush, whose state proved key to his brother's victory four years ago.

Hood decided over the weekend to dump the list, which was created by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, after <h3>news stories pointed out that the list included only 61 Hispanic names, DiPietre said.

The state's large Cuban population tends to vote Republican.......</h3>

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200408111...db0e300e7.html

Jeb's defiance makes case for automatic clemency

Palm Beach Post Editorial
Thursday, July 29, 2004

Gov. Bush is attacking the judiciary with way more than the usual Republican rhetoric. This time, he's resorted to outright defiance.

The governor couldn't have picked a more revealing way to display his anti-court venom than by spurning the July 14 opinion of the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee. The court told the state that it must help felons fill out a form needed to win back the right to vote after serving prison time. Rather than follow the court's dictate, Gov. Bush eliminated the form.

That's the kind of inexcusable defiance that makes Florida the focal point for national anxiety over the upcoming presidential election. Secretary of State Glenda Hood, who was appointed by Gov. Bush and reports to him, already has gone too far in defending an indefensible list of nearly 48,000 ex-felons who may or may not have been banned from voting. Fueling the conspiracy theories that Ms. Hood says are groundless, nearly half the names on the list belonged to African-Americans, who tend to vote for Democrats. Fewer than 100 belonged to Hispanics, who vote more often for Republicans than blacks do. Both parties are making strong appeals to Hispanic voters.

More than 50,000 felons were released from Florida prisons last year. About 85 percent must apply to get clemency. A year ago, the court found that about 125,000 inmates who completed their terms between 1992 and 2001 -- out of as many as 700,000 -- had not been properly notified of their right to clemency. Gov. Bush can't call the appellate court's ruling judicial activism. The court didn't make the law; the state did. Here is the wording: "The authorized agent (of the state) shall assist the offender in completing these forms... before the offender is discharged from supervision." The court "interpreted" that to mean the state must "assist the offender."

The governor whined that the form duplicates electronic filing methods and did away with the form. But the governor's plan doesn't order the Department of Correction to help inmates file electronically before they are discharged. Instead, it promises only that the state will put a notice in the mail. Rather than help people as they are about to leave custody, the state proposes tracking these transient residents after they leave. Additionally, the state is finding flaws in its central voter database, which lists all Florida voters. The errors on that list compounded the difficulty of screening out felons.

The long-term solution is for Floridians to change the state constitution to automatically restore voting rights of felons. Florida is one of seven states, including Mississippi and Alabama, that do not grant automatic clemency. State legislators chose to offer voters an amendment requiring parental notice of abortions, not one that would lift the Civil War-era ban on voting rights. The ban makes Florida look racist and uninterested in democracy. The governor's actions make him appear to be complicit.

Ustwo · 02-10-2008, 08:09 PM

I think America will survive without all its felons voting.

I'm not sure why 'doing ones time' suddenly makes someone all 'even' with citizens who never committed a felony.

But host is correct, this is to repress people likely to vote for democrats, you know, ex-cons.

host · 02-10-2008, 08:13 PM

and plenty more, here:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=22

..More than 50,000 felons were released from Florida prisons last year. About
85 percent must apply to get clemency. A year ago, the court found that about
125,000 inmates who completed their terms between 1992 and 2001 -- out of as
many as 700,000 -- had not been properly notified of their right to clemency.
Gov. Bush can't call the appellate court's ruling judicial activism. The
court didn't make the law; the state did. Here is the wording: "The authorized
agent (of the state) shall assist the offender in completing these forms...
before the offender is discharged from supervision." The court "interpreted"
that to mean the state must "assist the offender." http://www.freelists.org/archives/li.../msg00472.html

Terrell · 02-10-2008, 08:16 PM

What was that thing about "No taxation without representation"? I think that if one has served their time, their RIGHT to vote should be restored. Voting is not a privledge, it's a right. I also oppose the drug war (as mentioned earlier) as well as all the "vice" or consensual crime laws, so this no voting for ex-felons ever rubs me the wrong way on that level too.

Cynthetiq · 02-10-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrell

What was that thing about "No taxation without representation"? I think that if one has served their time, their RIGHT to vote should be restored. Voting is not a privledge, it's a right. I also oppose the drug war (as mentioned earlier) as well as all the "vice" or consensual crime laws, so this no voting for ex-felons ever rubs me the wrong way on that level too.

Don't forget that ex-felons also can no longer bear arms either, that right is also revoked in many states.

savmesom11 · 02-10-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I think America will survive without all its felons voting.

I'm not sure why 'doing ones time' suddenly makes someone all 'even' with citizens who never committed a felony.

But host is correct, this is to repress people likely to vote for democrats, you know, ex-cons.

Ustwo - You may be one of those perfect citizens I have read about but correct me if I am wrong, in the US we are supposed to be working toward rehabilitation. How on earth do you see people contributing (lawfully) to society if we continue to punish them long after their sentence has been served?

Cynthetiq · 02-10-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savmesom11

Ustwo - You may be one of those perfect citizens I have read about but correct me if I am wrong, in the US we are supposed to be working toward rehabilitation. How on earth do you see people contributing (lawfully) to society if we continue to punish them long after their sentence has been served?

IMO it's not just about being perfect but about NOT committing the crime in the first place. Deterence is an important thing in my book. People tended to behave in Singapore at the threat of capital punishment of caning.

In the city of NYC it is a felony to assault a bus driver. It is a feloy to assualt a flight attendent, would you consider them any different than assualting you or me? Why is assaulting them a more "powerful" crime than assualting me or you?

Ace_O_Spades · 02-10-2008, 08:50 PM

All I know is how things are done in Canada. You never lose your right to vote up here, and I don't think you ever should lose your right to vote. It's the cornerstone of democracy. Given how trumped up the war on drugs is and the net-widening that has occurred, it strikes me as wrong that so many people, particularly the poor and disadvantaged lose their right to vote.

That doesn't mean that politicians are pulling for the felon vote... They just don't exclude them either.

Ustwo · 02-10-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savmesom11

Ustwo - You may be one of those perfect citizens I have read about but correct me if I am wrong, in the US we are supposed to be working toward rehabilitation. How on earth do you see people contributing (lawfully) to society if we continue to punish them long after their sentence has been served?

Yes I'm perfect, I've never committed a felony.

Shocking, I know.

I don't believe in rehabilitation, its been proven that we do not rehabilitate prisoners we punish them, the concept of rehabilitation in this country was on religious lines.

I doubt the reason we have such a high recidivism is because they just don't feel they can contribute lawfully without the right to vote.

The only reason this is an issue is that ex-cons vote overwhelmingly for democrats, and we have had close elections in some states that don't allow felons to vote.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-10-2008, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

its been proven that we do not rehabilitate prisoners we punish them, the concept of rehabilitation in this country was on religious lines.

Perhaps that's your problem? Rehabilitation requires holistic community support. And feeling empowered to change the world around you through legitimate means (voting) would be a valuable step in providing this.

When your society tells you you're worthless, and you are actively stigmatized and marginalized for *gasp* making a mistake, you see the opportunities to change your lot in life through legitimate means disappear.

Labeling theory suggests that the very real marginalization and stigmatization offered by the label "criminal" or "felon" leads to secondary deviance, which is basically the self-fulfilling prophecy whereby people adopt the self-image that is foisted upon them by society at large. Hence, increased recidivism when there are not adequate measures to ensure reintegration back into the community after being released from an institution. All these people need is hope for a better life, and the means by which to achieve it.

Rehabilitation is possible, I've seen it work with my own eyes. However, the community has to buy into it first or it's just a buzz word.

Yeah yeah, I know what you're going to say I'm favouring the criminal over the victim. You can throw pretty much any crime-control dogma you want at me, I can take it. All I know is how unsatisfied victims are with even harsh sentences for the offender. They know they will be released with little to no rehabilitation, and they often live in fear because they do not know why they or their loved one was the target of the crime. What's the solution to this problem? It's not harsher sentences. I suggest you do some reading on Restorative Justice, and please for once, just once, leave your own opinions and biases at the door. If that's even possible.

Ustwo · 02-11-2008, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

Perhaps that's your problem? Rehabilitation requires holistic community support. And feeling empowered to change the world around you through legitimate means (voting) would be a valuable step in providing this.

Nope.

Quote:

When your society tells you you're worthless, and you are actively stigmatized and marginalized for *gasp* making a mistake, you see the opportunities to change your lot in life through legitimate means disappear.

A huge % of the country who CAN vote don't and they seem to not be committing felonies.

Quote:

Labeling theory suggests that the very real marginalization and stigmatization offered by the label "criminal" or "felon" leads to secondary deviance, which is basically the self-fulfilling prophecy whereby people adopt the self-image that is foisted upon them by society at large. Hence, increased recidivism when there are not adequate measures to ensure reintegration back into the community after being released from an institution. All these people need is hope for a better life, and the means by which to achieve it.

Psychobabble.

Quote:

Rehabilitation is possible, I've seen it work with my own eyes. However, the community has to buy into it first or it's just a buzz word.

Rehabilitation is the person wising up, not everyone stays a criminal but, like a diet, its up to them to want to change.

Quote:

Yeah yeah, I know what you're going to say I'm favouring the criminal over the victim. You can throw pretty much any crime-control dogma you want at me, I can take it. All I know is how unsatisfied victims are with even harsh sentences for the offender. They know they will be released with little to no rehabilitation, and they often live in fear because they do not know why they or their loved one was the target of the crime. What's the solution to this problem? It's not harsher sentences. I suggest you do some reading on Restorative Justice, and please for once, just once, leave your own opinions and biases at the door. If that's even possible.

Sorry no, they still can't vote, not theirs. You can get all flowery and such about rehabilitating criminals if you like but the system as is, is what is is, and as such its punishment. Therefore I have no problem with them not being able to vote. Maybe in the land of make believe, where the prisoners are in fact rehabilitated by the holistic community and gumdrop social workers are like the dog whisperer but for ex-cons, they should have the right to vote. This isn't the current reality.

Tully Mars · 02-11-2008, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

A huge % of the country who CAN vote don't and they seem to not be committing felonies.

So, some people who can vote don't and they don't seem to be committing felonies. And the logic here is? How exactly does that have anything to do with people who have committed felonies then completed any and all close custody and parole obligations?

Xazy · 02-11-2008, 06:50 AM

I do not see the problem. Maybe it is not much of a deterrent but it is part of the punishment for committing the crime in the first place. You do not like the end results do not commit a felony that simple. I do not care which party the person will or will not vote after, going to jail does not fix the fact fully that you broke the law. It is sort of like a rope you can cut a rope in half and tie it together again but it will never be as strong. Similarly you broke the trust and you violated the law, and this is part of the punishment, and do not ever fully get 100% back.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Ustwo · 02-11-2008, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

So, some people who can vote don't and they don't seem to be committing felonies. And the logic here is? How exactly does that have anything to do with people who have committed felonies then completed any and all close custody and parole obligations?

Its a minor point. I'm saying that voting itself really has no bearing on if someone is going to be a good citizen or not and claiming that somehow denying their right to vote keeps them from being a productive member of society is just silly.

"Well you know I wasn't going to rape that girl, but then I thought to myself, I can't vote so fuck her man, fuck her, I feel powerless!"

Gimmy a break.

Glory's Sun · 02-11-2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

I do not see the problem. Maybe it is not much of a deterrent but it is part of the punishment for committing the crime in the first place. You do not like the end results do not commit a felony that simple. I do not care which party the person will or will not vote after, going to jail does not fix the fact fully that you broke the law. It is sort of like a rope you can cut a rope in half and tie it together again but it will never be as strong. Similarly you broke the trust and you violated the law, and this is part of the punishment, and do not ever fully get 100% back.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I hope you never have kids

To sit here and say that trust can never be gained back 100% is ridiculous. There are people who will never be rehabilitated, but there are also quite a few who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.. now they have a felony record. How about the ones who are *GASP* wrongfully convicted?

I've never understood why a felon can't vote. In NC, I believe your right to vote is only revoked as long as you are parole/probation, after that it is reinstated. That makes sense. You did your time, you proved you went another 3, 5, 10, however many years without doing anything else.. you should be allowed a say in the country's most basic right. It's not like voting can hurt anyone. The law about felons not being able to carry firearms makes sense.. but seriously.. a ballot won't do much damage.. unless you live in Florida.

I'm also trying to figure out how a felon can be taxed if they can't vote.. taxation without representation??

Ustwo · 02-11-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

I hope you never have kids

To sit here and say that trust can never be gained back 100% is ridiculous.

So if the felon is your child feel free to trust them 100%. As they are not my children I feel less inclined to trust them. BTW I don't hire convicted felons, because you were in prison and got out doesn't make me suddenly think you are back to square one.

Quote:

I'm also trying to figure out how a felon can be taxed if they can't vote.. taxation without representation??

Perhaps they should throw some tea into Boston harbor as a protest. You know thats not a right, right?

Xazy · 02-11-2008, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

I hope you never have kids

To sit here and say that trust can never be gained back 100% is ridiculous. There are people who will never be rehabilitated, but there are also quite a few who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.. now they have a felony record. How about the ones who are *GASP* wrongfully convicted?

I've never understood why a felon can't vote. In NC, I believe your right to vote is only revoked as long as you are parole/probation, after that it is reinstated. That makes sense. You did your time, you proved you went another 3, 5, 10, however many years without doing anything else.. you should be allowed a say in the country's most basic right. It's not like voting can hurt anyone. The law about felons not being able to carry firearms makes sense.. but seriously.. a ballot won't do much damage.. unless you live in Florida.

I'm also trying to figure out how a felon can be taxed if they can't vote.. taxation without representation??

Considering I will be having a kid soon, ouch, below the belt, and I will just ignore it.

I do not think that there is a universal policy trust never can be earned back (but I do feel strongly some things once done can never be undone no matter what you do, an example on a personal note was an ex cheated on me, she did ask for forgiveness I forgave he years later, but i still would not go out with her again, that is a difference between rehabilitation since i know she was sorry, and full acceptance), but a felony is not a misdemeanor. And while yes there can be someone in the wrong place at the wrong time, I will not ask why the person was in the wrong place (but that is a good question), but we have trials, and like the Julie Amero case portrayed there is chances of huge travesty of injustice, but to think that in those cases the issue there is much larger then whether that person should be able to vote or not.

As far as rehabilitation I think that people can rehabilitate but part of rehabilitation is taking responsibility for your actions. The current policy is if you break our trust you can not vote, and be part of the decision process. If you have a qualm with that then do not violate the trust.

Glory's Sun · 02-11-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UsTwo

So if the felon is your child feel free to trust them 100%. As they are not my children I feel less inclined to trust them. BTW I don't hire convicted felons.

This is in your legal rights and entirely up to you.

However, I do often wonder how different the recidivism rates would be would more people not do this. A felon gets out of prison, serves probation and has what to look forward to? Umm well, nobody will hire them because they were a felon at one point.. how to feed the family?? I guess back on the streets slinging dope is the only answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaxy

Considering I will be having a kid soon, ouch, below the belt, and I will just ignore it.

I do not think that there is a universal policy trust never can be earned back (but I do feel strongly some things once done can never be undone no matter what you do, an example on a personal note was an ex cheated on me, she did ask for forgiveness I forgave he years later, but i still would not go out with her again, that is a difference between rehabilitation since i know she was sorry, and full acceptance), but a felony is not a misdemeanor. And while yes there can be someone in the wrong place at the wrong time, I will not ask why the person was in the wrong place (but that is a good question), but we have trials, and like the Julie Amero case portrayed there is chances of huge travesty of injustice, but to think that in those cases the issue there is much larger then whether that person should be able to vote or not.

As far as rehabilitation I think that people can rehabilitate but part of rehabilitation is taking responsibility for your actions. The current policy is if you break our trust you can not vote, and be part of the decision process. If you have a qualm with that then do not violate the trust.

Well, as I didn't know you were having a kid, I'll retract the statement somewhat. I basically threw it out there only to show that kids break trust constantly, yet most parents still trust them to make the right decisions as they get older.

We all know that there are some people who just can't be rehabilitated, and there are others who shouldn't vote. I just don't understand the blanket laws. If it's a sex crime against children, or murder, rape etc.. then ok.. you can't vote. But if you were in the car when the dude driving decided to run from the cops and it was stolen, or you just slung some dope.. serve your time, do your probation, if you stay clean.. then vote. It's pretty easy.

Cynthetiq · 02-11-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

I hope you never have kids

To sit here and say that trust can never be gained back 100% is ridiculous. There are people who will never be rehabilitated, but there are also quite a few who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.. now they have a felony record. How about the ones who are *GASP* wrongfully convicted?

I've never understood why a felon can't vote. In NC, I believe your right to vote is only revoked as long as you are parole/probation, after that it is reinstated. That makes sense. You did your time, you proved you went another 3, 5, 10, however many years without doing anything else.. you should be allowed a say in the country's most basic right. It's not like voting can hurt anyone. The law about felons not being able to carry firearms makes sense.. but seriously.. a ballot won't do much damage.. unless you live in Florida.

I'm also trying to figure out how a felon can be taxed if they can't vote.. taxation without representation??

I'd say even with some parents trust isn't 100% returned. It may feel like it, it may be like it is there, but it isn't. I'd agree with 99.999999999999999% but there is ALWAYS some shadow of doubt that some people will have. That is what makes a community a community.

I was curious as to what the law really is and where the origins of voting within the 14th Amendment.

Quote:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

I also found RICHARDSON v. RAMIREZ which was found by the USSC to not be in violation of the 14th Amendment. It is an interesting read.

Ustwo · 02-11-2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

This is in your legal rights and entirely up to you.

However, I do often wonder how different the recidivism rates would be would more people not do this. A felon gets out of prison, serves probation and has what to look forward to? Umm well, nobody will hire them because they were a felon at one point.. how to feed the family?? I guess back on the streets slinging dope is the only answer.

http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Job-With-a-Criminal-Record

There are only two types of jobs I hire for.

One handles money directly.
One works on children daily.

Neither are what I'd feel very comfortable with, hiring a convicted felon, as any issues they have become my problem.

levite · 02-11-2008, 08:05 AM

Voting is a right. Pure and simple. If you're a citizen of the USA, you get to vote in elections. I have no problem with that right being suspended for the duration of someone's term in prison, but once they get out, they should get back as many of their fundamental rights as we can give them. Obviously, if someone is a violent criminal, we should restrict their right in the matter of access to arms, but there's no excuse for restricting their access to the ballot box.

The criminal justice system in the US is joke, anyway. We spend all our money trying to put people in jail for using drugs, and instead end up not having any resources to prosecute conglomerates and commercial monopolies that defraud people, cheat them, and manipulate our resources, and our access to free information, and our access to reasonably-priced medication. Prison in America is about the rich and powerful, who are mostly white, finding someplace off the streets to stash the poor and the sick, who are mostly black and Latino and Asian. Prison is what we do in the US instead of actually fixing our problems.

So of course it makes sense that if we can find a way to disenfranchise the poor, the sick, and the minorities along the way.... That's the American way.

Xazy · 02-11-2008, 08:10 AM

Felons have more problems then a job at times. They may not be able to get some student loans, be kicked out of public housing, and voting issue as well. All these things are deterrents, and while not a part of the 'jail time' comes with the fact that you did a Felony.

The question not asked here where we should start is what is a felony, and think of the type of crime that entails it, and why it is punished so.

Wikipedia

Quote:

What is a felony and who commits one?

Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud.

Some offenses, though similar in nature, may be felonies or misdemeanors depending on the circumstances. For example, the illegal manufacture, distribution or possession of controlled substances may be a felony, although possession of small amounts may be only a misdemeanor. Possession of a deadly weapon may be generally legal, but carrying the same weapon into a restricted area such as a school may be viewed as a serious offense, regardless of whether or not there is intent to use the weapon.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-11-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Snip.

I am exceedingly glad I don't live in your country. You guys are a pack of wolves. You just flat out ignore years of social science research and proven social work.

Kudos, I can see how your society got to where it is today.

Glory's Sun · 02-11-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Felons have more problems then a job at times. They may not be able to get some student loans, be kicked out of public housing, and voting issue as well. All these things are deterrents, and while not a part of the 'jail time' comes with the fact that you did a Felony.

The question not asked here where we should start is what is a felony, and think of the type of crime that entails it, and why it is punished so.

Wikipedia

uugh, more wiki "science" I'm really sick of everyone thinking that a wiki entry is the be all end all. (sorry not directed at you entirely.. just something I've noticed in alot of places)

A felony is so different in so many states. While the most basic violent crimes will be felonies in all states, there are some states that have crazy laws that do nothing but created felons. So we can't really start with what is a felony. We should start with what shouldn't be a felony. Who commits felonies? Lots of people.. from the poor to the rich.. the black the white.. that's an easy answer.

I guess now that I'm thinking about it.. I guess felons do vote.. they just haven't been caught; and more than likely they're also the ones running for office.

Ustwo · 02-11-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

I am exceedingly glad I don't live in your country. You guys are a pack of wolves. You just flat out ignore years of social science research and proven social work.

Kudos, I can see how your society got to where it is today.

Yes its people like me's fault.

Hard working, law abiding family men who take personal responsibility for their actions.

Recidivism rates in Canada are 83.2% (but only 62% for sex offenders, go Canada!), but you keep on living on Gumdrop Island. http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/sexoffr.PDF

Now if you excuse me I have a job applicant here, I'll be sure to ask her if she has been convicted of a felony.

Rekna · 02-11-2008, 08:38 AM

"As frank as I can be, we're opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don't tend to vote Republican."

Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors

I don't see any logic in taking away their vote. I see logic in taking away their guns, but their vote.... they can't harm anyone with their vote.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-11-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Recidivism rates in Canada are 83.2% (but only 62% for sex offenders, go Canada!), but you keep on living on Gumdrop Island. http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/sexoffr.PDF

I know of the study in which you speak. We actually studied that study in my corrections class at university. I also have a study that shows why the methodology of studies such as that are not uncommon and are rife with errors.

Quote:

RESULTS BY DESIGN: THE ARTEFACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH RECIDIVISM RATES FOR SEX OFFENDERS

Cheryl Marie Webster
Department of Criminology
University of Ottawa

Rosemary Gartner and Anthony N. Doob
Centre of Criminology
University of Toronto

A recently published article by Langevin, Curnoe, Fedoroff, Bennett, Langevin, Peever, Pettica, and Sandhu (2004) reports a recidivism rate of 88.3% for sex offenders. A detailed analysis of the study demonstrates that this unusually high level is uninterpretable because the offenders whose criminal careers were followed are unlikely to be representative of sex offenders in general. Furthermore, the measure of recidivism used in the study not only distorts the normal meaning of recidivism but also artefactually creates an inflated – and consequently meaningless – recidivism rate.

Why recidivism rates are hard to calculate and at times can be essentially meaningless: Linky

Recidivism is a poor calculator of the success of justice initiatives because it ignores the fact that our crime problems stem from underlying social issues. The system essentially sets people up to fail so they can go back to prison. Then people can look at the recidivism rate and go, "Gosh, you guys have a huge problem! We need to lock people up for longer so they don't reoffend anymore" without actually addressing why people got there in the first place.

Ustwo, if you actually have the ability to comprehend what someone who doesn't agree with you is saying, listen to this:

I don't blame the hardworking American who is law-abiding. Good for you for making the most of your life and being prosperous. Honestly. But some people have the misfortune to be sexually assaulted as a child, or have an excessively abusive parent, or live in such impoverished conditions that they cannot meet the basic necessities of life. These are the underlying factors that cause criminality. This is not in the developing world, this is happening in BOTH our countries.

I blame the attitude that people who make a mistake are disposable people who deserve to be cast aside with no future prospects for reintegration or rehabilitation. I blame crime-control proponents who commodify prisoners in private institutions, and don't WANT them to be released because they provide a source of cheap labour. What happens when you turn the management of your prisons over to corporations? You get statements like, "Private prisons are like a hotel that will be booked solid to the end of the century!" (I would cite my source, but it's an ad from an American corrections journal in a journal article in a collected works published by my university.)

Yeah right, we live in gumdrop fairy tale land

(ooh I can use the rolling eye emoticon too!), but you're the ones with the massive crime problems that aren't being solved through increasingly harsh sentences.

roachboy · 02-11-2008, 09:11 AM

could one of the folk who likes (for whatever reason) to link having been convicted of a felony AND served one's time--to anything at all to do with the right to vote thereafter explain the logic that links the two?

so far as i can tell from the thread, all i see is "i don't like these people"--that isn't an argument.
it's an arbitrary statement of an aesthetic position--on the order of not liking hamburgers or peas.

seriously--that ustwo for example wouldn't hire someone who did time to work in his office has NOTHING to do with whether ex-felons should or should not have the right to vote.

come on folks: at least make an effort to be logical....dissociation isn't pretty.

Xazy · 02-11-2008, 09:38 AM

here is one quote can not find the exact link.

Quote:

As Roger Clegg, president of the conservative advocacy group Center for Equal Opportunity, neatly puts it, "If you aren't willing to follow the law, you can't claim the right to make the law for everyone else."

The second thought that I see is that most felony crimes is infringing on someone else's rights, and therefore you can not expect everyone else to give you an extra right / privilege (i say extra since the right to vote is not a constitutional right).

Ustwo · 02-11-2008, 09:41 AM

Rather than spend more time on this I'll go hostal and give you an article in its entirety which sums up a lot of my feelings on the subject. It took me 10 seconds to goggle it of course.

Quote:

Should Felons Vote?
Edward Feser
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_felons.html
Forty-eight states currently restrict the right of felons to vote. Most states forbid current inmates to vote, others extend such bans to parolees, and still others disenfranchise felons for life. A movement to overturn these restrictions gained swift momentum during the 2004 presidential campaign, and pending legal and legislative measures promise to keep the issue in the headlines in the months to come. It hasn’t escaped notice that the felon vote would prove a windfall for the Democrats; when they do get to vote, convicts and ex-cons tend to pull the lever for the Left. Had ex-felons been able to vote in Florida in 2000—the state permanently strips all felons of voting rights—Al Gore almost certainly would have won the presidential election.

Murderers, rapists, and thieves might seem to be an odd constituency for a party that prides itself on its touchy-feely concern for women and victims. But desperate times call for desperate measures. After three national electoral defeats in a row, the Democrats need to enlarge their base. If that means reaching out to lock in the pedophile and home-invader vote, so be it. Even newly moderate Democrat Hillary Clinton has recently endorsed voting rights for ex-cons. This is inclusiveness with a vengeance.

The liberal advocates and Democratic politicians seeking the enfranchisement of felons deny any narrow political motivation, of course. Their interest is moral, they claim: it is just wrong to deny felons the vote. Their various arguments in support of this conclusion, though, fail to persuade.

The most frequently heard charge is that disenfranchising felons is racist because the felon population is disproportionately black. But the mere fact that blacks make up a lopsided percentage of the nation’s prison population doesn’t prove that racism is to blame. Is the mostly male population of the prisons evidence of reverse sexism? Of course not: men commit the vast majority of serious crimes—a fact no one would dispute—and that’s why there are lots more of them than women behind bars. Regrettably, blacks also commit a disproportionate number of felonies, as victim surveys show. In any case, a felon either deserves his punishment or not, whatever his race. If he does, it may also be that he deserves disenfranchisement. His race, in both cases, is irrelevant.

But look where the laws preventing felons from voting arose, the advocates say: in bigoted post–Civil War legislatures, keen to keep newly emancipated blacks away from the ballot box. These laws are utterly racist in origin, like poll taxes and literacy tests. But this argument fails on two counts. First, as legal writer Roger Clegg notes, many of the same studies appealed to by felon advocates show that the policy of disenfranchising felons is as old as ancient Greece and Rome; it made its way to these shores not long after the American Revolution. By the time of the Civil War, 70 percent of the states already had such laws.

Second, even if felon disenfranchisement did have a disreputable origin, it wouldn’t follow that the policy is bad. To think otherwise would be to commit what logicians call the genetic fallacy. Say Abraham Lincoln drafted the Emancipation Proclamation purely for cynical political reasons, or to exact vengeance on rebellious Southern plantation owners, or just to get rid of some unneeded scratch paper. It would be silly to suggest that therefore freeing the slaves wasn’t a good thing.

Felon advocates also argue that to prevent felons from voting, especially after their release from prison, unfairly punishes them twice for the same crime. On this view, the ex-con pays his debt to society by doing time and should suffer no further punishment. But this begs the question at issue: should a felon lose his vote as well as spend time behind bars? Few people would say that the drunk driver sentenced by a judge to lose his driver’s license and to pay a hefty fine is punished twice. Most would agree that, given the crime, this one punishment with two components is perfectly apt. Similarly, those who support disenfranchising felons do not believe in punishing criminals twice for the same misdeed; they believe in punishing them once, with the penalty including both jail time and the loss of the vote. A punishment of incarceration without disenfranchisement, they plausibly maintain, would be too lenient.

The claim that disenfranchising felons is wrong because the right to vote is basic and inalienable—another common argument of the advocates—is no more convincing. Obviously, the right is not basic and inalienable in any legal sense, since the laws banning murderers, thieves, and other wrongdoers from voting have stood for a long time. Nor is the right basic and inalienable in a moral sense. Even John Locke, the English philosopher generally regarded as having the greatest influence on the American founding, didn’t view the franchise in that light. True, Locke believed that all human beings had certain rights by nature (such as rights to life, liberty, and property), that government existed to protect those rights, and that any legitimate government had to rest on the tacit consent of the people. But the government that the people consented to did not need to be democratic, in Locke’s view—it might even be monarchical.

As long as it protected the basic rights of citizens and retained their loyalty, it remained legitimate, whether or not it allowed its citizens to vote.

Further, Locke added, under certain circumstances we can lose even the rights we do have by nature. Someone who violates another’s rights to life, liberty, and property forfeits his own rights to these things; society can legitimately punish him by removing these rights. The criminal has broken the social compact and violated the trust of his fellow citizens. He cannot reasonably complain if they mete out to him a measure of the very harm that he has inflicted on them. Their doing so is a means of dissuading others from breaking the social contract.

Seen in this light, disenfranchisement seems a particularly appropriate punishment for felons. The murderer, rapist, or thief has expressed contempt for his fellow citizens and broken the rules of society in the most unmistakable way. It’s fitting that society should deprive him of his role in determining the content of those rules or electing the magistrate who enforces them.

A New York Times editorial this past February favored felon voting—no surprise there—but put forward a different rationale. The disenfranchisement of felons, the paper held, “may actually contribute to recidivism by keeping ex-offenders and their families disengaged from the civic mainstream”—a notion “clearly supported by data showing that former offenders who vote are less likely to return to jail.”

The Times’s argument is at least more serious than those considered so far. Still, it doesn’t fly. Recidivism doubtless is also less common among ex-cons who return their videos on time. That doesn’t mean they should be rewarded with free rental privileges at Blockbuster. More to the point, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to the Times that it might be misinterpreting the (alleged) causal connection between voting and keeping out of trouble. Surely it’s at least plausible—in fact, quite plausible—that it is precisely the sort of person disposed to learn from his mistakes and become more conscientious who is likely to vote in the first place. That is, it isn’t that voting makes someone responsible but that the responsible person will be likelier to vote.

If that’s true, then a former inmate who already has what it takes to clean up his act isn’t likely to relapse into a life of crime just because he can’t cast a ballot. By the same logic, an ex-con hell-bent on new rapes and muggings isn’t going to turn over a new leaf just because he gets to vote—even if it’s to vote for a Democrat. The notion that he might is pure sentimentality. It assumes that deep inside the typical burglar or car jacker lurks a Morgan Freeman–type character, full of world-weary wisdom and latent civic virtue. A neoconservative, some say, is a liberal mugged by reality. A felon-vote advocate seems to be a liberal who has seen The Shawshank Redemption one too many times.

It would be a tall order for any moral or political theory, let alone the Lockean one central to the American tradition, to make a convincing case that the disenfranchisement of felons is particularly unjust. How is depriving felons of the vote worse than stripping them of their freedom by incarcerating them? Surely the right to liberty is far more basic and fundamental than the franchise. Yet few would deny that it’s legitimate to deprive serious criminals of their liberty. To do so, after all, would be to deny the possibility of criminal justice.

Perhaps, though, some advocates of felon voting have trouble with the basic concept of criminal justice. Traditional notions of desert, punishment, and retribution aren’t in fashion among those whose hearts bleed more for perpetrators than for victims. The movement to give felons the vote may be a sign that the tough-on-crime New Democrat is as passé as the Kerry campaign: for a whiff of the criminal-as-victim mind-set seems to surround the whole enterprise. The Times editorial coos over unnamed “democracies abroad” that “valu[e] the franchise so much that they take ballot boxes right to the prisons.” It would have been more accurate to say that they “value the idea of individual responsibility so little that they take ballot boxes right to the prisons.”

Such countries devalue the franchise by throwing it away on murderers and other criminals, whose fellow citizens’ blood is still fresh on their hands. Such hands can only defile a ballot. If the right to vote is as precious as felon advocates claim to believe it is, we should expect people to uphold at least some minimum moral standards in order to keep it—such as refraining from violating their fellow voters’ own inalienable rights.

Those pushing for felon voting will thus need to come up with much better arguments before they can hope to convince their fellow citizens. They ought at least to try. People might otherwise begin to suspect that the hope of gaining political advantage is the only reason they advocate reform.

Edit: Hehe found a nice line for my sig there too.

roachboy · 02-11-2008, 09:44 AM

ustwo:

that is a ridiculous article.

how about you lay out YOUR logic, if there is any?

Willravel · 02-11-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I think America will survive without all its felons voting.

America would survive without a conservative vote, too, but it's not about survivability at all. It's about the right to vote. When felons are released, are they allowed free speech? Are they allowed free religion? Of course.

The theft of their right to vote is an injustice and sets dangerous precedent.

02-10-2008, 06:29 PM	#1 (permalink)
savmesom11 Insane	Felons and Voting In a couple of states (I believe Kentucky & Virginia) a convicted felon has his/her voting rights terminated permanently. It is possible for their rights to be restored with a pardon from the governor but this can take years to process. What do you think about a person's voting rights being terminated indefinitely? Do you think that these states should adopt the same procedures as the majority of the country and restore said rights once the debt to society has been repaid or do you think this privilege should remain revoked? If you believe the right should be restored, then after how long? What process if any should be in place? Should only certain felons rights be restored or all felons? I believe that once a debt to society has been paid a person voting privileges should be restored without a process in place. I don't think it needs to be reviewed by anyone and the completion of parole/probation is suffice to make this determination. I also think this should apply for all felons, violent or non. __________________ * I do not believe that struggles are a sign of life falling apart, but rather a step of life falling into place. *

02-10-2008, 06:48 PM	#3 (permalink)
SSJTWIZTA Master Thief. Master Criminal. Masturbator. Location: Windiwana	yeah. whats the story behind that anyway? why cant you vote if you have a felony? __________________ First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for me And there was no one left to speak out for me. -Pastor Martin Niemoller

02-10-2008, 06:56 PM	#4 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	My problem with laws like these is tied into my problem with mandatory minimums. We have made a lot of drug-related crimes into felonies, and in doing so, have dramatically increased the number of felons, especially those with lower socio-economic status. So by restricting felons who have done their time from voting, we are disenfranchising many of the poor in this country, as well as people of color. Works nicely for rich white men, doesn't it? __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

02-10-2008, 08:09 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I think America will survive without all its felons voting. I'm not sure why 'doing ones time' suddenly makes someone all 'even' with citizens who never committed a felony. But host is correct, this is to repress people likely to vote for democrats, you know, ex-cons. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-10-2008, 08:50 PM	#16 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	All I know is how things are done in Canada. You never lose your right to vote up here, and I don't think you ever should lose your right to vote. It's the cornerstone of democracy. Given how trumped up the war on drugs is and the net-widening that has occurred, it strikes me as wrong that so many people, particularly the poor and disadvantaged lose their right to vote. That doesn't mean that politicians are pulling for the felon vote... They just don't exclude them either. __________________ Feh.

02-10-2008, 08:13 PM	#11 (permalink)
host Banned	and plenty more, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=22 ..More than 50,000 felons were released from Florida prisons last year. About 85 percent must apply to get clemency. A year ago, the court found that about 125,000 inmates who completed their terms between 1992 and 2001 -- out of as many as 700,000 -- had not been properly notified of their right to clemency. Gov. Bush can't call the appellate court's ruling judicial activism. The court didn't make the law; the state did. Here is the wording: "The authorized agent (of the state) shall assist the offender in completing these forms... before the offender is discharged from supervision." The court "interpreted" that to mean the state must "assist the offender." http://www.freelists.org/archives/li.../msg00472.html

02-10-2008, 08:16 PM	#12 (permalink)
Terrell Insane Location: Orlando, Florida	What was that thing about "No taxation without representation"? I think that if one has served their time, their RIGHT to vote should be restored. Voting is not a privledge, it's a right. I also oppose the drug war (as mentioned earlier) as well as all the "vice" or consensual crime laws, so this no voting for ex-felons ever rubs me the wrong way on that level too.

02-11-2008, 06:50 AM	#21 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	I do not see the problem. Maybe it is not much of a deterrent but it is part of the punishment for committing the crime in the first place. You do not like the end results do not commit a felony that simple. I do not care which party the person will or will not vote after, going to jail does not fix the fact fully that you broke the law. It is sort of like a rope you can cut a rope in half and tie it together again but it will never be as strong. Similarly you broke the trust and you violated the law, and this is part of the punishment, and do not ever fully get 100% back. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

02-11-2008, 08:05 AM	#29 (permalink)
levite Minion of Joss Location: The Windy City	Voting is a right. Pure and simple. If you're a citizen of the USA, you get to vote in elections. I have no problem with that right being suspended for the duration of someone's term in prison, but once they get out, they should get back as many of their fundamental rights as we can give them. Obviously, if someone is a violent criminal, we should restrict their right in the matter of access to arms, but there's no excuse for restricting their access to the ballot box. The criminal justice system in the US is joke, anyway. We spend all our money trying to put people in jail for using drugs, and instead end up not having any resources to prosecute conglomerates and commercial monopolies that defraud people, cheat them, and manipulate our resources, and our access to free information, and our access to reasonably-priced medication. Prison in America is about the rich and powerful, who are mostly white, finding someplace off the streets to stash the poor and the sick, who are mostly black and Latino and Asian. Prison is what we do in the US instead of actually fixing our problems. So of course it makes sense that if we can find a way to disenfranchise the poor, the sick, and the minorities along the way.... That's the American way. __________________ Dull sublunary lovers love, Whose soul is sense, cannot admit Absence, because it doth remove That thing which elemented it. (From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

02-11-2008, 08:38 AM	#34 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	"As frank as I can be, we're opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don't tend to vote Republican." Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors I don't see any logic in taking away their vote. I see logic in taking away their guns, but their vote.... they can't harm anyone with their vote.

02-11-2008, 09:11 AM	#36 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	could one of the folk who likes (for whatever reason) to link having been convicted of a felony AND served one's time--to anything at all to do with the right to vote thereafter explain the logic that links the two? so far as i can tell from the thread, all i see is "i don't like these people"--that isn't an argument. it's an arbitrary statement of an aesthetic position--on the order of not liking hamburgers or peas. seriously--that ustwo for example wouldn't hire someone who did time to work in his office has NOTHING to do with whether ex-felons should or should not have the right to vote. come on folks: at least make an effort to be logical....dissociation isn't pretty. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-11-2008, 09:44 AM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ustwo: that is a ridiculous article. how about you lay out YOUR logic, if there is any? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite