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

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

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?

Jim Crow laws.

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.

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

Couldn't have put it better myself.

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>

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Nope.


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


Psychobabble.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

I hope you never have kids :rolleyes: 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??

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

http://www.youngwriterssociety.com/y...ar-no-evil.jpg

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.

Yes its people like me's fault.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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 :rolleyes: (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.

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.

here is one quote can not find the exact link.

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).

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.

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

ustwo:

that is a ridiculous article.

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

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.

Isn't that convenient... Avoid commenting on any of the counterpoints I make to your position.

Attempting to have debate with you is like running headlong into a brick wall over and over. I don't know why I bother.

http://angryflower.com/pathof.gif

I'm glad you found it ridiculous, I don't think it is, I might be worried if you found it logical.

My logic is they have forfeited their right to participate in electing people to office by their obvious 'bad' choices.

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.

I have no problem with this.

I know thats MILLIONS of disenfranchised democrats out there, but really you will have to forgive me for not caring ;)

'Convicted Felons for Obama' has a nice ring to it of course.


Precedent? This isn't something new, their is no 'slippery slope' here. This is democrats trying to get more of their supporters voting. If in some bizzaro world convicted felons voted republican I don't think anyone supporting this wold be talking about 'basic' rights.

Now me, I can't imagine such a world as its obvious that felons really feel kinship with the democrats, but if they for some reason started to vote republican I'd like to think I'd stick with my principles.

figures that the lynchpin of the non-argument you have is your assumption that what is at issue--removing the right to vote from ex-felons--would affect the democrats (the Them) and not the far right (the Us)...that way you dont need any logic.

additionally, locking these people out of the political process is a guarantee that recidivism will if anything rise--because you treat conviction of a felony like original sin without the jesus part in the fable-world of xtianity--no possibility of redemption, no possibility of becoming a citizen--and there is no more basic right than citizenship, than voting---so were anyone not already on the lunatic fringe of the right to take your position seriously, its result would be an expansion of a category of non-citizen, the creation of a new and improved space of powerlessness. way to go. good thing you're nowhere near having any power.


that's why i'm done with this nonsense---but if your remaining credibility is of any concern, why not take on the points ace-o-spades has made against you.

if you can't manage a logical response, maybe you'll fare better defending your specious data.

Dude you haven't said anything worthy of debate.

I don't agree with you, I don't think that giving felons the right to vote does ANYTHING to help with recidivism, you have no proof of it helping.

You are being all flowery and such, but in reality I don't see a difference.

What exactly do you want me to debate?

don't all crimes, misdemeanor or felony infringe upon a person's right in some way shape or form??

If you want to take away the right to vote, then don't tax them.. if you want your money then let them vote.

"We can take away your right to vote if we feel like it."
I don't remember saying it was new, it's just a foot that's been in the door for quite some time that a bad leader could use to his or her advantage to say that more people can't vote.

Your ascertain that they're all Democrat is clearly just a veiled insult at Democrats and is thus ignored.

You mean I could opt out of voting and opt out of taxes?

:hyper:

You know I think I know how to get that socialist government so many people on TFP want.

Of course when all the conservatives opt out of voting, who's going to pay for the programs? :sad:

Anyways outside of a slogan in the 1700's voting and taxation are not linked.

well fuck, if I'm a felon and can't do shit anyway.. what the fuck do I care about what programs are out there?? They aren't doing me any good.

That article is stupid. It compares a drunk driver losing their license to a felon losing their vote. Here is a question for you, how did the felon use his vote to commit the crime? Is there any way that a felon being able to vote aided them or will aide them in past and future criminal activity?

The only reason states don't allow it is to disenfranchise the vote.

Good point Rekna, and to add on there's nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights about drivers licenses.

This is a prime example. guccilvr is a smart guy who is more than capable of making a good decision when it comes to voting, and who is effected by votes. He's not getting representation, and that's not fair.

BTW, guccilvr, would you characterize your political philosophy as liberal or conservative? Just curious.

FTFY

You're right, the comparison isn't equitable.

Drunk driving isn't a felony, but only a misdemeanor. Drunk driving killing someone isn't a felony either. It's also a misdemeanor.

Murder is a felony.

More than 30 grams of MJ is a felony, too. That's about a fistful.

There is nothing about abortion in the constitution or bill of rights either, but it is a right. So the lesson should be, just because it isn't specifically listed does not mean the right does not exist.

Having crack cocaine is a felony also but having powdered cocaine is not.

People convicted of using crack cocaine are predominantly black, people convicted of using powdered cocaine are predominantly white.

This is not always correct. For instance, in TX, driving without a license is a class C misdemeanor punishable only by a fine. In Illinois, driving without a drivers license is a Class C felony upon your second conviction. Don't even have to be drunk.

All I said was it's not in the Constitution or BOR. Am I wrong? Stop adding more to my posts in your head. I said nothing about the drivers license being a right in this thread.

I don't associate with any party.. but I'm on the liberal side of things.

I too can claim perfection then as I haven't committed a felony either. However; high recidivism rates can be directly attributed to loss of rights, voting may not be the strongest of them but a loss none the less.

And to clarify the question was not why do you think the government continues to withhold rights from convicted felons but what 'we' as citizens believe is right. I could give a laundry list of why I think things are the way they are but that is for another post.

did you not imply that by <insert random subjet here> not being in the constitution or bill of rights, that means that <again, random subject> isn't a right?

If that's not why you brought it up then I don't understand why it was even compared to voting.

As a social worker I take that as a direct attack, but I would just like to say this world is lucky to have people like me.....we protect others from people like you.

Xazy - Thank you so much, I don't have to agree with you to respect your opinion.

I see what you did there... "I make a point, and even if you provide evidence that suggests my point is possibly based on some faulty assumptions, I can say 'there's nothing to debate here, move along' and hope you go away"

There is debate here... the debate is not whether voting would decrease recidivism. The debate is whether in a country that claims to be the land of the free can prevent a large proportion of its lower socioeconomic class from participating in deciding their government. It is a fundamental human rights issue in a constitutional democracy.

It is not about the fact that felons disproportionately vote democrat, that is just a red herring... But one you seem to enjoy using to trump any attempt at discussion.

How is the air up there on your high horse?

Not to mention the 18 year old that commits some stupid crime that results in a felony, learns from it and goes on to lead a productive life, then at 40 is still be punished for poor judgment as a teen-ager. Direct correlation to recidivism rates.

There was no implication. I was more going for the "original principles" kinda thing, speaking to the founding fathers. I was saying this is something that's always been in the US.
I didn't bring it up, I was responding.

I have yet seeing someone who doesn't want felons vote put up an argument of why they shouldn't be able to vote other than arguments that boil down to "thats the way it is". Please tell me a logical reason why a felon should not be able to vote that doesn't involve this argument.

So far, it seems as if it's about "trusting them", which unfortunately doesn't seem to take into account that we let idiots vote all the time. When we start asking for qualifications in order to vote, it makes voting more difficult and excludes people who need representation (by default, ALL people need governmental representation, lest they be subjugated).

Or that, "B-b-but... they vote democrat!"

While it may be a stupid 18 year old, there's something about having a permanent record and having to be responsible for that record. We are all too forgiving to those that "made" a mistake. Life is making mistakes and taking responsibilty for them.

You want to be responsible for them, please go right ahead. I'm not interested in taking care of someone who had disregard for societal rule and obligations. Why do I have to be burdened with it time and time again for someone else's mistakes? I have a hard enough time juggling my own.

Shit still stinks no matter how deep you bury it or try to flower it up.

I would argue that taking responsibility for the mistake is satisfied by doing the punishment imposed by the court, and should not extend past this. One should not lose one of their fundamental freedoms for life for something that in some states is quite arbitrary.

Arbitrary? Seems to not be so arbitrary. That's the wonderful part about the 50 states. You have 50 different places to try out which laws you'd like to live under. You can always move to another state. These people still have some choices.

I'd agree with you if it was the federal government disenfrancising the felons, but it isn't.

Ah! See, that is my mistake. I assumed the federal government banned them from voting nationwide once they received a felony charge. In Canada we have one criminal code for the entire country. Well besides Quebec, that is run on the civil law system, but that's neither here nor there.

You know what, that may be my bad as well in oversimplifying this, if you commit a federal crime as a felony I believe you are then disenfrancised from the federal governement.

RICHARDSON v. RAMIREZ which was found by the USSC to not be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

read it, it is about some felonius (is that a word? it sounds cool) individuals who said that California had no right to disenfranchise them. The USSC 1974 stated California was within the US Constitution 14th Amendment.

Wow, I'm not even going to touch THAT one... :thumbsup:

so wait cyn--you reject the idea that the entire criminal legal system is based around, which is that there is some correspondence between being convicted of a felony and a period of incarceration--which should zero things out.

you seem instead to imagine that the commission of a felony reflects some inward defect--you kind of have to assume something like this for your argument to make sense (you dont say this---i'm filling in the middle step)...so if commission of a felony is an expression of a Defect of or a Predisposition to Evil, then it would kind of follow that you'd be fine with stripping ex-felons of their most basic civil rights--but that really does fly entirely in the face of the whole american criminal legal system.


what does the right to vote have to do with whether you, personally, would trust someone to---o i dont know---be your accountant--if you knew that he had a prior conviction for--say--felony tax evasion?

i dont see any connection.

we're talking about the right of people who have been convicted of a felony and have served the time that society (except you) understands to be adequate punishment for that felony should have the right to vote AFTER they've served their sentence.

there are no good conclusions to be drawn from your position either--nor from that of ustwo--permanent disenfranchisement of ex-felons would create a permanent class of non-citizens, without rights, without representation--it is not rocket science to see that these folk would understand themselves are being ENTIRELY without recourse in the context of the existing order--because they would be---and as a function of that would be FAR more likely to not only be inclined to but to be situationally FORCED to commit other crimes. so it seems that your position, were it translated into policy, would be entirely self-fulfilling.

maybe from there it'd be easy to justify rounding these folks up and sending them to lovely re-education camps--where they still would have no hope of getting back their basic civil liberties--so why not just advocate capital punishment for all felonies?

functionally you're already doing it.

i really dont understand where this is coming from.

I personally feel that there is some sort of permanent punishment. Death? Too extreme. Concentration Camps? Too Extreme.

But to remove some fundatmental liberties that differentiate those that didn't commit ANY crime. Be restored whole each and every time you've "Time served"? Personally, I find it reprehensible and a non deterrent for career criminals.

The most important civil liberties, BOR don't get infringed up with the exception right to bear arms, but the rest, there's no harm to them. I find it for the greater good. They are representated, just like legal aliens are represented by their familial and others who have the right to vote.

Personally I'd rather cane or cut off their fingers but that's not possible since it is too "barbaric".

Again, they are free to move to another state that does allow them the right to vote. There's nothing stopping them after they are off parole.

Woah there nelly, now how did we get from disenfranchisement to non-citizens without rights? Thats a major leap of logic there. They can't vote but that doesn't mean they have no rights, they have simply lost THE right, singular, to participate in the election process.

You can't vote so therefore committing more crimes is the logical conclusion...seriously you believe this? Who would have thought that recidivism was due to lack of a ballot. If only they voted BEFORE committing their crimes then perhaps it could have been avoided all together.

Yes losing the right to vote is like dying, please....

A fine melodrama.

Almost every state has a point to where DUII becomes a felony. Usually that's based on the number of times you've been convicted. Some other's do it based on the BAC at the time of your arrest and the number of past offensives. But in contrast in New Jersey drunk driving is not a crime.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/dui/felony.htm

So because you don't value the right to vote no one gets to? You're not a libertarian, you're a fascist. And I say that using the political term without intending to draw comparisons to other fascists or having everyone drum up preconceptions. I honestly think that you believe in a singular power in government.

Tell that to Kenyans

I'd love to read that decision, do you have a link?

Ok, I'll go for the loss of certain rights to vote for career criminals. You fuck up 2 or 3 times ..ok.. you should be differentiated from those who live a "clean" life. However, if you fuck up once, do what you were told to do, and prove that you can be a responsible citizen (no fuckups while on parole, probation etc) then you should be allowed to vote.

What motivation does a convicted felon have to move? Ok I can now vote in the new state, but I still can't find a job so now I'll end up having a record in two states instead of one.......

See... I don't like where these assumptions are going, from both sides of the argument.

Obviously, the onus to not recidivate is squarely on the offender. Just because you have a criminal record doesn't mean you're GOING to get another record, just that you're statistically more likely to reoffend if you've spent time in an institution.

There are legitimate jobs that a person with a criminal record can obtain. Or perhaps I'm operating from another faulty assumption of my own, as I do not know what proportion of jobs require a criminal record check in the USA. Generally in Canada it's only when you're placed in a position of authority, you will have access to confidential client information, or where you have contact with children or disadvantaged populations.

But I feel as if I'm going off on a tangent... I agree with Ustwo that not being able to vote doesn't make you commit crime. But ignoring all the associated elements of the equation doesn't make any sense either. Crime is such a multifaceted problem, it requires a multifaceted solution.

Quite frankly, I still don't see what is to be gained by removing the right to vote from these people. Is it strictly punishment? A deterrent? It seems overly harsh in the former, and completely ineffective in the latter.

I view loss of voting rights as part of the punishment.

Regaining your voting rights as a felon varies from state to state. In some state, it is a routine process that occurs as you leave the judicial system. In others, nothing short of a pardon from the governor will do.

I'm of the mind that conviction of a felony is a very clear demonstration of bad judgement. Petitioning the government to reinstate voting rights after a period of time would seem reasonable.

just to play devils advocate here, but wouldn't the 5th amendment actually require the constitution to be amended to explicitly remove the right to vote for ex-cons?

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

meaning that only incarceration denies you your rights, but once time has been served, all rights are re-instated?

I'm assuming it's much harder to get a job because of things I see in the media.. which obviously will be flawed. What I see is people saying they got out, couldn't find a job, had mouths to feed so they did what they had to do.. and ended up back in the big house. Is it just an excuse? Possibly. Is it real? More than likely.

Almost every job requires a criminal background check. It's not a bad thing.. as if I employ someone I want to know whether or not they have a record and should I take an extra precaution or two. (there's that trust thing.. call me guilty) It's the fact that the majority of the time, a person will not be hired simply because they have a record that bothers me. A person should get a chance to redeem themselves and prove they can hold a job, and be a productive member of society. Truth be told, if everyone was examined to the nTH degree.. we'd all be looking for second chances.

I'm against the blanket laws of these states that completely remove the right. All felons are not equal.. hence the rating system. Someone who is convicted of felony DUI is not on the same level as a child rapist. It's pretty fucking simple. You have a class D or lower felony..you can vote.. anything higher.. sorry.. you'll have to wait a few years.

To quote Tricky Dick Nixon from Futurama:

SOCK IT TO 'EM!

http://ssfuturama.wz.cz/info/characters/pic/nixon.jpg

Sorry I don't, could always google it and see what you get. I've had that NCSL site bookmarks for several years now. I'd assume if state statutes change they'd update. But I could be wrong. Been out of Law Enforcement for a few years now so I don't keep up like I used to.

It's not what you think. Looking online it is still a crime (ie they toss you in jail and punish you accordingly) but you don't have a right to a jury trial.

ace: here's the problem.

you're right in that there is perhaps no correlation between crime and the not voting--but i would argue that there is one between actions that in a fascist context would all be criminalized, but in other context would be understood as political actions and the sense that there is no recourse to, participation in, or possibility of redress of grievances by way of the existing political order.

this is a very old and obvious way to interpreting crime and other forms of "social deviance" historically. if there's a problem with it, that problem comes in reversing the direction of an ex post facto interpretation and trying to use it to generate causal claims. but that you cannot make if a then b type arguments does not in any way invalidate the more general point--it simply demonstrates why you aren't likely to run into them in a criminology course, but would see them routinely in other types of courses that deal with questions of crime and its social consequences. criminology course have no monopoly on either the topic or approaches to it.

as for ustwo and his fascist line of thinking about this question, i'm finished interacting with it.

Head hurts from bashing it against the brick wall eh?

Also, I HAVE run into these arguments in criminology courses. They represent but one element in a wide range of causal factors

there is no A then B cause of crime. Unless you break down A into its component parts, such that disenfranchisement is part of the lack of hope and promise for the future that leads to detatchment from traditional social routines and activities. A of course has many more component parts.

Unless you believe offenders in general are born predisposed to criminal activity. Then you belong in the 19th century.

Got a link?

Not anymore, i didn't find the case itself but instead references to it saying you do not have a right to a jury trial. But there was lots of info on people be prosecuted for DUI in NJ.

It makes intuitive sense doesn't it? I mean, can you imagine there not being a law against DUI in the United States, the land of the free and home of the mandatory minimum sentence?

best one i could find. go to the near bottom of the page.

http://www.njlawnet.com/njlawreview/dwidefense1.html

Which is another reason why the article Ustwo linked is utter nonsense! As there may be more blacks in prison but we punish them harsher too.

How is allowing someone to vote in a democratic process burdening you????

I can't find the link now but for instance a high school senior (18 yrs old) was caught creating fake ID's for his fellow classmates, he took a plea bargain that resulted in a felony. You cannot honestly tell me that this young man deserves to have this mistake follow him for LIFE. I am certain that most of us had either fake ID's or our friends did so we could get some beer for the weekend party while in high school. All felonies are not the same but again I am ranting off into another argument all together.

Agreed. I wonder why an averred scientist would choose to present a mere relationship as causation, then when challenged presents a "hostian" proof. The insults to the participants of this thread are piling up. :shakehead:

Perhaps that WH felon, Scooter Libby, can make "felon voter rights" his new mission in life.....with funding from those unrehabilitatable jailbirds, Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham who reaped $millions in taxpayer money for their felonious acts.

so in a post 9/11 world people making fake IDs should be "exempt" or exhonerated for their desire to be something they are not?

He shouldn't have plead for the felony and taken his chances with the possible aquittal. It still would be a felony if he didn't plea so I don't get your point. He MADE the choice to make IDs, no one put a gun to his head.

So what if one of the people he made a fake ID for somehow leveraged it to more than just buying beer and getting into clubs. We're not talking about USING a fake ID you are stating he was making them. A HUGE difference. He took the risk and got caught. That's the nature with all of this, he's an idiot for not stopping when he was 17 and 364 days old. Also now with the fact that some minors are tried as adults depending upon the crime, the idea is that he or anyone else should be weighing the ramifications of getting caught and the punishmed meted out for any crime.

Allowing them to vote isn't the burden, them being a criminal and engaging in criminal activities IS a burden to me once they get caught. This isn't just giving the kid a time out, this is letting people know that there is more than just a trip to the big house for 3 hots and a cot. There is more at stake than just time away from your friends and loved ones.

The burden on me is that I get to pay for them to be on "vacation" from the rest of society for however they are punished which isn't even the whole sentence anyways. Gee that's a deterent, be good in prison and you'll get out earlier.

Let's talk about crime PREVENTION in the first place. No one forces someone to commit criminal acts. It is up to the individual to prevent themselves from commmiting criminal acts in the first place.

Again, they can move to another state if they so choose, they got 50 to pick from.

Rudy Giuliani fallacy. Shameful.

The only problem I see with that link is the article is written and CR'd in 2000.

The NCSL is a fairly well know and respected organization and they're still posting New Jersey as "DUII not a crime." This could mean several things. For example the NJ State SC may have taken action not reflected in the older article. I don't know.

What ever the reason is I'm certain they're doing something to prosecute people driving while impaired. I'd guess, if they haven't reversed State V. Hamm, they do something like reckless driving in place of DUII. I think the key wording on the NCSL site is not a "crime."

At any rate if it is a crime in NJ I stand corrected. Wasn't really a main part of my point, more of a side note. I was responding to a post where the poster stated DUII isn't a felony, in fact I think they stated killing somebody while driving drunk wasn't a felony. My point was DUII certainly can be a felony and I'd be very surprised if killing someone while driving drunk didn't yield felony charges.

Nothing shameful about it. If you're serious about security, then you're serious about making the punishment for creating fake documents a stiff penalty. From either defrauding the government for services like welfare, commiting idenity theft, or even underage drinking, making fake IDs is a serious offense.

If you don't think so, that's great. Carry one the next time you go to a protest and whip that out instead of your Will Ravel CADL and see just what that gets you.