cthulu23

Notice the phrase "intentionally or not" in my earlier sentence. Since we have no way of knowing if it was intentional, the suspicious disbursement of mistakes on the felon rolls forces race into the issue. This is particularly galling given that the exact same thing happened four years ago.

KMA-628

Simple possession is usually not a felony, especially in the case of marijuana. Arguable about being vicitmless, but I at least agree on that part.

Felony possession is usually tied with intent to sell, far from victimless.

I would guess that it would be a royal pain in the butt to separate out the felonies as to whether the priviledge of voting should be retained or not.

I stand on my original point. If you are committing a felony then you are probably aware of the reprecussions, but don't care. Simple way to keep your right to vote: don't commit a felony, any felony.

cthulu23

Simple versus felony possession is only a small difference of quantity and the amount differs from state to state. Also, if one friend buys pot from another, is he a victim?

Well, thankfully only 14 states agree with you and believe that committing any felony at all deserves lifelong punishment. Hopefully you live in one.

Cynthetiq

I don't care what the crime is... that's why there's FELONY and MISDEMEANOR... here in NYC it's a MISDEMEANOR for pot possession up to 1 ounce...

don't do the crime if you can't do the time. PERIOD. Youth, ignorance, etc, is no excuse. Accept responsibility for your actions, when I found myself on the wrong side of the law, I made sure that I didn't get a felony conviction and just a misdemeanor because I understood what a felony would do to me. Some people don't care about their future. I care about mine.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

KMA-628

cthulu23,

huh?!?

Doesn't a criminal record stay with a person for their entire life in all 50 states? Isn't that a form of punishment....having a record that follows you wherever you go? Should we get rid of that too?

I guess I just have a hard time defending someone who has committed a crime. I think we should be more worried about preventing crime and punishing criminals then whether or not a convicted felon gets to vote or note.

cthulu23

Criminal records may follow you but "extra" punishment above and beyond the prison sentence is up to the states (I think). No one is arguing that we should throw away criminal records, so we can put that straw man aside.

If anyone here thinks that an ounce of weed should equal a lifetime punishment than I have to respectfully disagree with them. Thankfully, it seems that the majority of the states aren't quite so draconian in viewpoint.

filtherton

Do you remember food eater lad? I hear echos of his presence.

KMA-628

gawd the straw man comment is really getting overused here.

First, carrying a criminal record is a punishment. Carrying an ounce of marijuana, in any state, is a crime. This is not draconian, it is the law.

2 + 2 = 4

Loss of voting priviledges is only one of the many reprecussions of committing a crime. The "lifelong punishment" comments are being used to elicit emotion. This is not an emotional issue. It is a personal responsibility issue.

There are only two answers here:

1) Don't commit a crime, specifically a felony.

or

2) Work to change the law.

Until then, everything else is just blather.

Cynthetiq said it best.

Unless you are forced to commit a felony, you commit the act of your own free will. Any rights lost because of this action are only the fault of the person committing the crime and I won't lose any sleep over it.

/this doesn't negate the point that the felony list must be maintained and accurate.

SecretMethod70

Incidentally, people who get out of prison vote 9x% democratic, so the democratic party DOES have an interest in allowing felons to vote.

A documentary that pertains to this is called "Unprecedented." It is about the 2000 election fiasco and it has a decidedly anti-Bush bias, but if you awtch it with a discerning eye, you can see that both sides tried to "steal" the election in their own ways, such as Gore only wanting recounts in counties where it would likely give him MORE votes, but not wanting recounts over the rest of Florida where he may have taken a hit.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

cthulu23

KMA-268,

The straw man comment was perfectly acceptable given that you were bringing up a non-related issue into the discussion and foisting it upon me.

I never claimed that possession of marijuana isnt a crime, nor did I claim that 2 + 2 != 4 (thanks for the math refresher). I mention "lifelong punishment" because that is exactly what disenfranchisement amounts to and that is what I was referrring to as draconian. You can react emotionally if you wish.

By pointing out the flaws in a law, am I not, in a sense, doing something to change it? Anyway, if you want to ban "blather," than I suspect that the tfproject will be not be long for this world, particularly the political forum. "How can you complain about [issue x]? Go out and change it!"

All in all, this is not the most important idea that was being discussed in this thread. I find the disenfranchisement of innocent people much more compelling. What do you think?

cthulu23

Although I am definitely curious about where you got that number, if it is accurate than you could just as easily say that the Republicans have an interest in NOT letting felons vote.

Let's forget party here, though. Issues of civil rights and citizenship are much more important. Do I have to mention that I'm not a registered Democrat and I organized for Nader last election? I only mention that because this thread has been littered with accusations of democratic propaganda from moment 1.

zenmaster10665

Wha? Where? When? I dont see that on their site...

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

SecretMethod70

This is very true and I don't disagree one single bit. I got this number from one of two places (I don't remember PRECISELY). It was either mentioned IN the documentary that I pointed out in my previous post, which I watched in one of my poli sci classes, or it was mentioned in the discussion afterwards by the poli sci teacher who had as watch the documentary. I'm pretty sure it was IN the documentary though. Nonetheless, I can't see any reason why she'd provide us with that statistic one way or another if it were incorrect, considering that she is self-described as far left of even the democrats and is also a major political statistics junkie (we spent the entire first week of class simply looking at various government statistics).

I'm not defending or disproportionately accusing either side here. I think both sides try to do what they can to unjustly "obtain" elections, and it sickens me.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

KMA-628

I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't see how it would be difficult to verify the criminal record of someone on the list. That information is easily available to law enforcement agencies.

Are there any legitimate numbers on this issue?

Cynthetiq

that's where the flaw is...from disenfranchising them to death penalty...that's why there are so many appeals etc because if there isn't reasonable doubt then a conviction must happen, even if the person is truly innocent.

there's people who say to work to change it... well those people who got disenfrancised are the ones who need to spread the word, to make those ignorant people less ignorant and to be wary of their position and what can happen to them. But as far as I'm concerned the dice have been cast and they don't get another chance, they should make it known and use their plight to scare people straight.

IMO that still won't work because of the apathy people have towards getting involved in the government.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

cthulu23

Cynthetiq,

There is always the question of what rights can the government legitimately strip away from a citizen. As mentioned by another poster, most other western industrialized nations have no such law, not to mention that neither do a majority of the US states. Is this a reasonable state power? Citizens are forced to abide by the social contract no matter what so shouldn't the rights that are implicit within our social contract be inalienable from us? But we are drifting far afield from the original topic of this thread.

One last point: expecting the least powerful in a society to radically alter it is a bit unfair.

jb2000

A government either recognizes or does not recognize a right. It can not remove the right, but only fail to respect it.

As for your last point, it is unreasonable to expect rapid radical change except in response to drastic emergencies. However, it is not unreasonable to chart goals that may be radically different than today's position, but which we can begin to take steps toward achievement of.

cthulu23

From the alternet article linked earlier in this thread:

Those numbers apply to this year. I'm having a hard time dredging up exact numbers from the 2000 election, but here's a link to the US Commission on Civil Rights report on the election in Florida:

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm

Their conclusion? therer wre many irregularitites and actions by the state of Florida that resulted in the disenfranchisement of many citizens. To focus on those wrongfully accused of being felons, the state required that the IT firm that searched their voting databases for felons need an accuracy rate of 90%. The firm countered that it could increase accuracy to 99.9%, but Florida demured. A 10% error rate is not acceptable in matters such as these. Why would florida drop the ball so badly and so negligently?

cthulu23

I am a complete believer in the possibility of social change, but expecting change to be accomplished solely by the poor/ignorant (not my word) may be expecting too much.

Cynthetiq

no. if they broke laws and harmed others, they why should their rights triumph over those they harmed? If there is no teeth to back it up then what's the point?

That's why IMO the Three Strikes Laws are fine... 3 chances.. you can't figure that out by the third time, then that's a shame even if the third time was petty compared to the first two... it's still 3 times.

back to the thread.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

cthulu23

Well, I hate to continue threadjacking, but.....

The "teeth" in law enforcement are jails, prisons or the death penalty (as well as community service, fines, etc). There is a reason that the phrase "inalienable" was used to describe our rights as citizens in the Declaration of Independence. Stripping someone of their most meaningful method of influencing government is a scary proposition, and one the seems downright un-American. What about unjust laws or miscarriages of justice? Seeing the world in black and white terms may simplify things but it in no way reflects reality.

As for the 3 strikes laws, it's nonsense such as them that has turned America into the greatest jailer in the world. Along with mandatory minimum sentences, 3 strikes is taking away a cornerstone of any reasonable legal system; judicial discretion.

OpieCunningham

As soon as Ann Coulter writes about, I'll be sure to post it for you.

OpieCunningham

Why would you vote on something based specifically on a partisan methodology instead of the issue itself?

If you do not support electoral vote splits, you should vote against it and oppose it in all other states (start with the Red if you like). If you do support electoral vote splits, you should vote for it - and then support it in all other states (start with the Blue if you like).

But to just vote against something because someone from a different political party suggested it is an obscene affront to the concept of voting.

OpieCunningham

So ... if you commit a felony before the voting age of 18, you feel you're still liable for the rest of your life?

If you're not old enough to be given the right to vote - how can you be old enough to understand what it means that a crime you are committing is going to eliminate your right to vote?

Kadath

How did you ensure your conviction was just a misdemeanor? Do you mean when you carried you were always sure to have less than an ounce, or that when you got caught with more than an ounce you struck a deal for misdemeanor, like informing on your dealer?

__________________
it's quiet in here

KMA-628

you're kidding, right?

Your response to my post has nothing to do with what I said. You might want to re-read my post and edit yours or post again.

Let me recap:

1) From what I can tell, it is only being proposed in states that Kerry is losing in or that Gore lost in 2000.

2) It should be all or none. I would not vote for this measure AS I MENTIONED IN MY POST.

3) The fact that this measure is proposed in a state like Colorado and not even considered in California reaks of partisian politics. Obviously the Democrats want to take from the Republican column but will not even consider the reverse.

You are right, you should be 100% for it or 100% against it in all states, but that is not the issue here.

Where did I say I would vote on it based on "partisan methodology instead of the issue itself"?

KMA-628

Again, you're kidding, right?

Any crimes committed while a minor are null and void after your 18th birthday. They have no bearing on your ability to vote unless you did something so severe that you are tried as an adult.

hannukah harry

how is letting them vote allowing their rights to triumph over those they harmed?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

cthulu23

Actually, the age of legal adulthood as far as the criminal justice system in most states is concerned is 17. Some states go lower (really), but I can't think of any that go higher. does anyone else know any details about this?

OpieCunningham

No.
The issue is, you have an opportunity to support either splitting the electoral votes or not splitting the electoral votes. Instead of voting based on that issue, you have decided to vote anti-Democrat.

If you support states splitting their electoral votes, you should vote for it because there is not other method for you to cast a vote for states splitting their electoral votes.

If you do not support states splitting their electoral votes, you should vote against it.

You have not claimed either position - but you have, twice now, mentioned your displeasure with the "fairness" of Democrats.
Where did you say you were not going to vote for it because you do not support it at all?

OpieCunningham

Again, no.

We're talking about felonies. In general, they are severe. If severity has a bearing here - maybe we need to judge the seriousness of any given election in order to determine how old one must be in order to partake. But we don't - we set an absolute cut-off of 18 or older. We do not apply that same logic to "trying someone as an adult". Apparently, someone under 18 can "prove" their adulthood by commiting a crime - but they can never prove their adulthood in order to vote. And yet we still apply the same disenfranchisement by virtue of their proof of adulthood via crime.

That's ridiculous.

KMA-628

Here is what I originally wrote.

OpieCunningham

This is what you wrote. And I know this because I already quoted you once on it.
Your explanation for voting against it is that it is only coming up in a Blue state.

That's you voting on an issue because it benefits Democrats in this case - not because of the issue itself.

KMA-628

maybe it would have made more sense if I added a paragraph, but the last part of what you quoted is not my reasoning about why i am against it. I am stating that I don't like the way it is being presented. It is bogus in its nature.

You are ignoring the games behind this proposal.

Cynthetiq

yes. there are things that I did in my youth that I am liable for today...from cheating on tests to getting suspended in school for fighting. May not be the magnitude, but the idea is still the same.

If you get AIDS before you are 18 should you be given a second chance??? It's VERY simple....maybe it fits better if it's in bold...

Accept responsibility for your actions.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

cthulu23

There is no real analogy that can be made between AIDS and the criminal justice system. Hell, I hope you have a lttile sympathy for AIDS victims. Anyway, see my earlier post about a black and white perception of the world.

OpieCunningham

And yet I still have no clue if you support splitting electoral votes or not.

But I do know that you do not support splitting electoral votes in a Blue state if it is an initiative of Democrats.

I see very little difference between what you are doing and what you accuse the Democrats in your state of doing. Political manipulation for specific partisan ends instead of benefits to society.

OpieCunningham

I'm going to start another thread, because this would be going way off-topic - but this AIDS/responsibility/disenfranchisement thing is too much to just let pass.

But I will say that you are not making your case by repeating the apparently magical phrase "accept responsibility for your actions". Are all mistakes inexcusable? Apparently, they are - if making one mistake is enough to eliminate your right to vote forever. Why not just lock up anyone convicted of a crime forever? Being imprisoned is the punishment for a serious crime, it is a punishment that typically has a time limit - where is the connection with perpetual disenfranchisment?

cthulu23

Criminal sentences are not handed down by God. They are meted out by humans. Saying that someone should be punished doesn't mean that any type of punishment whatsoever is justified. What if the US government wanted to reinstitute stoning or crucifixion? Should we just "accept responsibility" then and lie back?

Cynthetiq

I was asked my opinion. That's what it is. I'm not making a case for changing your mind. I'm saying ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

Whatever the consequences of your actions bear, that's what that means. Simple, if it happens to mean in 1950s that you are ostracized from the community, or in 2000s where the community is more permissive and forgiving. Or in the 1800s where marijuana or cocaine possession was legal, to the current past 20 year war on drugs. Times change. Viewpoints change. Laws change.

I have a few friends that died of AIDS. How did they contract it? A permissive gay lifestyle. Simple. They did not ask for it, it's what was a possible consequence for the lifestyle they lead and they lived very full lives up until their deaths.

Even a 14 year old who impregnates a girl may not fully understand the ramifications of the actions, but there is a consequence that must be accepted along with a responsibility. The concept I am trying to express is simple, we may not know what ALL the consequences are for all our actions, but we must be willing to accept the responsibility that there are some consequences to our actions, good or bad, temporary or permanent.

If you did nothing to combat it, then yes, lie back and accept the responsibilty of your actions, in this case inactions. The US government does not do things in a vaccum. There's time to discuss, implement, execute, study, and sometimes upon discovering new things not working return to previous methods. Since the governement is composed of humans, it's safe to say they will make mistakes, and humans will then have to correct them.

As a believer in survival of the fittest, life is not fair. Plain and simple. Is that black or white? No it's not, there's many factors that come into play, but ultimately each day the lion has to run faster than the slowest antelope, and
conversely the fastest antelope only has to run faster than the slowest lion.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.