[gotrootdude]

I believe it is of vital importance that felons be allowed to vote. If a person is subjected to the laws, he/she should have a right to have as much input in the making of the laws as can be afforded.

Our laws do not do enough at this time to afford equal and adaquate defenses in criminal trails. A poor person gets a court appointed attorney, the attorney is appointed by the judge. The defense attorney and prosecutor attorney along with the judge choose the jury. Therefore, if the judge is biased and has reason, the defense attorney, and jury can be slanted toward the prosecutors side. Furthermore, the judge allots the time in which a defense attorney can be allowed to speak, effectively weakening the defense. In the state of Texas, it is common for the judge to allot 30 minutes time for the defense in a death penalty crime. Rights, and the defense of rights, are for those who can afford them.

it was once one of the basic precepts of our system of justice that it is better to free 10 guilty men than to allow one innocent man to rot in jail.
If innocents are inprisoned, what rights to change the system that prosecuted them do they have?

 

[LANMaster]

Should felons be allowed to vote?

Absolutely, positively NOT!

Our laws do not do enough at this time to afford equal and adaquate defenses in criminal trails.

Sorry, but I disagree on the strongest terms.

You should make this a poll thread. Ask the question just like you did, and provide a simple yes / no choice.

 

[ComputerFix]

Interesting that those politicians who make the laws to remove their right to elect leadership have no problems using them as a population count in order to get funding, provide for representative seats, etc., etc.

If they are to be excluded, then exclude them. Do not use them when convenient and deny otherwise. I have little compassion for a felon, but if your going to use thier number to justify political exsitance and for funding purposes, then they have the same basis as I do to select who will administer it.

Another thought...remember the phrase "no taxation without representation". Do convicted (yet no longer incarcerated) felons pay taxes when they work? (ok, are they supposed to ) Have we forgotten our foundation?


In the end I am conflicted, but I would move to exclude completely if we determine exclusion is a punishment for crime. I don't agree with "keeping the benifit".

 

[ComputerFix]

If a person is subjected to the laws, he/she should have a right to have as much input in the making of the laws as can be afforded.

The arguement against this is that if you are the type who does not want "laws", exactly how are you going to want them "made". (and the campaign begins, legalize robbing Circle K! ) If you have no regard for law in the first place, what difference does it make?

 

[gotrootdude]

Whether or not you want the laws is not an effective arguement to remove voting privilege.

Lanmaster, do you believe that justice prevails, or just that perceived justice is accomplished.

ComputerFix, if robbing Circle K is what the majority wants legalized, then that's what should be legalized, it's called democracy..

Although I am not a felon, I do have compassion for them. Especially the ones like the man in California who served 12 years in prison due to false allegations from two teenage girls. Should such people have the right to try to change laws through voting so that others don't suffer the same fate?

 

[Infidel_Kastro]

IN our sysytem of justice, once a person has served thier time, then their debt to society has been paid. To remove the voting rights, either permanently, or in some cases, until a felon can petition the court for reinstatement is ludicrous. the fundamental right that we are afforded is the right to vote. this enables us to decide who are leaders will be and what laws will be enacted, it is our "voice" in running this nation. If this right is taken away, then we are allowing people who will be held captive to someone else's whims. Honestly, I believe that prisoners in jail should be allowed to vote, because they are at the direct mercy of those that have power over them. we can argue that under social contract theory, that once the contract is broken, it cannot be meneded. I don't believe in this view of SC theory. I don't understand what the harm would be for allowing felons to vote, if it punishment, then wouldn't it be considered execessive? If its punitive, then I disagree with it even more.
now I could give a rats behind about counsel in this matter, that is a seperate matter, but to take away a voice in democracy is a destruction of democracy itself.
Ouch, I fell off my high horse.

 

[LANMaster]

Whether or not you want the laws is not an effective arguement to remove voting privilege.

Lanmaster, do you believe that justice prevails, or just that perceived justice is accomplished.

ComputerFix, if robbing Circle K is what the majority wants legalized, then that's what should be legalized, it's called democracy..

Although I am not a felon, I do have compassion for them. Especially the ones like the man in California who served 12 years in prison due to false allegations from two teenage girls. Should such people have the right to try to change laws through voting so that others don't suffer the same fate?

With regard to the guy. I thought it was 8 months

Anyway, if the conviction for the Felony is overturned, then sure, give him back the right to vote as well.

Using your own argument about the possible innocents who are locked up, wouldn't you then have to say, let's not put ANYONE in jail, because there may be one innocent in there? With regard to the death penalty, I am starting to come down on the side of abolishing the DP, because the issue is then perminent. (thanks for shining the light Rep) But in the case of a CONVICTED Felon's right to vote, it is my opinion that they have disregarded the rule of law to an extreme that I feel should deny them the right to participate in at that level.

Should Felons be denied the right to donate to political campaigns? I'd support that as well, but Felons currently can contribute to political campaigns. Just ask any Democrat. j/k

 

[LANMaster]

You make a compelling argument, IK.

You may even convince me that once someone has FULLY paid their debt to society, then perhaps they should be allowed to remove that stigma and be allowed to vote.

But

To suggest that a Convicted Felon, serving time for breaking the law, should be allowed to affect the outcome of a political contest is ludicris.
Naturally the majority of those incarcerated would vote for the candidate most likely to be soft on crime, thereby making it easier for the criminal to return to a life of crime once the debt has been paid.
Nope, Felons lose the rights free society has, because Felons deny those rights to others.

Edit: Darnit, Lan, It's IK!

 

[ComputerFix]

If the conviction is overturned, than, unless someone can show otherwise, all possible traces are removed (except for the obvious), including suspension of votor rights, as you are no longer catagorized as a "convicted felon".

The ones you profess compassion for are not felons, at least not once they become the ones you have compassion for.


...and careful with the democracy bit, this isn't one in technical terms, and in many practical applications. The majority in Nevada wanted pot legalized (majority of votors, anyway) and it is not in spite of such. In your example, we could put forth legislation to make robbery legal, and all vote in favor of it, but it still won't be "the law". To enact such a move would require changing the constitution, which, interestingly, "we the people" cannot do directly. Thus the reason why your arguement of "it's called democracy" fails, it is called democracy, but we don't have one.

However, I think you may have missed the post before that, where I believe the problem lies with the current setup.

 

[Infidel_Kastro]

You make a compelling argument, AK.

You may even convince me that once someone has FULLY paid their debt to society, then perhaps they should be allowed to remove that stigma and be allowed to vote.

But

To suggest that a Convicted Felon, serving time for breaking the law, should be allowed to affect the outcome of a political contest is ludicris.
Naturally the majority of those incarcerated would vote for the candidate most likely to be soft on crime, thereby making it easier for the criminal to return to a life of crime once the debt has been paid.
Nope, Felons lose the rights free society has, because Felons deny those rights to others.

Darnit LAN, its IK, not AK!!!
I think you are making a broad assumption. I go to the federal prison here in Ft. Worth and counsel inmates on employment matters once they are released. I have yet to see one say they are innocent, or were framed, in fact most will tell you that they made a mistake and used poor judgement, and will take responsibilty for their crimes.
This is a small percentage of the population, I doubt it would influence anything, except maybe local elections against the sheriff.
Most politicians would not even associate with them, it would not be in their best interest, but allowing them to vote at least gives felons the belief that they are WORTH something when they get out. They are already at a huge disadvantage employment-wise, when they get out, and I do not see the rationalization for this. Where is the direct threat to democracy. In fact, I would say that we strengthen our country by allowing everyone that is able to vote, to vote, even criminals. What would that tell teh world about democracy and our standards of society.
Voting is never a privilage, it is a RIGHT!
Darn, I broke my soapbox.

 

[plschwartz]

IK

Nor does the idea of truly universal sufferage, which was established in this country only after 24th amendment (proposed in 1962 ratified in 1964) and the related Johnson-era voting rights acts. Before that women needed franchise before that one needed property (see http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson_images/lesson538/JacksonMaster.pdf)

Nor is it true that :
IN our sysytem of justice, once a person has served thier time, then their debt to society has been paid.
Megans law is certainly an example of this.
Also at least in my state there is a movement toward the ability to move someone who has done his time but still has a "bad attitude" to indefinate lockup in a mental hospital
(I am observing this not attacking it).

As for a felony: I kinda like this:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/felony
Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition:

\Fel"o*ny\, n.; pl. {Felonies}. [OE. felonie cruelty, OF.
felonie, F. f['e]lonie treachery, malice. See {Felon}, n.]
1. (Feudal Law) An act on the part of the vassal which cost
him his fee by forfeiture. --Burrill.

2. (O.Eng.Law) An offense which occasions a total forfeiture
either lands or goods, or both, at the common law, and to
which capital or other punishment may be added, according
to the degree of guilt.

3. A heinous crime; especially, a crime punishable by death
or imprisonment.

Note: Forfeiture for crime having been generally abolished in
the United States, the term felony, in American law,
has lost this point of distinction; and its meaning,
where not fixed by statute, is somewhat vague and
undefined; generally, however, it is used to denote an
offense of a high grade, punishable either capitally or
by a term of imprisonment. In Massachusetts, by
statute, any crime punishable by death or imprisonment
in the state prison, and no other, is a felony; so in
New York. the tendency now is to obliterate the
distinction between felonies and misdemeanors; and this
has been done partially in England, and completely in
some of the States of the Union. The distinction is
purely arbitrary, and its entire abolition is only a
question of time.

Note: There is no lawyer who would undertake to tell what a
felony is, otherwise than by enumerating the various
kinds of offenses which are so called. originally, the
word felony had a meaning: it denoted all offenses the
penalty of which included forfeiture of goods; but
subsequent acts of Parliament have declared various
offenses to be felonies, without enjoining that
penalty, and have taken away the penalty from others,
which continue, nevertheless, to be called felonies,
insomuch that the acts so called have now no property
whatever in common, save that of being unlawful and
purnishable. --J. S. Mill.

 

[Infidel_Kastro]

Hey PL,
I know where you are going with Meghans law, sex offender registration. I do work with Sex offenders, and as a father, I know the dangers that can happen, but I do not agree with those laws, depending on what day you catch me. I could argue that in order to continually protect the society, SO registration ios necessary, but it can also cause a lynch mob to form. However, what would be the danger of allowing SO's to vote? Worst case scenario, the US first NAMBLA backed candidate. Buit that doesn't mean anything will change.

 

[LANMaster]

Darnit LAN, its IK, not AK!!!
I think you are making a broad assumption. I go to the federal prison here in Ft. Worth and counsel inmates on employment matters once they are released. I have yet to see one say they are innocent, or were framed, in fact most will tell you that they made a mistake and used poor judgement, and will take responsibilty for their crimes.
This is a small percentage of the population, I doubt it would influence anything, except maybe local elections against the sheriff.
Most politicians would not even associate with them, it would not be in their best interest, but allowing them to vote at least gives felons the belief that they are WORTH something when they get out. They are already at a huge disadvantage employment-wise, when they get out, and I do not see the rationalization for this. Where is the direct threat to democracy. In fact, I would say that we strengthen our country by allowing everyone that is able to vote, to vote, even criminals. What would that tell teh world about democracy and our standards of society.
Voting is never a privilage, it is a RIGHT!
Darn, I broke my soapbox.

Sorry, IK. I edited my last to change your name.

Taking away voting rights is part of the punishment for committing a felony.
Once the Felon has FULLY paid his debt to society, I would suggest that you are correct and that the right to vote should be returned.
It is about punishment. Some might even consider it a deterrant.
But while an inmate is serving time for a felony, he/she should NOT have the right to vote, IMO.

Currently, once convicted of a felony, you lose the right to vote perminently. Is that correct?

 

[Infidel_Kastro]

Sorry, IK. I edited my last to change your name.

Taking away voting rights is part of the punishment for committing a felony.
Once the Felon has FULLY paid his debt to society, I would suggest that you are correct and that the right to vote should be returned.
It is about punishment. Some might even consider it a deterrant.
But while an inmate is serving time for a felony, he/she should NOT have the right to vote, IMO.

Currently, once convicted of a felony, you lose the right to vote perminently. Is that correct?

I believe it is state to state matter. One state may allow for the resumption of rights after a time. This article shows that Florida has a law that removes those rights.
.http://www.whoseflorida.com/felon_voting_rights.htm

 

[plschwartz]

IK
I wasn't going anywhere in particular with meghans (thanks for the "h") law.
I spent mucho years in a NYstate psychiatric hospital so we know similar folks.
I was going to finish my above post with something smart to say about felons and ostracism, except that I found that in Athens where the term came,after 10 years of exile the returnee got his rights back. (BTW I do think that exile should be an alternative to prison but thats for another time) (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/punishment.html presents an interesting time-line of punishments.
There is the idea I think of those being ousted by the
community for a major breach of its mores. The earlier idea of felony included grievious attacks against person as murder rape and major assault. They were then outside the law or out-laws. I believe felons were often branded to prevent them gaining access to another lawful community
There is an old greek idea (too long to remember how to spell) that when something got too one-sided it began to bring in its opposite. To me Meghans law represents just this. Punishment is in effect life-long and is an exclusion from any community with computerized branding.
It is of interest that this seems more severe then the punishment for child murder. Hmmm.

Finally voting restriction seems not to be the only restiction on felons. Is it not a crime for felons to "consort" with other felons?

 

[Infidel_Kastro]

IK
I wasn't going anywhere in particular with meghans (thanks for the "h") law.
I spent mucho years in a NYstate psychiatric hospital so we know similar folks.
I was going to finish my above post with something smart to say about felons and ostracism, except that I found that in Athens where the term came,after 10 years of exile the returnee got his rights back. (BTW I do think that exile should be an alternative to prison but thats for another time) (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/punishment.html presents an interesting time-line of punishments.
There is the idea I think of those being ousted by the
community for a major breach of its mores. The earlier idea of felony included grievious attacks against person as murder rape and major assault. They were then outside the law or out-laws. I believe felons were often branded to prevent them gaining access to another lawful community
There is an old greek idea (too long to remember how to spell) that when something got too one-sided it began to bring in its opposite. To me Meghans law represents just this. Punishment is in effect life-long and is an exclusion from any community with computerized branding.
It is of interest that this seems more severe then the punishment for child murder. Hmmm.

Finally voting restriction seems not to be the only restiction on felons. Is it not a crime for felons to "consort" with other felons?

AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!
Another Civ Deb thread going the way it was originally intended with no flames or name calling. Quick, someone piss me off.

Finally voting restriction seems not to be the only restiction on felons. Is it not a crime for felons to "consort" with other felons?
I think it only apply's when you are on probation or parole? However, no guns.

 

[Lurker1]

Of course they can vote, Who's stopping them?? Oh wait, they are in JAIL. Well I guess they need to wait until they get out.


NO voting till they serve their time and are released.

 

[CyBerAliEn]

I'm with LAN on this one (no surprise, really ).

When someone commits a crime (IE, felony), they have just given up some of their rights. Being able to own/use a gun, live among society, voting, etc; to name a few.

If someone wants to live among society, vote, own/use a gun, etc; then they should not commit the crime in the first place, regardless.

So of course, I feel that felons should not be able to vote.

Should they be able to vote after they have served out their 'sentence'? That's another question. I think that after they have served it out, they should be allowed too.

 

[LANMaster]

I'm with LAN on this one (no surprise, really ).

Be careful. Comments like that might make you a target for ridicule.

 

[CyBerAliEn]

LOL...

No one's taken me on yet. I try to avoid enflaming people.