Should ex-felon's have the right to vote?

[TITAN308]

Every time a law enforcement discussion starts here, from prisoners' rights to accusations of police misconduct, everyone divides neatly into two camps divided along one line. Basically, we're asking the same question over and over again: do people cease to be counted as people when they're suspected of committing a crime? Do they turn into something other than you, some subhuman that deserves whatever treatment its appointed keepers see fit to give it?

You can tell right off the bat who answers that question in the positive - they chant the same slogans, use the same descriptors for those others, those no-longer-people who get tagged by the cops for dehumanization. It's depressing to see how far people will go to wrap themselves in the security of the notion that it can't happen to them, that those miserable animals deserve what they got because they asked for it.

In your attempt to expose cliches you yourself have outted yourself as one.

To answer your last statement, if you are violent or commit things like robbery, then yes, you basically asked for. What kind of ridiculous statement is that? I would even go the next step and say, well duh, yea they deserved it.

Your statements would make more sense if we were discussing varying intricacies of how over bloated our list of crimes are, but to make a blanketed statement like that is pretty, well, dumb.

[Kaganfindel]

There's a difference between people who "are violent or commit things like robbery," and people who get targeted for capture by the police.

[Noradin]

And you have inadvertently pointed out the problem with anyone who is a ward of the state; mental facility, prison, etc etc.

Yes, it is a problem, but unlike children where you have to respect the privacy rights of the families in the case of prisoners you can have supervision and even in the case of mental facilities there are possibilities to have checks in place to ensure their votes aren't appropriated by someone else for their own gain, but families are pretty tiny units compared to any facilities.

That is why i disagree that there is necessarily a possibility to appropriate the vote of prisioners with untrackable methods.
If such possibilites exists, then that is a shortcoming setup of of the facility, not of the prisoners and I know of states where such a thing would constitute a crime (denying prisoners (anyone not meantally ill or a kid really) their right to vote).

[May90]

Honestly, not sure why ex-felons aren't allowed to vote. But I never cared enough to look up why it was first implemented.

Not being allowed to vote is a very minor disadvantage, compared to others. Their background checks play against them. Or, say, when you apply for a visa, most countries require that you list your criminal record if you have one, and in practice it means an almost automatic rejection in case of having one.

The idea "served punishment, gained all rights back", sadly, doesn't work in practice.

[Deleted]

If it wasnt a biggy, sure. If they killed or raped, they should lose their human rights

[TITAN308]

There's a difference between people who "are violent or commit things like robbery," and people who get targeted for capture by the police.

I don't think you understand how losing certain rights work. This does not happen until you are convicted in a court of law.

[Spl4sh3r]

Yes, they should have the right to vote. The question I am more curious about is if they can vote from prison, if not then there is no issue. If they can that's where they shouldn't have the right to vote.

Basically once you are out of prison you should have been rehabilitated (in theory).

[runique]

Their right to bare arms as well?

The right to bear arms and the right to vote are only similar in one way: that they are rights. Allowing all felons who have served their time to reacquire the right to bear arms COULD actually be a hazard to public safety. Allowing them the right to vote isn't. Don't compare the two you illogical mongoloid.

[TITAN308]

The right to bear arms and the right to vote are only similar in one way: that they are rights. Allowing all felons who have served their time to reacquire the right to bear arms COULD actually be a hazard to public safety. Allowing them the right to vote isn't. Don't compare the two you illogical mongoloid.

If their felony conviction had nothing to do with firearms or even violence why could it be a public safety issue?

[Quetzolcoatl]

I'm unsure what you are talking about, as a convicted felon I can still vote..Hell I voted in the primary elections while incarcerated via absentee ballot.. please do some homework before posting

[A dot Ham]

I say they should. They have paid their price to society, no matter how much they have changed, their voices will never be heard in the public arena. Depriving ex-felons of the right to vote alienates certain minorities, who have the deck stacked against them to begin with in the justice system.

Depriving ex-felons of the right to vote gives an unfair advantage to the Republican party. This is because the poor and African Americans tend to vote Democratic.

Disenfranchisement of ex-felons amounts to extra punishment, other Democratic countries do not do this.

Thoughts?

So what you are saying is that the republican party is imprisoning black males because they are afraid of their vote?

Lets play a game and see how long this thread lasts...

[Nitro Fun]

Yeah, why not?

[Masark]

So what you are saying is that the republican party is imprisoning black males because they are afraid of their vote?

Yes.

/10char

[Joresh]

people who have shown clear contempt for the law should have no business electing people who write laws.

[wdh1974]

Liberals think so yes, and let them vote without an ID so they can vote 20 times, also lets make it legal to let dead people vote! Remember its racist to ask someone on welfare to have some form of ID to vote!

[Gorgodeus]

Thats exactly what I am driving at. The same people that argue for an ex felon to have the ability to vote back because they paid their debt would also argue that the perpetrator to domestic violence SHOULD never get their ability to own a firearm back. THAT right there is why this entire argument is a rather odd one to have because it would set the gold standard to what I outlined.

The two are not remotely comparable. One does not commit crime with a vote.

[Deleted]

Considering they are not stripped of their citizenship upon becoming felons (as far as i know), i see no reason to retain their right to vote.

[Noradin]

Not being allowed to vote is a very minor disadvantage, compared to others.

Maybe for each individual, but have you seen the number of prisoners the USA have?
That is a very sizable number of citizens to be barred from voting. (Yes, not all of them a felons, but that matters little to my point.)

- - - Updated - - -

If it wasnt a biggy, sure. If they killed or raped, they should lose their human rights

If they were convicted of killing or raping you mean, because we aren't omniscient, thus that opens the door to sneakily adjust the laws a bit, convict any 'undesirables' of 'rape' and they won't have any political recourse since they automatically loose their right to vote and the rest of the nation is kept clueless what is happening for as long as possible.

[Vichan]

i think loosing your rights(all of them) should be a case by case basis depending on the crime

[belfpala]

people who have shown clear contempt for the law should have no business electing people who write laws.

And if the law was unjust, should they perhaps have a way to get laws changed in a peaceful way?