Bernie Sanders thinks convicted terrorists should vote

[cubby]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...is/3548232002/

Not shocked that this has not been posted. But your odds on favorite democratic candidate wants the Boston marathon bomber to be able to vote in elections.

"Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, 'Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,' you're running down a slippery slope," Sanders said in response to a question about restoring felons' voting rights.

He even said that he is sure Democrats will join in Republicans in criticizing him, but hey--he needs them votes.

It's not shocking because you're lying. Bernie Sanders was talking about taking away the right to vote because of past crimes being a slippery slope. No where does it say what you claim - you're inferring it, at best.

Posting alarmist crap like this is why we have such problems in this country. Lies like this OP are why the middle ground is vanishing.

[wunksta]

It should stay in those two states. Two small, relatively affluent states where crime is comparatively rare to many other parts of the country. They have the right to make those laws for themselves but it's still stupid.

Sure that's your opinion and you may not like that policy, but Bernie isn't just espousing some random policy in order to secure more votes. It's a policy of his state and his constituents and he is representing their values.

You talk a lot about patriots, but to me real patriots are those who stand up for American rights and values, no matter how unpopular they may be.

[Sunseeker]

There is an argument to be made that while incarcerated, prisoners can be deprived of their rights. I mean, you certainly don't have free speech or the right to bear arms in prison.

But once a person is freed, is there any valid reason to restrict rights unrelated to their crime? It's one thing if a guy who murdered folks with guns gets "you can't own guns forever" as part of their punishment, but voting isn't really related to that.

Though I suspect that if you make enough people criminals, and then give them the right to vote, you might not be able to make as many people criminals! And then where would our for-profit prison system be? /sarcasm

[Kasierith]

He edited the post and added that second line. If only you paid attention to the thread instead of calling people out over nothing. It's a stupid argument anyway because the law has been this way forever and it has never had an effect on how non-convicts vote.

Which is why there's an edited by line at the bottom of the post signifying when the poster (or a mod) edited the post (like the one I'm triggering right now to show at the bottom of this one).

Not to mention it isn't the first time I made that exact same argument in this thread. In fact.... I've been very consistent about supporting civil liberties on the basis of wanting to maximize my own liberties and safeguard against government incursions. I don't want to enable a situation where political enemies can enact a way to eradicate my own voting rights.

Just like I don't use or care about most firearms, but am still pro second amendment because I don't want restrictions to trickle down to handguns which I do use and care about.

Regardless, my post was less an argument against the idea that people who have so devastatingly ruined others in society, both the victims and those connected to them, should still have a say in society, but more pointing out the ridiculousness that is arguing that you would ever get a concentrated population of rapists and murderers large enough to be a successful lobbying body due to their volume. They're two very different arguments for the same conclusions. One of them I can understand, but disagree with because preserving my own liberties is an extremely high priority for me and supersedes an ideological punitive argument. The other is just silly.

[Deletedaccount1]

Sure that's your opinion and you may not like that policy, but Bernie isn't just espousing some random policy in order to secure more votes. It's a policy of his state and his constituents and he is representing their values.

You talk a lot about patriots, but to me real patriots are those who stand up for American rights and values, no matter how unpopular they may be.

I understand that it's the policy of his state and if they want that, fine. That doesn't make it an "American value" though, there is no majority nationwide supporting something that far removed from the status quo.

[Kasierith]

There is an argument to be made that while incarcerated, prisoners can be deprived of their rights. I mean, you certainly don't have free speech or the right to bear arms in prison.

But once a person is freed, is there any valid reason to restrict rights unrelated to their crime? It's one thing if a guy who murdered folks with guns gets "you can't own guns forever" as part of their punishment, but voting isn't really related to that.

Though I suspect that if you make enough people criminals, and then give them the right to vote, you might not be able to make as many people criminals! And then where would our for-profit prison system be? /sarcasm

I think it underlines how punitive certain aspects of the American legal system are, probably a reason why the US's recidivism rates suck so much.

[Sunseeker]

I think it underlines how punitive certain aspects of the American legal system are, probably a reason why the US's recidivism rates suck so much.

Not much of an incentive to be a productive member of society when you're not allowed to actually participate in society.

[Captain N]

I understand that it's the policy of his state and if they want that, fine. That doesn't make it an "American value" though, there is no majority nationwide supporting something that far removed from the status quo.

Well it sort of is -- considering there's only 13 States at the time of this article who don't allow people to vote after their sentence is up.

States where felons never lose right to vote: In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while incarcerated.

States where felons lose rights only while incarcerated: In 14 states and the District of Columbia, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release. Then they must go through the normal voter registration process.

States where rights are lost until completion of sentence: In 21 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration and for a period of time after, typically while on parole or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored. California is in this category, but in 2016, the state passed legislation allowing those in county jails to vote, but not those in state or federal prison.

States where felons lose rights beyond the completion of sentence: In 13 states, felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, or face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence before voting rights can be restored.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-restoration/

So it sounds like Sanders is simply pushing for those 13 states to allow felons to vote like a majority of the US already does.

[kail]

Voting is a right he doesn't believe should be take from convicts. Outside of non-citizens and minors, Sanders probably believes everyone else should have the right to equal votes.

What sort of issue would it cause in the end? How many people are incarcerated right now due to a convicted felony? Last I've remembered it was less than a percent of the population. A politician might cater to felons for some of those votes but could cost them more from such PR. All in all, business will go on as usual if they are allowed to vote from prison.

[TexasRules]

He was challenged as to whether he believed in the principle he was stating, or if he would back down when presented with a worst-case example.

Bernie stood by his principles.

The issue is that you folks are trying to make it solely about the worst-case example, not the principle.

The principle always comes down to the worst case scenario. That is why things become lawsuits and end up at the supreme court. It is why you completely dodged the question on Hinckley. If you agree and are strong in your principle you would answer yes, like Bernie Sanders, you think someone who shot a sitting President should be able to vote.

- - - Updated - - -

Not much of an incentive to be a productive member of society when you're not allowed to actually participate in society.

Not much of an incentive to make someone a productive member of society when they took away the chance for another person to participate in society. I am not talking just murderers. What about people raped, molested, tortured who go through years of therapy and never fully recover. Some of them don't get to participate in society. There are a lot of criminals who do not deserve what they have now, let alone more rights. This is just more of the party of victims trying to only help certain victims.

[Pannonian]

Like it isn't even the standard in Europe. A simple google search could've told you this.

https://felonvoting.procon.org/view....ourceID=000289

Inform yourself before spewing your leftist nonsense.

Either you're not really reading your own links and just fire or forget.

Or you're lying on purpose.

Which is it?

Maybe read your own links before spewing bullshit.

[Mormolyce]

Regardless of the crime, it should not be possible to deny people the right to vote based on whether they're convicted criminals.

The government is elected by the people. But the government also puts people in jail, so if putting someone in jail disenfranchises you then you've given the government the ability to decide who is allowed to vote for it. A clear conflict of interest.

And this is no academic point, it happened in the South systematically during the Jim Crow era.

Yes yes, this creates a great moral panic talking point for conservatives. Oh no criminals are allowed to vote how awful. But yes, they should all be able to regardless of what the crime is.

If you don't like the effect that has on the voter base maybe you should think twice about having the highest incarceration rate on the planet...

- - - Updated - - -

Like it isn't even the standard in Europe. A simple google search could've told you this.

https://felonvoting.procon.org/view....ourceID=000289

Inform yourself before spewing your leftist nonsense.

LOL did you not read your own link again?

Did you notice its source on the US part?

Out of Step with the World: An Analysis of Felony Disfranchisement in the U.S. and Other Democracies

VI. CONCLUSIONS
Disfranchisement of people with criminal convictions is not the democratic norm. Many nations which share the same Western philosophical foundations as the United States – and the same interests in reducing crime and strengthening republican self-government – have opted for dramatically different policies, often including full voting rights for inmates. This report has emphasized three central conclusions:
• First, while European policies vary, the vast majority of western European states either insist on full voting rights for all inmates, or apply disfranchisement in a very limited way. While there are disagreements among European states in this area, those disagreements tend to stop at the prison walls, as it were. Certainly, some other democracies do bar some people with criminal convictions from voting. But their existence actually weakens the case for American-style restrictions, because their policies differ dramatically from those now in place in the United States. In those several western European nations where disfranchisement is policy, it is usually applied only narrowly and selectively, to a small number of crimes and criminals. It is publicly imposed, often at the sentencing judge’s discretion. And while hard numbers are difficult to come by, it appears that these policies disqualify a relative handful of voters – while American restrictions remove millions from the rolls.
• Second, those high courts in peer democracies that have examined disfranchisement policies have rejected them on philosophical, pragmatic, and, occasionally, racial grounds. And after some predictable but low-key grumbling by
politicians, all levels of government, including corrections and elections staff, have complied with these rulings. Significantly, neither the security of elections nor prison safety has been threatened in any way – in any country.
• Third, some of the most significant international treaty bodies have criticized blanket disfranchisement policies – in one case, directly and specifically rejecting U.S. policies for their “breadth and duration,” their racial effects and their coverage of such a wide range of offenses. The unpopularity of criminal disfranchisement among the world’s advanced democracies should reverse the terms of the ongoing debate over the policy here in the United States. Disfranchisement’s defenders – including those who advocate barring people with felony convictions from voting even after they’ve left prison – give the impression that universal suffrage would threaten the very foundations of western democratic thought and destroy our criminal-justice system. Barring these people from voting, the policy’s defenders argue, is just common sense. In fact, it is not common in any sense. American disfranchisement policies are unlike those of any other advanced democracy, and are increasingly at odds with modern understandings of international law. These facts shift the burden of proof, as it were, to those who would continue automatic, mass disfranchisement in the United States. Pointing vaguely at political theory is no longer enough. Given how unusual the policy is, we should ask whether it is necessary to fulfill some exceptional need. What particular evil does it address?

The policy’s defenders have never satisfactorily answered these simple, practical questions. It is neither hyperbole nor subversion to say that a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires Americans to take a hard look at whether mass disfranchisement is truly necessary to prevent crime and strengthen our democracy. In fact, it accomplishes neither objective.

https://felonvoting.procon.org/sourc...eport-2006.pdf

What a great summary, thanks Seth.

[Polyxo]

I'm fine with felons voting while in prison. Let's not give red states the ability to 'jail away' people they don't want voting.

[PC2]

Obviously it's a ploy to get the Democratic/criminal base to ensure Democratic wins. Snaky move, "Victory at any cost".

[Noradin]

If that is the case those that are part of the group being affected the most are free to vote to change the laws and in general those that find it unfair (like I would). The same reasoning you are going to see certain groups support different things that disproportionately affect them.

Ever heard of the Cash for Kids scandal?

- - - Updated - - -

It should stay in those two states. Two small, relatively affluent states where crime is comparatively rare to many other parts of the country. They have the right to make those laws for themselves but it's still stupid.

Given the amount of prisoners the USA have relative to any other nation on earth prisoners in the USA definitively need the right to vote desperately.
But apparently opposing slavery is out nowadays.

[s_bushido]

the Democratic/criminal base

And people wonder why conservatives on this forum get such a bad rap.

[Sunseeker]

Not much of an incentive to make someone a productive member of society when they took away the chance for another person to participate in society. I am not talking just murderers. What about people raped, molested, tortured who go through years of therapy and never fully recover. Some of them don't get to participate in society. There are a lot of criminals who do not deserve what they have now, let alone more rights. This is just more of the party of victims trying to only help certain victims.

Oh toss off. The 'Cons have no room to talk about doing things for vicims when you want to force pregnant rape victims to keep their pregnancies.

Yeah, some mighty moral high ground you've got.

[Felya]

Obviously it's ploy to get the Democratic/criminal base to ensure Democratic wins. Snaky move but I still respect their creativity. "Victory at ant cost"

I don’t think getting more people to vote for victory is as bad as you make it seem. Victory at the cost of more citizens voting, is called democracy.

[Ivanstone]

Obviously it's ploy to get the Democratic/criminal base to ensure Democratic wins. Snaky move but I still respect their creativity. "Victory at ant cost"

Its a little better than removing the right of citizens to vote. The GOP knows it can't win without stripping away people's right to vote. Snaky move but I still respect their creativity. "Victory at any cost"

[Citizen T]

Explain why his slippery slope argument is invalid when it's the only argument the malicious right keeps using for:
1. gun rights
2. hate speech
etc.

You either accept this logic and accept your own, or you reject it and reject your own.

That is if you want to keep up the illusion of honesty at least, I already know you don't care and that you would use violence and oppression the moment you think you can get away with it.

Whatever you might think is a slippery slope doesn't make it one.

The right to vote as enshrined in the US Constitution is protected only by race, color, previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment), and sex (19th Amendment). The Congress has the power to enforce this by legislation.

Now the US Constitution in the 1st and 2nd Amendments makes no exemptions, but the 2nd for instance is FAR FAR more limited than is the right the vote. Should we prevent anyone adjudicated as mentally ill or committed to a mental institution from voting? How about not convicted of a felony but just under indictment or even just having restraining order? How about some misdemeanor convictions? How about drug addicts or alcoholics? Maybe a dishonorable discharge from the military? Should we allow states to "may issue" voting registrations?

One's 1st Amendment rights can be curtailed by a court for various reasons as well. Court gag orders are not exactly a rare thing.