Voters Right Act - Should Felons be allowed to vote?

[Doctor Amadeus]

The short answer is "yes".

The longer answer involves pointing out that the number of convicted rapists is so small that it's not a voting bloc with any power to change informed consent laws. And that the same justification could be applied to, say, people convicted of marijuana possession not being able to vote to legalize marijuana, where suddenly their opinions seems a lot more relevant.



Not really, no.

Because we're talking about a democratic system with a universal franchise. The most egregious individuals that you'll argue should not contribute are also so few in number that, in democratic terms, they're basically irrelevant.

If this were an oligarchy and they were the only people making decisions, sure, that's bad. In practice, their voices are drowned out.

Plus, consider the impact on rehabilitation. By denying them civil rights, you further separate these felons from society, creating a deeper divide that works against rehabilitation. Your likening them as "wolves" to the rest of society's "sheep" is, itself, a form of rhetorical segregation, working to widen that divide, and keep them criminal.

So what if Felons were to get together, and they voted lobbied much in the same way other special interest groups have

As for the wolves vs sheep, I used that description because that really is what it is, for some people will always represent suckers or their next victim, and those who have proven the propensity to negatively impact society in such a serious nature should have their rights forever revoked.

I am also glad you mentioned Canada because even in Canada if you have been convicted of certain misdemeanors, you can and will be denied entry, same with entry into the U.S, Australia or most other Countries.


Like I said, I am fine with tabling the idea because of the fact far too many people are convicted of some of our worst crimes unjustly, I don't mean by a little, I mean by enough, that I can see some who disagree with removing the voting rights of felons, or giving them back after a said amount of time.


However the counter argument even among those I respect a bit is that "Well people are convicted of felonies over some seriously biased and stupid shit" which I agree, but as I said, I don't feel the remedy is to advocate more rights for felons.

As to what constitutes a felony, I think is an important conversation to have.


But no if you commit murder, violence or harm great enough to rises to the level of what a felony is "Supposed" to mean then you likely shouldn't be out of prison without probation much less allowed to vote.

[kail]

IM RAPIST RIIIIIIICCCCKKKKKKK!!!



I had to.

You got me .

[Endus]

So what if Felons were to get together, and they voted lobbied much in the same way other special interest groups have

Then they're still so few they're irrelevant. In Canada, we have a grand total of about 22,000 inmates who are eligible to vote. And they'd vote in their home districts, remotely, not where the prison is. That's not a significant demographic. Not in a voting population just north of 27 million. That's a whopping 0.08% of the population.

I am also glad you mentioned Canada because even in Canada if you have been convicted of certain misdemeanors, you can and will be denied entry, same with entry into the U.S, Australia or most other Countries.

You're moving goalposts. That's immigration, not enfranchisement.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You cant really make that distinction. A society that tries to do that can easily become one that abuses that power. The average populace isnt that smart and can be easily led.

Plus what about those who did say, armed robbery but have so thoroughly reformed that they havent done anything wrong in 15 years past release? Should they constantly be wearing the scarlet letter? Why would ANYONE attempt to be reformed if they never get to be integrated into society fully again?

two things.


1. You can make a distinction. If you rob a convenience store with a gun, if you engage in sexual intercourse with a minor below the legal age, if you steal something that causes others specifically society or the general populace to suffer, then that is pretty clearly a felony.


2. Rehabilitation isn't something that is owed to an individual, rehabilitation is owed to society sure, because someone who goes to prison to only sit and learn to become a better criminal doesn't help society, it just refines the element which was precisely the reason for incarceration in the first place, because said individual is a danger to the harm of others.

This is why is society we have laws in the first place, because the reality is NO there are things you for sure definitely should not be doing and when YOU do those things, as an adult YOU LOSE!

The reason we house and put people in prison is because we as a society choose that as a way of protecting ourselves and the money spend is the price we also pay for that.

The only thing a convicted Felon represents to society is a Negative, meaning taking but not over all providing anything.


Now provided there was a perfect scenario where ONLY felons truly committed to their crimes were found guilty and maybe through prison said individual has taken the opportunities they have been afforded to EARN the right to be admitted back into society, then MAYBE said Felon could EARN the right to vote again too.

But over all NO, I think voting along with many other rights, freedoms or privileges should only be reserved for law abiding citizens

[kail]

But no if you commit murder, violence or harm great enough to rises to the level of what a felony is "Supposed" to mean then you likely shouldn't be out of prison without probation much less allowed to vote.

Then your core issue is that they are out of prison when you think they shouldn't be, which can be debatable as sentence times can be quite screwy. Once they are out though, they are free to work, eat at a restaraunt, own a business, marry, and/or watch Netflix like anyone else. Their record is stained forever but they hold all the rights you do.

Here's something your probably even more against that voting rights, felons can also run for office.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Then they're still so few they're irrelevant. In Canada, we have a grand total of about 22,000 inmates who are eligible to vote. And they'd vote in their home districts, remotely, not where the prison is. That's not a significant demographic.

You're moving goalposts. That's immigration, not enfranchisement.

Significant in Canada no, but in the U.S try close to 3 million.

Not moving the goal post, just stating that their are some exceptions Canada has a Standard for who they will or won't admit into their borders, the same with the U.S and everywhere else.

I would suggest limiting where people visit like say friends or relatives, or limiting where one can exist say for a job, or even to establish residence, is far more severe and harsh than to say that those who have already been afforded those rights and abused them should be allowed to not only live, but also to exercise rights as every other law abiding citizen.

Sorry I just can't agree with that. I am not advocating cruelty or disenfranchising anything and it's pretty fucked up this is used as a tool to do that, but in essence yeah if you proven you abuse the society around you then I think is reasonable to expect they don't want you to participate.

- - - Updated - - -

Then your core issue is that they are out of prison when you think they shouldn't be, which can be debatable as sentence times can be quite screwy. Once they are out though, they are free to work, eat at a restaraunt, own a business, marry, and/or watch Netflix like anyone else. Their record is stained forever but they hold all the rights you do.

Here's something your probably even more against that voting rights, felons can also run for office.

Maybe and You are correct i don't think felons should run for office if they can't vote.

But keep in mind the most egregious crimes against humanity, in other words community.

I am 100% for a merit based system.

If your actions are that of a criminal then you should be punished.


And before we do this what constitutes a criminal, we are specifically talking about felonies.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The only ones ignorant are the ones talking out their ass that have never worked in the system.

Kinda odd as your talking out your ass and have apparently worked in the system, did they give you a pass or something so you could officially talk out your ass?

[Mistame]

Yes, but laws and the way our society works has to do with laws that reflect the values of the general populace.

Fun fact: Felons are part of the "general populace".

1. You can make a distinction.

No, you can't. If they've served their time, they've served their time. Period. Regardless of the crime.

If your actions are that of a criminal then you should be punished.

"Punishment" should end when their time is served.

Also, stop posting drunk. Your comments are largely nonsensical.

[Ghostpanther]

Sure, after they get out of prison. Some restrictions for some crimes however.

[Egomaniac]

Significant in Canada no, but in the U.S try close to 3 million.

3 million compared to 235 million eligible voters.

Not moving the goal post, just stating that their are some exceptions Canada has a Standard for who they will or won't admit into their borders, the same with the U.S and everywhere else.

Has nothing to do with voting rights.

If your actions are that of a criminal then you should be punished.

They have been punished. They've served their sentence. Now they are supposed to re-integrate into society.

[Monster Hunter]

Voters Right Act - Should Felons be allowed to vote?

I had this conversation with a friend of mine the other day, and yes I recognize the Justice System is biased as fuck and even has sentenced people to death row for crimes that didn't fit their participation and as such I DO NOT support the Death Penalty in it's present form Unless or Until those problems can be remedied if ever.

However I am NOT of the mind not guilty means innocent, and the idea that prisons are filled with non violent offenders who sold a little weed is horseshit, along with that NO, I do NOT believe convicted felons should be given the right to fucking vote.

Going even further, I believe thug culture is garbage, selling drugs along the lines of trafficking poison for profit is bullshit, and I think Bill Clinton was correct when he identified such people as super predators who infect communities and spread misery.

There is no doubt being poor as fuck is a shitty deal, and I am not trying to come of as judgmental or better, but the law is there for a fucking reason, even WHEN I disagree with it.

To get convicted of a FELONY isn't an EASY thing to do, I agree many bullshit laws should never rise to the level to become a FELONY, but that is a different argument.

My only concern for voter rights are those of legal citizens who, whether poor, indigent or impaired are allowed to vote and have their vote counted.

The idea of allowing felons to vote is Bullshit IMO, so I put the question to you.

Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote, but once reformed they should get there rights back.

[Xarkan]

What about rapist, should convicted rapist be allowed to vote especially for representatives that can vote on bills like say concerning informed consent?


What if nobody convicted was disfranchised we knew for certain they were guilty of a certain crime, is there no point where you feel a person should lose their input into laws that govern everybody else?

I don't, I don't think wolves should be allowed to vote on what sheep are going to be for dinner.

If convicted rapists that think rape is ok and should be legal are common enough that their vote would change things then maybe that society has greater issues than their voting

[StillMcfuu]

States rights issue mainly, but I think after time served they should be able to vote in local elections. But nothing on the national (congress/senate/president) scale because that would affect other states.

[I Push Buttons]

I think prisoners convicted of felonies and currently in prison should not get a vote while serving their sentence; those convicted of misdemeanors and in jails should though.

For 'lesser' felonies, after they have served their time I am fine with felons getting their right to vote back.

For repeat felons and people who commit the most egregious crimes (murder, rape, etc.), they should never get the right to vote back, even after serving their sentences. If you violate society's laws multiple times and/or commit the most heinous crimes, you have amply demonstrated that you have nothing to contribute to society and should have no say in it.

IMO

[The Butt Witch]

While in prison, NO. They turned their backs on society when they committed the crime.
After they paid their dues to society, sure, as they're considered...hm...rehabilitated.

[Spectral]

As with any question about who should vote, I think we first need to establish what exactly the goal is of enfranchisement. Are we trying to choose the "best" candidates for positions? Is it that maximal civic engagement leads to a better, more stable society even if the actual candidates chosen aren't optimal? Or is it simply that maximizing the number of people voting is a terminal good?

Most of these conversations seem to assume that we're all basically on the same page with what the goal is, but I don't think that's the case at all.

Personally, I have no desire to see felons voting. I'm inclined towards some combination of thinking we're trying to choose the best candidates via process and that people have some sort of core right of self determination. I doubt that including the felon vote will improve the quality of candidates and think felonies permanently costing someone part of their self determination is an acceptable form of punishment. I don't feel particularly strongly about that for people who are released and reintegrated into society though - I'd be fine with people who have reestablished themselves as worthwhile human beings getting their full franchise back.

[Rozz]

Personally I'm not sure. However if they're going to be held to policy and taxation after their release, they should be able to vote on that. Despite my doubts and grievances, that is a right I think all free citizens should have.

[Ripster42]

Yes, and they should be able to vote while in prison. There's zero justifiable reason to disenfranchise people.

[GreenJesus]

If they are still in prison? No. If they served their time? Yes.

[Kokolums]

If people were as concerned about disenfranchising right wingers as much as they are about disenfranchising felons in this thread, we wouldn't be seeing effectively 0% of republicans trusting the system today. Its quite interesting how people CAN learn the lesson but refuse to apply it where it is desperately needed.