Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Restoring Felons Right To Vote

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Tanasi View Post
    His conviction isn't "official" until he is sentanced until then he isn't a felon. All federal elected offices have a non-felony requirement. I'd say most also have that requirement.
    Thank you for clarifying the whole Ted Stevens situation. I couldn't wrap my head around it before; now it makes more sense.

    My personal opinion is: If your franchise was so important to you then why did you risk it by committing a felony? I say it wasn't important to you and then you don't deserve that right.
    I don't think this is a very good argument. The same logic could be applied to support any ridiculous law you could name. Let's say some renegade state decides to start cutting off the hands of shoplifters instead of fining or jailing them. "Well, if they valued their hand so much, they shouldn't have shoplifted."

    It would be nice if every criminal carefully weighed their actions and their consequences, but obviously they don't.

    While I'm obviously not comparing cutting off hands to losing one's ability to vote, the question here is "What constitutes a fair punishment, and when does that punishment end, if ever?"
    Last edited by Boozy; 10-31-2008, 10:39 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      "Well, if they valued their hand so much, they shouldn't have shoplifted."
      Ummm - yeah?? What's wrong with that??

      Ok, if it's survival level,sure, it's a harsh punishment. If it's mere desire - tough! Shoulda thought of that before....oh, you didn't, time you learnt about consequences then...

      I'd say - if every criminal was given a good enough reminder in society of the consequences of their actions (ie - no slaps on the wrist 15 times...), then they just might start doing a bit more weighing.

      But yes, I do agree (which I don't recall as being an actual topic anywhere...), "What constitutes a fair punishment?"
      ZOE: Preacher, don't the Bible got some pretty specific things to say about killing?

      SHEPHERD BOOK: Quite specific. It is, however, Somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Tanasi View Post
        nior Johnson was pardoned by President Regan and JJ rights were restored.
        Let's say a murderer is released from prison, pays all required restitution, pays all fines, serves out their parol. Should that person regain all their rights?
        Yes.

        Otherwise, why don't we just brand people that are felons? Much like the scarlet letter, we can just a a big ol' F. Tattoo it right on felons foreheads? That way no one can ever get confused.

        Comment


        • #34
          Ancient Romans did that - I think they branded the word 'fur' for thief into their foreheads.

          Rapscallion
          Proud to be a W.A.N.K.E.R. - Womanless And No Kids - Exciting Rubbing!
          Reclaiming words is fun!

          Comment


          • #35
            My personal opinion is that all citizens of a country above the voting age should be able to vote.

            In Canada, this is how it works. And it works well. Those incarcerated can vote by Special Ballot in their home riding by filling out a form and sending it to Elections Canada, or if they intend to make the electoral district of their correctional institute their permanent resident, in that riding - but still by Special Ballot as they probably can't make it to a polling station.

            Why? They're a citizen of the country. They have equal rights for everything else, it goes to reason that they should in the electoral process.

            Comment

            Working...
            X