Restoring Felons Right To Vote

[Flyndaran]

If only some people are allowed to vote, then it can't really be called a representation democracy, now can it?

In a perfect world I would like only informed citizens to have the right to vote on specific issues. This of course would result in corrupt testing and testers.

As they say, democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others.

[Slytovhand]

I'll go back to what I originally said...

A criminal is a person who deliberately and flagrantly ignored and violated the rights of other people. (not including drug offences and the like).

No - they haven't 'served their time' - they've just spent some time away from society to try to deter them from doing it again... because they got caught.

What is being suggested here is that just because a person is caught for doing a crime, and suffers that consequence, that it is presumed that they want to rejoin society and respect all of it's laws and citizens. As we know from experience (called a 'recidivism') that's a complete crock!

Now, if they then underwent some form of volunteer work to indicate that willingness to co-operate with society... fine! But until then, I think they've still got a 'criminal mentality'.

How's that for a hard bastard??

Oh - Flyn.. yep, it can be a representation democracy... it just represents only certain people, like the original one back in Athens.

[AFPheonix]

I have to say, I'm glad you're not in control of any place that I live, Slyt. What you are proposing is essentially a "Separate but equal" scenario. Not pretty. As it is, felons get to deal with having more difficulty getting jobs, have a lot more hoops to jump through with probation officers, etc. etc etc. They've paid their debt. They can be free to act as citizens again.
If you are going to bring up recidivism as an argument, then you are essentially proposing to convict these people before an act has occurred. That opens the door to thought policing, and that's scary too.
The laws that protect ex-felons protect the rest of us. Yes, some of them are bad people, but the general populace is hardly made up of angelic individuals. We're all bad in our way. Just as the felons can be good in their way.

[Slytovhand]

Actually, AFP, sorry, no you're probably not glad. Cos the entire society would be quite different. This is just one aspect.

No, not a 'Separate but equal' scenario, cos it's quite 'non-equal' in my society.

And I'm using recidivism as a reason for why a person, who I will again remind has chosen to blatantly and with full wilful intent chosen to disregard laws and rights of other individuals, to use the voluntary work methods to 'rehabilitate' them. The current process doesn't work. They get caught, go to jail, 'serve their time', get let out back on the streets again. If they're lucky they can get in a program and help them access good rehab... but that's relatively rare.

Thus, cold-blooded murderers and rapists... sorry, there really is no amount of time you can serve that will allow you to go back to being a 'citizen'.

And hey - it's worked well enough for centuries enough in the past

(oh - as for the 'hardly made up of angelic individuals' - very true. Trust me, in my society, a lot more responsibility would get enforced!)

[AFPheonix]

I will agree with better rehabilitation available for people in prison and coming out of it, but you are still convicting people of a crime not committed when you don't fully reinstate their citizenship based on a possibility of reoffending.

[Slytovhand]

No, I'm saying that the current penal system is far from sufficient. citizenship loss was from the original crime, and just being released from prison does not automatically regain that.

[AFPheonix]

Then reform the system when you're in charge. Continuing to punish someone once they're finished with their punishment doesn't seem to be particularly effective to me. In fact, it seems rather pointless. I'd rather see something done that is actually effective to reduce recidivism, like say, job counselling, consumer credit counselling, better mental health care, better health care in general.

Preventing them from voting does nothing except alienate them further from society, which won't improve the original problem in the first place.

[Girly]

I think that once someone has completed their sentance, probation and parole, and all fines are paid in full, then yes, they should be allowed to vote.

[Pedersen]

I just thought of something for this thread. I don't remember who said this, but the way it was phrased was that even though the criminal has paid their dues, they should still have to show that they want to rejoin society.

I have to disagree for one reason: Prison/fines/etc are not about making someone want to rejoin. The punishments that are handed out are the price that society exacts on the criminal. This is the price that society says "You did wrong. To repay society for your acts, this is what you must do."

The criminal is made to pay for their acts by society at large. Society has stated the punishment that must be done. Society must now accept the terms that it has placed on the criminal, and restore them to being a fully functioning member of society once that price has been exacted.

To do anything less is to indicate to the criminal that society is not done punishing him/her yet. Either the punishment is done, and society has exacted the price, or the punishment is not done. We can't have it both ways.

[Boozy]

I was just told (and please correct me if I was misinformed) that there is no law preventing convicted felons from holding office. So despite Ted Stevens recent conviction, he is still eligible to remain on the ballot this coming election. But he can't vote for himself.

Please tell me this isn't so. However one may feel about the voting rights of felons, this is ludicrous.

[Pedersen]

Even worse, I have read (and agree with) a justification for allowing him to do so.

Simply put: If you hold a lawmaking office, you can make an activity of your opponent's into a crime. If your opponent commits that crime, and gets convicted, then your opponent is no longer your opponent. Your position remains secure.

The saddest part of all is that I can easily see this coming to pass in the near future where this will be used to prevent good people from obtaining said offices because some b.s. law gets passed specifically to target these people and prevent them from taking the job of someone who already holds the office.

So, yes, Boozy, you're right. He's a convicted felon. He can't vote for himself. But he can hold office. And I have to agree with letting him do so.

[AFPheonix]

But on the bright side, as a convicted felon the other side gets some pretty good juicy negative ads.

On the downside, this is Alaska, where they love Ted Stevens even though he's an asshole.

[Boozy]

So, yes, Boozy, you're right. He's a convicted felon. He can't vote for himself. But he can hold office. And I have to agree with letting him do so.

I can understand letting him hold office, especially given the possible scenario you described.

I still think its preposterous that a felony prevents you from casting a vote at the ballot box, but doesn't prevent you from doing so in the Senate.

[Tanasi]

I was just told (and please correct me if I was misinformed) that there is no law preventing convicted felons from holding office. So despite Ted Stevens recent conviction, he is still eligible to remain on the ballot this coming election. But he can't vote for himself.

Please tell me this isn't so. However one may feel about the voting rights of felons, this is ludicrous.

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.

It isn't unheard of for a felon to regain their franchise. It can be regain by pardon or petitioning the court for restoration of rights. Junior 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?

BTW you do not have a right to vote for president. As the constitution was written the state legislatures were to elect the president as your representative. You have the right to elect your US representative and the US Senators were appointed by the state governments as the state government's representative. All that being typed one of the admendments to the Constitution allowed for the popular election of US Senators, most states allow for the popular vote of POTUS. I think South Carolina's state legislature still reserves the presidential votes but asceeds to the popular vote. And further the POTUS still isn't really elected until each state's US Senator and US Representative cast their vote in the electorial college. And ever furtherer the person that was elected president didn't select the VPOTUS but the person that received the second most electorial votes was elected VPOTUS and President of the Senate.

I'll have to do some research but I think the Constitution specifically addresses loss of rights for certain felonies, but it also addresses restoration.
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. As a kid I don't remember ever being taught that I could loose my franchise by committing a felony but I do remember being taught not to commit felonies simply because it the wrong thing to do. Frankly there's some crimes that forgiveness can never be achieved.

[TheRoo]

And further the POTUS still isn't really elected until each state's US Senator and US Representative cast their vote in the electorial college.

One quick correction. Members of Congress can not be electors in the electoral college. As per the Constitution, the number of electors a state gets is equal to it's Congressional representation (Senate and House combined). I voted earlier this week in South Dakota, and it actually listed the slate of electors for each candidate on the ballot.