Restoring Felons Right To Vote

[tropicsgoddess]

They've paid their debts to society, but unfortunately they face many obstacles with jobs and such and unfortunately with elections coming up a good number have to go through a lengthy process to apply for clemency in order to restore their voting rights. Should a felon be able to vote or should they still be stripped of their right, despite the fact they have paid their debts to society and served their time?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbfelons1012sboct12,0,3762352.story?page=2

[Sylvia727]

They're here, they're affected by these decisions, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? To paraphrase Susan B. Anthony, "It says 'we, the people', not 'we, the white male unconvicted citizens',".

Since I just renewed my voter registration recently, I can say with authority that in my state, the question runs "Are you currently paroled for a felony?" which to me sounds like a felon who has finished serving his time, including parole, is allowed to vote. And that sounds right to me.

[crazylegs]

The punishment of imprisonment is the loss of liberty, not the loss of other basic human rights (right to life <other than lawful execution>, right not to be hald incommunicado, right to free speech <other than lawful restrictions to maintain a safe society>), a right to vote comes under that so yes, they should be able to vote.

[Slytovhand]

Except...

a criminal is one who has blatantly and deliberatly chosen to disregard the laws of society. They have infringed upon other people's rights in the same way. They have taken a look at the society in which they have been brought up in, and in a sense, chosen to 'betray' all that they had been given by that society.

And now you think they are entitled to have a say in that society that they abused??

I'm certainly not so sure.

I think that just doing the time is a way to punish them - it doesn't really do anything to say that they choose to be a participant in that society again.

There are people who live in that society for a time who respect those laws, and the culture and society, and who give a great deal, who don't have that right to vote.

I think, after doing that time, if you want to get that 'right to vote' back, you have to earn it back.

Sorry Crazy, but I don't think that the 'right to vote' comes under 'basic human rights'. 'Basic societal rights' maybe....

[anriana]

a criminal is one who has blatantly and deliberatly chosen to disregard the laws of society. They have infringed upon other people's rights in the same way. They have taken a look at the society in which they have been brought up in, and in a sense, chosen to 'betray' all that they had been given by that society.


I don't agree with all the laws of American society, I just don't break them because I don't want to go to prison. With the way our prison industrial complex is, I don't agree with what you're saying. So many people are in jail for casual drug use and I certainly don't think that smoking marijuana infringes on my rights in anyway.

[Slytovhand]

Best example I can use to fully explain would be Socrates.

He was done for impiety and corrupting the young.


Ok, it was a dodgey call, and he went to court for it, and lost.

But, he chose to live there, he chose to abide by all the good bits that gave him the benefits he had lived off in that city for all his life. Heck, he even went to war to defend all of those rights, benefits, laws etc.

He was found guilty, and his punishment was death by drinking hemlock.

He had the chance to escape, cos all of his friends got together and said they could get him out (he'd be exiled for life, naturally). But no, he chose to stay and take his punishment.

It's called 'responsibility' - which means if you accept it, you also have to accept the consequences of your actions.

If he didn't accept all of those laws, then he had a moral obligation to either leave, or do something within that society to change them.... (or overthrow with a coup :p)

So - if those people are in jail because they broke the law, then what I said still stands. Our opinion is completely irrelevant. (can you imagine going before a magistrate and saying "Yeah, I couldn't really be bothered stopping at that intersection, I didn't feel I should have to, cos I disagree that there should be one there".) When it comes to drug use, there are enough countries (and sometimes even states) where you can use til your heart's content.

[Sylvia727]

They have taken a look at the society in which they have been brought up in, and in a sense, chosen to 'betray' all that they had been given by that society. ... it doesn't really do anything to say that they choose to be a participant in that society again.

I understand your point. Why should a serial killer's voice have the same weight as mine, a law abiding citizen? But in theory, it's "time for crime", and then it's a wash. People can change, if they want to and have the opportunity. Denying felons any of the rights of their fellow citizens makes them second class citizens, in essence perpetuating their punishment until the end of their lives. If there are people who deserve this, then keep them locked up.

Once released (and off parole), they should be the same as Joe Q. Citizen, because they've paid their debt and because that's the only opportunity for them to improve themselves. Why would anyone gain respect for a society that continued to punish him past the accepted time? There's a social contract: if you rob a bank, you should spend x years in prison. Jane robs a bank and spends her x years in prison, accepting the punishment of the society she lives in. But when she gets out, she receives an invisible punishment, beyond the prison time she has already served. How does that make her want to turn her life around and better herself? No matter what, for the rest of her life she will be a second class citizen, so she should just give up and go back to crime. Society doesn't respect her, why should she respect society?

Personally, I admire anyone who can come out of prison and turn their life around. People who can take menial jobs (often the only jobs available to ex-cons), work hand, do well, and live clean. It takes a helluva lotta strength of character, and my hat's off to anyone who does it.

There are people who live in that society for a time who respect those laws, and the culture and society, and who give a great deal, who don't have that right to vote.

Who? As far as I know, the right to vote in America is not denied to any citizen based on age (once adult), race, color, nationality, language, religion, politics, *takes a breath* sex, gender, orientation, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, veteran status, or any other superficial differences.

[Slytovhand]

Sylvia...

I propose that those who want to do the turn around, or show that they've done the turn around, do some community service work for a while to prove it. Doing time is a punishment for getting caught, it doesn't show the willingness to rejoin society.

You refer only to citizens. I am referring to others who haven't taken out citizenship. I don't know what your laws are like where you are, but over here, kiwis can live in Aus for as long as they want, but (IIRC) they don't get to vote here, and the reverse is true as well. (edit) Also, there will be many visitors to the country who have working visas. While they pay taxes to that government, and do just about everything else as per any other citizens, no votes (and no other benefits... depending on your country).

[Sylvia727]

Why should they have to do community service? They're already paid for their crime. Anything they had to prove, they've proven by serving their time. Many prisons let the inmates out early for good behavior, an additional measure of their commitment to peaceful living.

I do refer exclusively to citizens, because as far as I can see, the whole point of citizenship is to delineate what society you've chosen to belong to. And adults who have the opportunity to leave the country of their births and choose not to are choosing to belong to that society. I dunno about Australia/New Zealand relations (did I get that right?), but in the USA illegal immigrants are supposed to be expelled, and legal immigrants are expected to apply for citizenship. Our system doesn't work, of course, but in theory everyone who wants to be a citizen can if they go through the red tape.

[Greenday]

Just because they served their time doesn't mean they've changed their ways. Part of me wants to say, "Yea, they were punished, let them go back on as normal". And then another part of me thinks, "This is the judicial system that lets people out of jail after only a couple of years for rapes, but decades for weed."

[crazylegs]

Just because they served their time doesn't mean they've changed their ways.

Perhaps not, but once they have served their punishment/rehabilitaion/'whatever the buzzword is today' then a retrospective and additional punishment is unnecessary, disproportionate and probably unlawful.

[Greenday]

I just don't see voting as a right. It's a privilege.

[Flyndaran]

I just don't see voting as a right. It's a privilege.

You have got to be kidding!
Voting is one of, if not the most, fundamental right of any citizen in a free world.

Freedom of travel is a right, but driving is a priviledge.
I can't imagine anyone of any other ostensibly democratic nation to have such a large number of citizens espousing such a sad opinion as the U.S. likely does.

Priviledges may be taken away by state, and even city ordinances. Rights require federal involvement.

[Greenday]

It's stuff like this http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/984622/ that scares me. Why should people be allowed to vote if they don't even bother learning what the hell they are voting for?

[the_std]

Because, if voting is a RIGHT, someone denied that right is essentially being told they are less worthy as a person, and just because someone is ignorant (yes, even painfully so) doesn't make them any less worthy as a person.

[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?? :p

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 :D

(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. :rolleyes:

[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.

[Boozy]

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?"

[Slytovhand]

"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?"

[Girly]

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.

[Rapscallion]

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

Rapscallion

[prb]

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.