POLL: Should convicted felons be allowed to vote?

Remove all ads!

The conservative talkers have been whining because allegedly Democrats want to allow felons, after they have entirely completed their sentence (parole, house arrest etc), and are no longer being monitored for their crimes, to be allowed to vote in Federal elections. Currently it is up to each state to determine if felons are allowed to vote.

Now the obvious inference is that more ex-cons are Democrats, so the Democrats are trying to change the rules of the game to give them a better chance to win back the majority in Congress and the Presidency.

Of course the flip side is that if you have paid your debt to society why don't you regain the right to vote?

So vote in the poll and then share what you think!

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 28 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Should convicted felons be allowed to vote? (28 votes.)

Should convicted felons be allowed to vote? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 61% (17)
* No - 32% (9)
* This is a stupid poll and I don't know why I am wasting my time voting! - 7% (2)

 

Never. No. Uh-uh. Absolutely not. Forget about it. America is too soft on criminals already -- too often "rights" are confused with "privileges."

Rights: adequate counsel, food, a place to sleep, ...
Privileges: Cable, internet access, air conditioning, VOTING...

...but then I also think there should be some sort of "I actually have a clue, understand the issues, and can identify the candidate in a line-up" requirement before being allowed to vote.

 

As Darkwolf wrote, they have already paid for the crime and since they are citizens of the country and pay taxes they have the right to vote.

 

Voting is a fundamental right. No human being should be deprived of the right to shape his own future.

 

In my oppinion preventing people in prison from voting is wrong so preventing people who have been in prison is even more wrong. Stripping one from his/her right to vote is stripping away a part of his human value and directly stating that he is not wanted in this society. For murderers this perhaps can be somehow justified but not nearly for everyone in prison.

Taking away your right to vote permanently is just plain wrong. After you've served your time you have payed your debt to society and you're given a new chance and it should also apply for your right to vote.

 

What I find particularly interesting is that 'the obvious inference is that more ex-cons are Democrats' ...

Of course. And the righteous are - of course - Republicans. They all have long, blonde hair and some of them even grow wings and play the harp.

And the sulfurous democrats are just pulling off another nasty, unprincipled and evil trick by endangering the country again - this time by being soft on criminals and pulling their votes ...

"Burglars, rapists and murderers vote Democrat! Defend yourself and vote GOP and join the NRA - today - before they take your guns away, too!"

IIRC one of the reaons democrats were adressing this issue was because Florida's governor, the bro of the recently re-elected president, deleted a number of voters from the voting lists because of minor felonies, iirc not even crimes - thus pushing out a substantial number of people who happened to be primarily black, lived in poor areas and wanted to vote democrat - which had some impact on US politics ... iirc last time last November.

The point is that you can use the idea that felons forfeit their right to vote to 'clean up' the electorate to pre-set conditions that favour an election result you desire - given the situation in some 'no go' areas in the US that may well mean excluding a substantial number of voters that would not vote GOP because the GOP doesn't care for them.

There are substantial 'crimes' that would justify forfeiting the right to vote. Felonies are a different issue - the point is where you draw the line - repeated false parking? Smoking in the subway? Having been arrested for substance abuse? For being drunk on the street? For a beating in a pub? Simple theft? After all, you easily go to jail for a night or two in the US.

I think the right to vote is something fundamental in a democratic republic, so it should need something substantial to forfeit it.

And then - should it be permanent - or just for a few years? It is probably unproportional to say someone has forfeited his right to vote for the rest of his entire life for committing a felony at the age of 18? The 'flip side' you mentioned Darkwolf, is actually the most important thing with this issue.

[ February 24, 2005, 01:18: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

If you have done your time you ought to have the same rights as everyone else. That is one of the major points of a penal system. Punishing further jsut serves to keep the person in question outside of society where he probably would continue with crimes. Should also be noted that I doubt that any ex-cons except those who have really recanted would have any interest in voting.

 

If you've done the time, I see no reason why you should not be allowed to participate in the "democratic" process... hang on, what was that second-last word? How many people haven't committed a potential felony (ie: they weren't caught)? Last time I checked, you could go to jail for drink-driving or drug possession... if you went to trial, that is. I won't rant about disproportionate application of justice or over-/under-policing, because the point should be clear. Sure, both parties have a vested interest in this, but I think that it has more than enough merit as a matter of principle to override such considerations.

Once post-release programs are completed, then what possible justification is there for keeping felons off the voting register? They are members of the community in good standing again, having "paid their debt to society" - and as joacqin says, many wouldn't give a rat's about voting anyway. So much for the justice principles of "majesty, justice and mercy" if it's so miserly that a fine default strips you of the ability to participate for the rest of your life.

Land of the free? Well, not entirely, it seems. In Australia, we even allow people in jail to vote! What kind of screwloose country do I live in? We used to be a prison colony, but this is democracy gone mad!

Mad, I tell you!

Here's a few links for those who are interested...
https://www.liv.asn.au/members/sections/submissions/20040818_83/20040818prisionervoting.pdf

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2003-04/04cib12.pdf

 

They should. It's not like one of the candidates is a crime lord who would get votes from inmates.

I would limit the right to be elected, not to elect. However, barring convicted felons and even minor offenders may have some sense in certain areas (think a bully getting votes for a small town council).

 

Just for clarity, I was telling the story from the point of view of the conservatives who are reporting it. While my statement as to "the flip side", might seem to project a view on this issue, it should be construed that way. The conservative talkers aren't giving any "flip side", so I suppose my sarcasm that was pointed at them backfired on me, and makes me look like I think that it is a poor ideal.

In actuality I am torn on this issue. Someone, such as a child molester, gave up many of their rights and privileges of citizenship upon committing their crime, and are only allowed to live among society based upon a issues of practicality, but in most cases, IMO, this is a mental illness that is similar to addiction, and is rarely ever truly eliminated. As a member of a deviant subculture, I am not sure that they deserve to ever vote again.

Anyone convicted of any act of intentionally taking the life of another (murder, homicide, manslaughter, excluding unintentional manslaughter) has also lost the privilege of self-determination as far as I am concerned.

However, someone who as a gag goes joyriding on their 18th birthday, gets a felony rap, and never gets to vote?

So my dilemma becomes what yardstick determines what crimes are bad enough to take away the privilege of voting?

One more point of clarity, there is no "right" to vote in the US Constitution. It simply is not guaranteed. That certain federal governmental positions must be elected is mandated, but it is up to the States to determine eligibility of the constituency. If memory serves, many states guarantee the right to vote, and some even allow felons to vote. That said (and I would defer to one of those who have studied the US Constitution more than I) the only thing that would prevent the Federal Government from setting voting standards for Federal elections is the 10th Amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Edit: Ooops, forgot one point I wanted to make. Conservatives are convinced that studies show that criminals tend to vote Democratic at the polls. I really don’t know if that is true, because I have never seen such a study, and am not sure that such a study would be completed by any reputable organization given that publishing such a study would be very politically incorrect. However they are motivated by this “fact”. Personally, I find that distasteful, as it does not fit with the principles of democracy. If we allow one ideology to start eliminating sections of the constituency, we have eliminated the ideals that the Founding Father’s established this nation under. In this regard it would make us no better than a dictatorship.

[ February 24, 2005, 03:23: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Actually, the comment about child molesters and paedophiles is a good one, Darkwolf - in my zealousness, I didn't consider them. That said, if I had things my way, they'd be locked up in General Population and as such would probably never see release from institutionlised care for the rest of their lives.

If the question is about the yardstick for loss of self-determination, then I'm more or less on the same page as you, Darkwolf - if a person has committed serious sexual offences, intentional homicide or sexually abused children, and has not demonstrated significant reform or remorse, they should not be able to vote. Of course, in my opinion, such individuals should never be released from prison, as they constitute an unconscionable risk to members of the community.

 

Seconded. The whole point of the limited prison terms is so that after a convict is "fixed", he can rejoin society. Problem is, prison sure as hell isn't going to "fix" anyone. If anything, the average con gets worse in prison. At least, American prisons.

 

Darkwolf,

I have to say I'm happy you wrote that.

I not only find the allegations by some partisan GOP hacks, hidden behind "some people say" or "some studies say", that Democrats (basically) are criminals, distasteful or politically incorrect - too mild words - it is simply demonisation and defamation of the political opponent.

In Germany such an utterance would likely get you indicted for the criminal offense of "Volksverhetzung" (because from the 1920s to mid-1940s we had that political style and found it damaging our country).
A classical example for 'Volksverhetzung' would be something 'jews hurt the country and therefor should forfeit their right to vote' - so basically suggesting that democrats are criminals and therefor should better be deprived their rights to vote is really not far away from this.

In Germany § 45 StGB (penal code) sees a suspension of the rights to be elected and to vote for criminals for two up to five years, if the law names this sanction. The duration, however, isn't automatic but has to be chosen as a sanction by the judge.
Crimes with this sanction are substantial: treason, election fraud or election obstruction, coercion and bribery connected with voting - and even there it is just a suspension of the right to vote and run for office.

The concern of 'dirty tricks' isn't that far off.

After all Michigan state Rep. John Pappageorge (R) was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election." African Americans comprise 83 percent of Detroit's population. A lot of other Republicans have similar views about the vote in areas with large African-American populations.

That isn't to be understood as racism: Most blacks vote Democratic. If those votes can be suppressed, Republicans benefit. It's a very simple calculation.

The reason why Democrats adressed this issue, was, as I said, that they felt with the exclusion of a large number of voters a 'dirty trick' was played on them in Florida, iirc based on a law passed by Jeb Bush and his crew. How convenient.
It is entirely understandable Democrats are concerned - the point was iirc that in Florida the loss of right to vote was permanent.


I find the notion that the US constitution 'doesn't grant the right to vote' preposterous. Sure, for a hundred years blacks weren't allowed to vote and that was found totally constitutional by the ruling whites then, but that mentality should have been overcome by now.

It's about "We, the people..." and that is every single one who has the citizenship of the U.S. and not what some hack wants to read out of it.

 

Darkwolf and others, if there are some crimes which you think should remove the right to vote for all eternity then that should be part of the sentence. For example, you murder someone and gets sentenced to prison for 15 years and lose your vote for the rest of your life. Make it into something the judge can tack onto the punishment if you strongly feel that some criminals forfeit the right to vote for all eternity.

 

Whilst in prison, sure, part of the sentence is to take away your liberty which I'm happy includes your right to vote. When you're back out, you've done your time.

To debate whether or not rapists or murderers should be allowed to vote when they get back out??? Please think about the whole utter pointlessness in NOT allowing them to. There is no point in not allowing ex cons to vote. There is every reason to let them since they have paid for their crime with a prison sentence.

Please keep in mind that even for the US which as far as I can work out has by far the highest prison population of any western country, it still amounts to approx 1/2 of one percent of the population. It is not going make a blind bit of difference if they all wanted to vote for some crime lord or some such. Which of course they wouldn't anyway, so why even bother thinking about it?

Let them vote once they've done their time I say.

 

I agree with most people in that once your term in prison is over, you should get the right to vote back.

Onto this other, stickier issue as to "most convicted felons are democrats". Actually, there may be some truth to that. Consider the folloiwng facts:

1. There are a disproportionate number of African Americans in prison as compared to members of other races (based on the percentage that race constitutes in the general population).

2. The vast majority of African Americans vote democrat.

The problem here is that unless you're talking about a state like Florida in 2000, the odds of a few more people voting being able to swing an election is remote. Yes, there are tens of thousands of people in the U.S. with a felony on their record, but in any given area (or even nationally) that percentage is tiny compared to the population as a whole.

Another reason why I don't think it makes a big difference is considering these two unrelated (as compared to the first two) facts.

1. There is a strong correlation in frequency of voting and education level. i.e., the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote consistently.

2. Most convicted felons have a lower education level that the general population.

Given these facts that felons only constitute a small percentage of the population, and that they aren't particularly likely to vote anyway, I seriously doubt that the number of votes the Dems would pick up would have any chance of influencing an election.

 

felony, n., [ML, felonia, treachery] a major crime, as in murder, arson, etc.

We do have a way of punishing those individuals who have committed crimes harsh enough to lose their voting privileges -- it's called a felony conviction. A felony is a crime where there is a VICTIM. One person either greatly harmed another (either physically or financially) or committed an act that a reasonable person would know COULD cause great harm. That 'joy ride' is called grand theft, Americans pay a lot of money to insurance companies to cover the costs of the 'joy rides.'

From what I can tell, a felon is either someone who doesn't care about other people, or lacks the judgement necessary to make good decisions that won't cause others harm -- either way, I don't want that person voting.

 

And I suppose you believe that once a person has commited a felon he can never ever become a decent citizen? Once a criminal allways a criminal is a fine attitude for increasing the chances of the criminal renewing his crime. If you decide to treat criminals like dirt you might as well give all of them a life in prison sentence or death penalty since you are clearly stating that they are not wanted now or ever.

 

Cause and effect. People make their own choices. A person who makes a decision to commit a felony does so with the knowledge they will no longer be allowed to vote if convicted. They made the choice, they pay for it. They knew the risks going in. Tough.

I don't really care whether or not someone has paid their 'debt to society.' They shouldn't have made the decision to hurt someone else to begin with -- the victims and their families will pay for the crime all their lives. I'm not at all concerned about the criminal (victim rights are sorely neglected throughout the world).