It was perfectly possible to not actively engage in "homosexual conduct", and felons are apparently felons forever, with no hope of ever changing their status through their own actions.
Printable View
It was perfectly possible to not actively engage in "homosexual conduct", and felons are apparently felons forever, with no hope of ever changing their status through their own actions.
I've said that felons should get their voting rights back the day they are released from prison. No ifs, no buts, no exceptions.
If they're too dangerous to have voting rights then they should be too dangerous to be released from prison. If they're safe to be released from prison they should be safe to vote.
You are cognizant of the psychological condition called "addiction"?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And I fail to see how, say, MJ users are a danger to us all.
How do law abiding citizens become addicted to an illegal drug?
If you were talking about the abuse of prescription opiates then you may have a point.
I'll point out that the dividing line between legal and illegal drugs is a bit blurry and very arbitrary.
I mean, alcohol is legal. It also was illegal for a certain period of time in the US.
I'll also point out that there are countries where some drugs are illegal while there are others where the same drugs are legal.
It's also not as if people are nailed to the spot where they are born.
Drug Suppliers Flooded Tiny West Virginia Town With 20 Million Painkillers Over 10 YearsQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm ok with people serving time (including parole) being restricted from voting. We curtail many rights and freedoms people are normally entitled to as part of incarceration, including behaviors which are vital to a healthy democracy, like protest. I'm ok with prison not being a valid legal residence for registration purposes or a location for a polling place or voting booths for secret ballots. That also DOES strike me as a context ripe for illegal intimidation & fraud, engaged in by prison officials. Once their sentence is up, though, there is absolutely no basis for further disenfranchising them. They've served their sentence, voting isn't a recidivist behavior or temptation, and it poses no direct threat to anyone else.
(and no, Lewk, I do not in fact approve of things like Megan's Law, nor do I approve of a criminal record as grounds for restricting firearms ownership under the current framework and context)
So are you suggesting that the US citizens who would otherwise be able to vote are currently incarcerated are only felons because they were born or grew up in a nation where the drug was legal and they had become addicted to it then consciously moved to a nation where they knew what they were addicted to was illegal there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I suspect the proportion of people for whom that is the case are statistically inconsequential.
Terrible problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I don't know if it's true or not but heard the other day that the proportion of Americans addicted to opiates is now the same as the proportion of Chinese addicted to opiates at the height of the Opium Wars. Shocking.
I don't quite get the grounds for your objections. What other reason do you have besides the Lewkowsian "They are criminals!" ?
I'd like an argument that's a bit more on the rational side.
The very purpose of prison is to exclude people who can not be trusted to be free citizens. Why should we trust them with the vote?
Law breakers should not be law makers.
Well, at least you are consistent unlike others on this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The punishment must be related to the crime. Please explain to me the link between voting and committing a felony. What about being a felon makes one a dangerous voter? And please no nonsense about felons voting in a way that benefits them. So does everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I wouldn't oppose letting those in jail vote. But I also accept that people serving time are being punished for "rebellion" against the body politic, which might reasonably include being temporarily deprived of voting rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Either the State can deprive felons of certain rights as a consequence or they can't. This is a purely binary position YES/NO. Now if the answer is "Yes the state can take away the rights of felons" and you make the argument that 'well this right should be taken away and this right shouldn't' FINE, that's an argument you can have. But you simply cannot say the State isn't allowed to take away felon's rights period, and then suggest that some rights shouldn't be included. That's hypocrisy. The right to own guns is no weaker than the right to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Actually, the right to own guns is substantially weaker than the right to vote, Lewk, in practice, in theory, and as a hypothetical democratic ideal.
Good question. Other good questions: why should we trust them with anything else? Why should we trust them with the right to breathe? Sleep? Speak? Read books? How about the right to due process? Right to not be tortured or subjected to cruel and unusual punishment? Really, why should they have any rights at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Rights can be restricted, within the limits of the law, provided there are compelling arguments for the restrictions. The default position must be that people have rights. Your default position here is essentially that felons have no rights, and we must find compelling reasons to grant them rights. I don't think this is in keeping with the laws of any modern Western democracy. More suited to shitholes like Lewkistan.
Do you think people who are convicted for prostitution should be deprived of the right to own a gun? Do you think someone who robs a store should be banned from living near schools?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
That's not a rational argument. Try again, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Democracy cannot effectively operate within the strictly monitored and controlled confines of overt and legal state tyranny which is a prison. You cannot sufficiently guard from either fraud or targeted suppression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
We restrict their speech rights, outright ban things like assembly, strictly control or forbid them from working or earning a paycheck, deny them any freedom of movement, house them in places which weren't/aren't in the same districts as their proper residences, afford them little to no privacy, and closely regulate and restrict who may even enter the premises where they spend all their time. But apparently perish the idea that we might restrict their right to vote, whose proper exercise relies on or is impinged heavily by all of the above. You think you're going to get enough volunteer poll workers to go into all the prisons to allow them to vote? Or maybe we'll just have them all vote absentee when their ballots can and will be scrutinized by prison officials like all the other mail (which means rampant fraud, intimidation, and retaliation)
In theory I don't have a philosophical problem in general with either. However specifically people who rob should be locked up for life and prostitution should be legal so the point is rather moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I disagree. In fact historically there have been more restrictions on the right to vote than there have been on guns around the time the bill of rights went into effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
No. It was extended to less people but the right was far stronger.
According to this, 21 countries impose no legal restrictions on the voting rights of felons, and 14 countries partially restrict felon voting rights:
https://felonvoting.procon.org/view....ourceID=000289
I presume every single one of those countries restrict or infringe on felons' right to expression, assembly, privacy etc.
You're dodging the question. Should post-prison restrictions relate to the potential danger still posed by the former prisoner? Or do you cease being a citizen and a human being the second you get convicted until you die?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Post prison restrictions don't have to be related to the potential danger. They could also serve to deter crime for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes it is, just because you don't agree doesn't make it irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
LittleFuzzy answered it better though.
Do you think anyone has ever has been deterred from crime just by the idea of post-prison restrictions on voting. That they were OK with going to prison but not OK with post-prison voting restrictions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
No, it doesn't have a rational basis. I fail to see why even a dangerous criminal shouldn't be allowed to vote. You do not explain that. You merely retreat to: "But, they're dangerous! Derp!" and then there's little else.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Fuzzy's response might as well be describing a large percentage of our Mormon communities.
Democracy is us entrusting how we are governed to our citizens. We don't seek to force the perfect or best answer with democracy, instead we trust our citizens even if they get it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Prisoners are criminals who are not trusted and have been excluded from the citizenry.
Prisoners are not part of free society, are not trusted to be free and we have no reason to entrust our decision making to them. When they are freed and rejoin free society then absolutely that comes with the right to vote, but that right only belongs to our citizens.
You might as well be asking why foreignors shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I still fail to see the problem. What harm exactly do you think a prisoner can do through his/her single vote beyond your unwarranted scaremongering?
And if a foreigner has been living in a city or a country for years then I don't see why he shouldn't get a vote.
In much the same way that there really isn't much difference from being an independent farmer and being imprisoned on a gulag, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It isn't about harm, it's about rights and responsibilities. Non-citizens and prisoners simply don't have the right to vote because they aren't a part of our free citizenry. With all the other associated rights like free assembly etc that Fuzzy has already mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
If a foreigner has been living in a country for years then he shouldn't get a vote because he's not a citizen. Most nations including all western ones I can think of allow foreigners to acquire citizenship after years of legal residency. If the foreigner declines the opportunity to acquire citizenship then they're denying themselves the rights and responsibilities that come with that.
Why exactly should a prisoner or non-citizen require and have the right to a vote?
Probably never but that isn't the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The point is you are either philosophically opposed to stripping criminals of rights or you aren't. I'm going to break it down so it should be clear for everyone. One either holds A or B to be true.
A. It is never appropriate for rights to be stripped due to being convicted of a felon. Under this belief felons should be able to own guns, go near schools (even in the case of sexual assault) and vote.
B. It is sometimes appropriate for rights to be stripped due to being convicted of a felon. There is no philosophical beef with doing this. Some cases it may be critical to do other cases it may not be and those should be debated on their situations/crimes as.
If you are part of group A (looks like only Fuzzy) you are opposed to restrictions on felons voting because of 'people have rights.' I'm sympathetic to that perspective but disagree.
If you are part of group B you *MAY* be OK with felons voting. But the basis of your rationale is NOT that the government isn't allowed to strip people of rights when they commit felonies. What I see here is a bunch of people claiming to be part of group A but then turning around and being OK with restricting pedophiles being near schools or people who have shot up places being restricted from owning guns. They are actually part of group B pretending to have philosophical complaints about governments stripping rights and are completely hypocritical.
I believe it is appropriate to strip criminals of [many of] their rights while incarcerated, but while released then (C) It is only appropriate for as few rights as absolutely necessary to be stripped.
There is a necessity to prevent convicts from owning guns, from paedophiles from loitering around schools etc - there is no necessity to prevent people from voting once they're freed from jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
That response has practically nothing to do with the post you were replying to.
It is possible to rank some rights higher than others, balancing them against considerations such as the protection of society, and that is in fact what all civilized nations do. This is true of felons and non-felons both. It is also possible to place tiered restrictions on the government's powers, eg. that it may impose some punishments but not others, in some situations but not others. The alternative is to believe that the government may either do whatever it wants or do nothing at all.
That's circular logic you're applying here and not a valid reason. It also dodges my question: Why is only "free citizenry" allowed to vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
First argument was: "They're too dangerous". Now it's: "They're not free citizens." Those are only mere attributes, not reasons. And arbitrarily chosen to boot.
Fact remains that, whatever arguments we may present in order to make it look like this is clear-cut, 35 countries--many of them developed western nations--impose few or no restrictions on prisoners' voting rights.
So what? Fact remains, could just as easily say 28 countries on your list place some or total restrictions on prisoners voting versus 21 with none.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Not that it matters as number of countries is an utterly meaningless metric. I bet if we add up the population of the 21 nations with no restrictions on prisoner voting and the population of the 28 with partial or total restrictions then the vast majority of people will be in the latter group.
It's not circular, I've already addressed why free citizens DO have the vote. Non-citizens and incarcerated criminals and children don't meet that threshold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro