Printable View
Clearly your arguments are not universal and absolute, or even "universal" for the western world. The purportedly insurmountable problems have clearly been solved by others with cultures similar to yours, albeit less primitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Oh, it's certainly a judgement call, I don't think I ever said otherwise. But it IS a judgement call, Minx, and not something which is clear-cut but going the way Khend and it looks like you prefer. To apply a concept from US jurisprudence, it seems to me that those countries/states placing restrictions on those serving a felony sentence have a rational basis for doing so (unlike permanently denying them the franchise after their sentence is completed, which everyone on here but Lewk appears to feel lacks any kind of reasonable justification)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I never claimed my arguments to be universal. Yours aren't either despite the ludicrous abuse of the word primitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
No, you didn't. Also, your threshold remains arbitrary and has no factual basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You may not realize that but when you alienate someone of his rights, this has to be done in order to solve a problem. That's why you incarcerate dangerous people.
I fail to see which problem is solved by preventing criminals from voting.
With rights come responsibilities, by failing to uphold their responsibilities to abide by the law the imprisoned have forfeited their rights. Their choice by breaking the law.
Free citizens have one vote each to determine the future of their country, with everyone treated equally before the law. Those who're incarcerated because they've broken the law are not equal, their judgement is not equal to that of the law abiding. They need to serve the punishment society has meted upon them before they can be rehabilitated back into society and so regain their rights and responsibilities.
I fail to see which problem is solved by granting criminals the right to vote.
I'm confused - are you saying the only reason to incarcerate someones is because they pose a danger to people around them? So white collar crimes should not result in jail time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
It's not about granting criminals the right to vote so much as it is about not restricting their right to vote. Even if you don't acknowledge that restricting an important--usually constitutionally protected--right without a compelling societal need to do so is a problem in and of itself, there are a range of problems that can be remedied to some extent by letting prisoners retain the right to vote, such as the mistreatment of prisoners and the counter-productive focus on policies that undermine the rehabilitative goals of prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Currently, elected officials in most countries are strongly incentivized to implement policies that put more people in prison, for longer sentences, under increasingly abusive or otherwise harmful conditions, to lure voters who want officials to be "tough on crime" with no regard for justice or wisdom--and, of course, to retain the financial support of those who profit from the prison-system. What compelling societal or rehabilitative need is served by forcing prisoners to either pay $14 a minute to call their loved ones or forego that contact? None. If thirty thousand prisoners in Alabama could vote, I believe the Alabaman prison system would be better, and Alabaman prisoners would suffer less.
Now, if you believe that prisoners have no rights and that they should be made to suffer as much as possible, that's another matter. Your view would then not be not only reprehensible but also directly contradicted by laws in most western nations. So long as that remains the case, the mistreatment of prisoners is a problem that should be solved, and I believe it can best be solved by ensuring that prisoners have the right to vote.
They should be forced to work with dopey FBI-agents to solve sexy crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
No, that's Rand's line: They're in jail because they're dangerous. He completely ignores that aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I see. So the "right not to be tortured" comes with exactly what responsibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And your definition of "equal" is flawed. They don't become less equal before the law because they're imprisoned. And when we go by "Their judgment is not equal" - what about the mentally ill? Do they get a vote?
Important ruling: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...a77_story.html
I don't know that it's an important ruling. They tried to impose a poll tax. You can't impose a poll tax on voting anymore. A Constitutional amendment got passed on the subject.
Will this go through in time for the 2020 election?
This would be like banning voting from those who have student loan debt. I mean, I wouldn't mind that to stop this nonsense about "forgiving" student debt, but that's just now how demokracee works.