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.
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No. It was extended to less people but the right was far stronger.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Fuzzy's response might as well be describing a large percentage of our Mormon communities.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
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.
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?
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?
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.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
No, you didn't. Also, your threshold remains arbitrary and has no factual basis.
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.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
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.
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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)
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
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.
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I see. So the "right not to be tortured" comes with exactly what responsibility?
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?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Important ruling: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...a77_story.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Will this go through in time for the 2020 election?
Hope is the denial of reality
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.