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.Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
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.
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."
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?
Hope is the denial of reality
Post prison restrictions don't have to be related to the potential danger. They could also serve to deter crime for example.
Yes it is, just because you don't agree doesn't make it irrational.
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?
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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?
In much the same way that there really isn't much difference from being an independent farmer and being imprisoned on a gulag, sure.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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?
Probably never but that isn't the point.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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?"
I never claimed my arguments to be universal. Yours aren't either despite the ludicrous abuse of the word primitive.
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?
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?
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."
They should be forced to work with dopey FBI-agents to solve sexy crimes.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, that's Rand's line: They're in jail because they're dangerous. He completely ignores that aspect.
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 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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote