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?Originally Posted by Lewkowski
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?
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote