taking away the right to vote of convicted felons?
I could see the logistics being a pain.
The general theory is that by committing a felony, one has given up the right to participate in society, which includes the right to vote.
I believe most states now restore the franchise to felons after they complete their sentence, either automatically or through an application process.
Depending on how you interpret your statement it might or might not be true. It’s actually pretty complicated. Link
There are only 15 states that automatically restore voting rights (including those that never take it away) once a person is released from prison.
Thread title edited to indicate subject. Please use descriptive thread titles.
Taking away voting rights is largely the point behind the US incarcerating so many young black men for dong the same things young white men do. It’s a racist plot. And not a thinly veiled one.
That’s an interesting opinion, but not a factual statement.
Voting is social behavior. Crime is anti-social behavior.
Voters are generally expected to obey the laws of the government they elect.
If you are unwilling to obey the law, why should you participate in making it?
A voter is supposed to put society’s needs ahead of selfish interests.
A thief has demonstrated an inability to do this.
A voter is supposed to consider other people’s interests as well as one’s own.
Murderers and rapists have demonstrated an inability to do this.
The Social Contract is a two-way street. It carries responsibilities, as well as rights.
If you violate the responsibilities, you lose the rights.
http://www.revcom.us/a/144/BNQ-en.html
What exactly is the difference between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine, in rock form? http://www.methoide.fcm.arizona.edu/infocenter/index.cfm?stid=169 Basically, how it is ingested and nothing else.
Surprised you didn’t know that. Which probably means that you don’t know that the penalties for crack are much higher. White boys who use cocaine hydrochloride (powder) are just sowing wild oats. Black youths who use crack are in prison for long sentences.
Why are these facts and not opinions? Because factual events are things that actually happen and opinions are similes, like assholes, everyone has one. Fighting ignorance, even on things most people would rather not see.
I always thought the rationale was those who violated the laws of society shouldn’t be allowed to change those laws to make themselves innocent.
In other words, if you become a criminal, you shouldn’t be able to redefine what a criminal is, or you might become not guilty, and Og forbid, that should never happen.
Just my opinion of the existing situation, not my opinion of what should be.
I don’t think you’ve proven what you’re trying to claim. Uneven sentencing for drug laws might fall disproportionately on blacks, but that doesn’t mean that the intent of disenfranchisement of felons is to disenfranchise blacks.
Yep. “It’s a racist plot” is not a factual statement. We all know about the disproportionate sentencing of crack and powdered cocaine. The handwaving comes in with the racist plot to disenfranchise blacks part.
Whenever one’s rights are permanently taken away, whether they be “God” given rights, or “inalienable” rights, that is due to the religious notion that a person should pay for a crime for eternity. Punishing a person once, then forgiving is unheard of. A person must pay and pay again. And again. Every time.
MODERATOR WARNING
Second Stone–I don’t know what set you off, but you’re over the top here. Your thinly veiled calling another poster an asshole is noted. Not to mention it’s YOU who is stating opinion, without supplying facts.
samclem, moderator
I’ve come to the opinion that every citizen, including convicted felons, should have the vote as a possible check against over-incarceration. Would our laws be any different if inmates could vote?
That complete their sentence is a common source of confusion. Dor example, sasy someone is sentenbced to 3 years in prison, but is released from prison after serving 2 years with good behavior. They then apply to register to vote, are registered, and vote in the next election. But technically, they had 1 year remaining of their sentence – they were just out on parole. But they think they are now eligible to vote (and even many election officials think that too, and register them).
In fact, such errors were the only actual voter problems found in Minnesota in recent years (despite claims of ‘rampant voter fraud’ by proponents of a restrictive voter id constitutional amendment (which was defeated by the voters).)
There’s no rationale, it’s just that they can get away with it. Private prisons and police officer unions and prosecutor groups always want more criminal laws, longer sentences, easier convictions, more arrests, etc. It helps to deny those convicted the right to vote… means more money, more power.
And most people are too dumb to realize what’s going on… “felons are bad, not letting have the right to _____ is a good thing” will always sound good to them no matter what you fill in the blank. Just mention something about “protecting the children” and the debate is over, if the debate ever even started.
Also, this policy is fantastic if you’re a racist… easiest way to deny dark-skinned people the right to vote.
Restoring the right to vote after they’re released from prison/parole only means there will be fewer felons ever released.
The proper policy is to never deprive anyone of the right to vote. Even if they’re on death row. This is so you have a check against the abuse of prosecutorial power.
The only way America can be the country with the most people behind bars and the largest % of its population behind bars is to deprive such people the right to vote. The founding fathers would be appalled.
Dear moderator:
I’m the only one who has been “accused” of offering opinion in this thread. I offered an interpretation of the fact that the removal of voting rights of felons (fact) in the highest incarcerating country in the world (fact) (nay, in the history of the world (fact))is predominately directed at black people (fact) as is efforts to disenfranchise black voters (fact) systematically. I had assumed that all these facts were well understood, as facts. It is true that my offered interpretation could be construed as “opinion”, but anyone who draws any other conclusion from those facts is engaged in a knowing or unknowing apology for systemic racism. Dismissing it as mere opinion is laughable in my estimation and possibly intellectually less than forthcoming. I included the “opinions are like assholes” joke not to direct at any specific poster (except perhaps myself, the only one here being accused of merely opining) to point out the commonality that every single person on the planet has an “anus” and “opinions”. It was my posting that was being dismissed as “mere opinion” when taken with the other posts is not just a strongly supported position, but conclusively established. Offer a better explanation if you disagree.
I did not mean to imply that any poster was an asshole, and perhaps my use of that phrase was too casual. I apologize to anyone who thought I was calling them an asshole. I was not. Having an asshole doesn’t make one an asshole. Same with opinions.
I do think that when all the facts are looked at in context, the interpretation that removal of the voting franchise to those convicted of felonies and the pursuit of felony convictions against people of a certain skin tone for the exact same conduct that is excused in people of lighter skin tone as as strongly supported by evidence as say, evolution or historical events whose denial puts the contrarians on the outside of socially acceptable circles. The evidence and consistent pattern of voter denial, intimidation and frustration is very much a racial one in this country.
It really stuns me that so many people are willfully blind to these facts and their import. In this country we remove felons from voting, and then categorize the conduct of black people as felonious when the same conduct of white people is not felonized based on the difference between whether a substance is a powdered salt or a rock salt. The huge numbers of black people in prison for trivial drug offenses, the huge percentage of the black population disenfranchised by this practice compared to rates for white people imprisoned and their population rates combined with history’s greatest incarceration rate is a documentary snap-shot of what is factually going on. Either that or black people have such a higher correlative relevance and propensity to commit felonies that we need to reject that skin color doesn’t highly correlate to propensity to commit crime. I don’t think so. Nobody here has openly adopted that position, and nobody will defend it. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/
It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that black people are incarcerated for crimes white people are not in order to remove the voting franchise. This has been going on exactly since the civil rights movement gained steam. It is a matter of fact that voter id laws are aimed at restricting black and minority voting.
People who wish to put forth scientific fact, and not opinion, must explain the larger data sets more satisfactorily. My explanation that disenfranchisement for felonies is race based is supported by the entire incarceration context.
This country has a deeply ingrained blindness to racism and at the same time reinforces racism in the criminal justice system. The fact that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the history of all countries should be an appalling fact all by itself. Where is the outrage? The fact that black people incarcerated at far higher rates than white people is an appalling fact all by itself. Where is the outrage? The fact that we have a long history of Jim Crow laws, lynchings and black voter intimidation and now dozens of new voter id laws aimed at black people are appalling facts all by themselves. Where is the outrage?
Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy, the racists of the week, are not the entirety of the problem, or even the tip of the damn iceberg. They are two of millions of people who take racism and disenfranchisement and dehumanization for granted.
Which poster did he call an asshole? This seems like an irrational warning to me.
You know, I always wonder about this. The laws that cause these unequal sentencing levels are state laws. Now, I looked up the states that have this. There are lots of “blue” - that is, Democrat-controlled states - on that list.
So - how come Democrat legislatures do not change those laws? Are they racist? I mean - Maryland, where I live (am moving soon) is among the bluest states - and the cocaine-crack disparity is 9:1.
And, anyway, the number of states in which this is the law has been reduced to 13. So it is not as big a problem as you think.