Felony Conviction

Is it true that you lose your right to vote if your convicted of a felony? What other “things” can’t be done after convicted of a felony? Looked online for a list of, but can’t find anything.

Depends on the state…
When your done with your sentence, (parole included) you can vote in certain states
You can’t join the military, but can be drafted
I think it can be difficult getting certain licenses (liquor, firearm)

I’ve heard about losing your vote but I too am confused. I’d be surprised if state law could take away your right to vote in Federal elections. Also, what’s to stop you from moving to another state that doesn’t have this penalty and continuing to vote (assuming there are any such states)?

geoi - Felony Conviction

If this is in regards to imprisonment, I think that most rights and liberties are forfeited. This would depend upon the state and its regulations and the Criminal Justice System.

In addition to having a life long stigma you also lose

1 voting rights
2 right to bear arms
3 right to lead a stigma free life

You can have your rights reinstated after your parole/probation has ended. Your rights can only be reinstated by a judge. In my opinion, the stigma associated with being a felon is the most damaging. For repeat offenders, I feel no sympathy. For one timers who made a mistake, this life long black mark is somewhat unfair and demoralizing.

I was convicted of a felony (grand larceny) when I was 19 yrs old. I’m 32 now and it haunts me to this day. My current employer damn near fired me when they found out through a recently implemented background check policy. This is after a year of loyal service to them. The only reason I wasn’t fired is because of quick action on my part, and a supervisor who knew that this one time event was not an accurate representation of my character.

Think it through. There really is no such thing as Federal elections. Remember the civics lesson that everyone got in the last Presidential election. The states vote for electors that cast their votes to decide the President. They are known as the Electoral College.

All laws are passed by the House and Senate. Those members are decided in state elections. There are no Federal referendums. There may be Federal guidlines as to how elections are conducted and the Supreme Court may rule on the legality of certain practices but there are NO Federal elections.

The right to vote in “federal” elections generally depends on the right to vote under state law. The federal Constitution does provide for a popular right to vote in elections for several federal titles–that is, “in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress” (amend. XXIV). But the right to vote in those elections is always determined with reference to state law. For representatives in Congress, “the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature” (art. I, sec. 2). Likewise, for senators, “[t]he electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures” (amend. XVII). For Presidential electors, “each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors” (art. II, sec. 1), but in effect each legislature must allow a popular vote because “when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States . . . is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state” (amend. XIV, sec. 2).

The Constitution does not say whom a state must let vote in its elections for federal titles, but it does prohibit discrimination on the basis of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (amend. XV); “sex” (amend XIX); “failure to pay any poll tax or other tax” (amend. XXIII); or “age,” in the case of “citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older” (amend. XXVI).

Yet you asked the SDMB to help you cheat on a term paper AND plagairize another author’s work. The fact that you are willing to cheat AND steal (plagairism IS stealing) tells me that you do still have some character issues.

True only in some states. As DreadLead suggested, some states restore a convicted felon’s rights automatically when the felon has served out his or her sentence. For example:

Minn. Stat. § 609.165.

In my state, you cannot carry, own, or even live in a house which has a gun. YOu cannot own or possess a bow and arrow …so no hunting anymore.

You also cannot get a job with any major corporation in my area, and most medium sized companies wont hire you either.

You cant go to Canada.

You cant be a nurse - and if you are one already, your license will be suspended.

I “asked” for someone’s work to use as my own. So it wouldn’t be stealing if it was given to me, genius, only cheating.

jongri: The stealing you were asking for would be the grade that you were willing to take from the institution as though it was earned by you.

And I’m stunned your employer didn’t see your telling him a lie on your application for employment as telling him a lie.

Well, maybe you convinced him that you just copied someone else’s application and put your name on it.

I was conviicted of a felony in 1991 in Ohio.
I served no time, got probation.
But I’ve always voted.
As for employment, no one has hired me since then, though after 7 years you don’t have to write it on your application.(they have a space saying Have you been convicted of a felony in the past 7 years)

How nice of you to assume that I lied on my application, which I did not. The application I filled out asked if I had been convicted of anything other than minor traffic offenses in the past 10 yrs. My conviction was in '91 so it didn’t apply.

Jeez, are you a human being or just a monkey that can type?

i really don’t know that there is a good response to this, though as a parent and educator, it’s making me quite nauseated.

though i think that it is unfair for you to declare that HeyHomie and Monty are out of line when they suggest that perhaps this recent incident puts a lie to your claim that the stigma is in any way unfair.

my position is that there should never be a bar to voting rights. i believe that most of the original statutes had to do with organized crime manipulating elections though (anyone klnow for sure?), and i don’t have a remedy for that problem. though the restrictions on a career in law enforcement, etc. i see as appropriate.

btw- are you also ineligible to take the bar exam and become a lawyer? i seem to remember this being a subplot in ‘Designin Women’ a few years back- their male associate had to clear himself of his criminal history to be able to become a lawyer. or something like that.

In the states with which I am familiar, a felony conviction is not an absolute bar to becoming a licensed attorney. You must be of good character at the time of your application (and from then forward), but if there was a time in your life when you had not been of good character it may be possible to convince the State Bar Association (or whatever other authority is in charge) that you have past that stage in your life. It will dpend on a fact-specific examination of your crime, how long ago it happened, and your conduct since.


There is the concept of “having paid your debt to society”. That is, you mess up, society catches you and exacts a defined penalty specified in advance of the crime, and after that no one can keep adding extra punishments.

If losing the right to vote is part of it, you are stuck with that. If you are forbidden during probation to associate with other people with records, that’s another.

If an employer wants to know certain facts about applicants (for some reason), they can ask, and they can fire for lying on applications also.

Humans do make errors, sometimes ugly ones, but life does go on.

One hopes said humans get past the mindsets that lead to further errors.
In response to the OP, geoi, the best source of information for someone asking about his own case would be his probation officer, who will be very clear on what’s not allowed. For a general question, you might still call your state’s probation office and see if they will give you the rules.

And if you want my own position, I’m for specified penalties proportionate to the crime, ie lesser for lesser and greater for greater.

I’m for judicial discretion. Somebody has to look at the circumstances of a given case.

I’m for the prisioners having access to vocational, educational, and rehabilitation programs such as religion, anger management, etc, and as a taxpayer I’ll pay the costs.

I’m for heavier penalties for recidivists, but I’m against draconian Three Strikes.

I am uncomfortable with denying licenses permanently, as it is too much like maiming (ie cutting a thief’s hand off makes it harder to steal but also harder to earn a living). I can go with a time limit, or a procedure of going to a judge and demonstrating rehabilitation and petioning for the right to be licensed again (if a judge I’d want to see a solid time period of proper behavior for one thing, before I’d grant it).

Any cites for these two? I find them both pretty difficult to believe.

Some prior felony convictions in the U.S. will prohibit international travel. Not all of them, though.