I did. No answer so far.
No, I’m not fine with it. That’s not the point. He’s making moralistic judgements on people’s right to vote ONCE THEIR SENTENCE HAS BEEN SERVED. He specifically said he would prefer that ex-cons have to provide some sort of proof that they are capable of voting. This is a standard that is not required of the rest of the voting public. It has nothing to do with the crime that was committed. That is the point of my post. He has yet to show any sort of connection between being an ex-con and being forbidden to vote. He prefers a waiting period that extends far beyond sentence fulfillment. I’m well aware of his opinions on this subject. I’m interested in seeing how far this type of thinking extends into other issues.
No, they’re not pricktoids. They’re just people I disagree with. I’m not the one who opened a pit thread simply because someone didn’t agree with me.
You know, there’s a certain notorious game developer who refers to anyone who argues with him as a “Usual Suspect”, just like you do. I’m not going to mention his name, because he loves to argue and seems to scour the internet, looking for people to argue with. I’ll just say that he thinks he’s really “smart”.
I asked this in a previous thread, but you ignored it then… and I imagine you’ll ignore it now- Who, exactly, is in this list of “Usual Suspects” you keep referring to?
My point is that you’re not the first one I’ve seen who’s used that exact phrase to dismiss the arguments of those you disagree with. It’s an interesting strategy- you never say, exactly, who the “Usual Suspects” are. Like that notorious game developer, you keep the membership nebulous, so you can continually refer to anyone you’re arguing with as a “Suspect” without actually accusing them of being in some club that exists to persecute you.
I guess what I’m trying to say is knock that shit off. There’s no group of Dopers who follow you around, looking to argue with you in every thread that you post in, just because you’re you. There’s just a group of Dopers who happen to disagree with you, and find you to be an insufferably self-righteous asshole. If anyone is a “Usual Suspect”, Shodan, it’s you.
what’s this “current felon” term you’re using mean? Do you mean some one who has yet to complete their sentence? Hopefully you’re aware, then, that IIRC, few states forbid folks who are currently on parole or probation (which would include a substantial number of ‘current felons’ under that definition) the right to vote.
I am using “current felon” to mean “not yet an ex-felon” under the assumption that an “ex-felon” is someone who is no longer serving a sentence for a felony. Just a made up term trying to be more specific than “felon” which can be used to describe anyone who committed a felony.
According to this document (PDF) out of the 50 states+DC, 49 restrict the rights of those in prison, 35 those on parole and 30 those on probation.
I see now what I did… I said that 48 states restrict “current felons” when they actually only restrict currently incarcerated felons. I knew that, I saw the linked chart before making that post, and was just sloppy with my writing. Mr. Moto’s “acceptable” (if not preferred) law would now be comparable to 30-35 state’s laws, not 48, depending on the probation issue.
thanks for the link - I had a set of brochures dating back about a decade that had individual states info, admittedly haven’t kept up on all the changes. I found it intersting that some states in their revisiting of the issue made things much less restrictive, but others made it more restrictive. I know the sense is from folks that convicts would almost automatically vote liberal leaning, but it’s not been my experience w/working w/them. They, like other citizens go all over the map.
You say you value posts “that facilitate an understanding among one another,” and the level of effort required to eschew cryptic posts is pretty minimal. So if you chronically post in a cryptic manner, it demonstrates that you place a low value on that which you claim to value.
If you don’t mind my saying so, go climb a tree. I’ll post as I please.
I can’t tell - are you retracting this statement, or denying that you said it?
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry. I forgot I said that. I’m stickin’ with it unless they can show me the connection and worth of it.
Incidently, a pricktoid isn’t all bad. Just in matters of shit like this.
Still confused - now you are saying that some one who disagrees with you on this subject is a pricktoid?
Incidentally, the “connection” has already been demonstrated - it is in the Constitution. What you are suggesting is that the Constitution be amended, and having a melt down because you don’t like that some posters don’t instantly agree with you. You keep saying that disenfranchisement is a horrible injury to ex-convicts - could you demonstrate what the bad effects are?
Regards,
Shodan
On this issue, yes. Taking away a person’s right to vote has no relation to the crime that was committed. Once the sentence is served, there shouldn’t be a waiting period, a review, or a form to get that right back. If you get in trouble again, you lose the right to vote again (though I don’t see what that has to do with anything, either. They should be allowed to vote, in my opinion, from prison).
Anyone who thinks that it’s logical and civilly fair is welcome to present the connection, the benefit to society, and the detriment to society if we do allow ex-cons to vote. Change my mind. I’d like to believe someone in government had this right when they made this a law. So far, I’m unconvinced.
Missed the window with regard to presenting the harm in this:
You might say, “what is it hurting to go back to the old days when blacks weren’t allowed to vote?” I’d say the ill-effects would be the same. Telling people they don’t deserve to partake in the most basic of democratic processes is telling them they’re less than a citizen. I do not believe that’s true.
Pretty poor analogy, I’d say. How about “what is it hurting to prevent to prevent four-year-olds from voting?”
The ban on voting for ex-felons is behavior-based. The ban on blacks voting is not. That is to say, an adult citizen is presumed worthy of the right to vote until and unless he proves his unworthiness in his other relations with a civil society. This was not the case with blacks - they were presumed unworthy even if they proved they were capable.
Well, in a sense this is arguing in a circle - it is true that felons are less than a citizen. They can’t vote, after all.
But the difference between preventing blacks from voting and preventing felons from doing the same is that blacks are not really inherently inferior in judgement to other citizens. Thus to prevent them from voting makes no sense - there is no way in which blacks have demonstrated that they are not up to the tasks of citizenship.
Felons have. They have demonstrated that their judgement or their commitment to civic well-being or what have you is weaker than for a normal citizen. Weak enough, in fact, that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they will act to the detriment of the society if given the opportunity. And the presumption is that they will demonstrate this poor judgement or lack of civic commitment in their voting. They have proven that they are not worthy of the rights of a citizen.
There exists (as Mr. Moto has pointed out) a mechanism by which the ex-felon can demonstrate that he deserves to regain the rights of which he was deprived. You seem to be arguing that the presumption is that a person guilty of a serious crime is actually someone well worthy of the public trust.
It seems to me, and it seemed to the founders of the republic, that this is an unwarranted assumption. So I ask again - what evidence do you have that felons are actually fine fellows, in whose judgement society as a whole can place implicit faith?
We don’t trust them to walk the streets, but your “voting from prison” idea seems to assume that we have to trust them to select our leaders. Why is that? They have already demonstrated that it is legitimate to deprive them of most of their other rights, at least on a limited basis. I fail to see any justification from you for insisting that they should be trusted with the vote.
Actually, I was hoping for some justification for your position besides these strawmen, where anyone who supports the status quo of the Constitution is the functional equivalent of a racist, who thinks that felons are sub-human. What exactly is the harm being done to these people, and how does it justify a change to the Constitution?
Or it is merely your opinion, in which case I wonder at your vehemence. My opinion, and those of Mr. Moto and the Founding Fathers differs from yours. I have presented a little about why I agree with the writers of the Constitution. Perhaps you could do a little to persuade me otherwise.
But mere name-calling isn’t going to do it.
Regards,
Shodan
What do you think about lifelong welfare recipients and their rights? What about cripples and old people, or other drains on society?
I’m saying that the “mechanism” is stupid. It demonstrates nothing, it ensures nothing and it means nothing with regard to worthiness. When a felon is released back into society, he no longer has to answer to anyone for any other aspect of his life. His sentence is served and he is deemed worthy to walk free amongst the people he robbed, beat, even murdered. Are you telling me that there is some sort of logic in denying him the right to pull a lever while at the same time allowing him go to bars?
As mentioned above, the powers that be allow him to be in direct participation with the aspects of life that landed his ass in prison in the first place. Tacit approval that the person is in fact capable of behaving like a responsible citizen.
Because we, as a voting society, place nearly no importance on a person’s ability to make a responsible choice when selecting our leaders. It isn’t even something that’s demanded of our citizens. We don’t actually care if anyone votes or not.
Actually, I was hoping for some justification for your position besides these strawmen, where anyone who supports the status quo of the Constitution is the functional equivalent of a racist, who thinks that felons are sub-human. What exactly is the harm being done to these people, and how does it justify a change to the Constitution? The harm is that they don’t have a voice. The status quo at one time was that disenfranchisement of blacks was not only acceptable, but it actually made sense to most people. Had we not taken a stance against those that supported that, we’d indeed be approving of racism. The argument in favor of continuing to rob people of their right to vote effectively puts them in the same place blacks were years ago. And we’re not talking about a just handful of people, either. Their numbers are high and growing higher every day.
The founding fathers have made a few omissions and mistakes in the past. Good thing it’s a living document, designed to be changed. You haven’t proven harm in allowing ex-cons to vote. You can’t. But I’m willing to let you try.
An interesting point, and one I’d like to question you on.
A person with 50 parking tickets and 10 speeding tickets has shown a continued willingness to “act to the detriment of society.” IMHO, even moreso than say a man that commits assault in a heat of the moment situation.
Should the bad driver be similarly stripped of his or her voting rights? And if no, why not, when he or she won’t learn from their punishments. That person would seem more to fit **Mr. Moto’**s definition of civil immaturity than a one time felon.
'Cause there’s a difference between civil offenses, and misdemeanors, and felonies. Your first example is a civil offense - a summons; and your second example would most likely be a misdemeanor - simple assault. Felons are different, and I’m - frankly - stunned by those who can’t see that. One might as well ask, “Why do we not execute people who commit traffic offenses?” (See Larry Niven.)
Shodan, if I may:
You have been (as has been mentioned once or twice) for some time confining yourself to one-liners. I am delighted that you are arguing again. Welcome back.
Gotta disagree with you there, Sho. That may be true of some felons, but it is also true of some people who aren’t felons. If all laws were ethical and all jurisprudence were just, then you might be able to say that about felons. But when law creates crime just by being written, when enforcement of law is inequitable, and when wealth and power decide how fair a trial will be — there is no correlation between a conviction and civil worth. OJ Simpson gets to vote. Likewise, weasels and pariahs of every stripe, along with complete idiots and ignoramuses, get to vote.
Actually, no, I haven’t been.
Regards,
Shodan