[QUOTE=Shodan]
If you didn’t read it the first time, you won’t read it the second either.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Then a simple link would be sufficient for those of us that would like to see your personal opinion on why ex-cons shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
See what I mean, Lib? They simply don’t read.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
A classic Sho-bot contentless-yet-contentious partisan one-liner.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
A classic Sho-bot contentless-yet-contentious partisan one-liner.
[/QUOTE]
This is simply another example of the usual suspects’ inability to read even what they quote. You accuse Shodan of delivering a one-liner, yet he clearly wrote three lines. You’re even more wrong if you include the blank; that’s FOUR whole lines. God, how can you be so stupid? :rolleyes:
That’s two years of Shodan posts summarized right there.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Then a simple link would be sufficient for those of us that would like to see your personal opinion on why ex-cons shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
[/QUOTE]
OK, here you go.
Regards,
Shodan
It still doesn’t show what the harm connection IS. Only that you have an opinion that ex-cons are less responsible about voting than other members of society. As I said earlier, That’s all it is, though…an opinion. Since you don’t (and can’t) know how an ex-con will vote, and since there’s no such thing as a “wrong” vote in the United States, there is no connection between harm and voting. That is unless you count all the republicans who put us in the clusterfuck we’re in today.
But I illustrated for you numerous freedoms that may be denied a felon, most of which you don’t have much issue with. The thinking is that until they demonstrate some level of rehabilitation, however measured by the state, they don’t get to vote - again, not controversial at all, and most states differ here only in the degree to which they impose this sentence.
A couple do not impose this penalty at all, as discussed. Others impose it for the period of direct supervision only, while others make it longer.
This is clear law, plainly constitutional, and ought to be taken into account by people contemplating committing a felony. Again, you have allowed as other punishments can plainly be lifelong ones (like the firearms prohibition or the criminal record) so I don’t know how this particular point is debatable either.
Is it a good idea to do so? I think it is to a further extent than you do, though not to the extent some take it. For this you have to turn the debate personal? I don’t get that at all.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
But I illustrated for you numerous freedoms that may be denied a felon, most of which you don’t have much issue with. .
[/QUOTE]
Most, IME, are for the duration of the sentence.
[QUOTE=wring]
Most, IME, are for the duration of the sentence.
[/QUOTE]
And some are not.
A felon may be denied certain jobs as a practical matter for the rest of his life solely because of his arrest record. This is of course legal. Do you find it as unconscionable as the voting restrictions?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, in many places it was instituted specifically to keep blacks from voting (I also posted this in the other thread). It wasn’t behavior-based at all. From The Free Press:
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
And some are not.
A felon may be denied certain jobs as a practical matter for the rest of his life solely because of his arrest record. This is of course legal. Do you find it as unconscionable as the voting restrictions?
[/QUOTE]
the only results that I’m aware of that are post sentencing are:
Some employment restrictions (you mention)
Sex offender registry and restrictions
voting.
I find voting restrictions to be unconscionable. The employment restrictions - if the offense is connected to the employment I have no problem (ie child molesters shouldn’t work at a day care, drunk drivers shouldn’t be bus drivers). I won’t derail the thread more to get into the so registry issue.
The employment issue is one I deal w/on a daily basis. Using data base records (like state police criminal files and population records), I estimate that about 28% of the adult population in my state have a criminal record. Most of those are not currently incarcerated (less than 50 k in prison for example), so most are out. They have tremendous difficulty securing employment because many companies are now routinely screening out offenders.
Now, given that they still would be out and needing to support themselves, the options are:
revert to criminal behavior. I don’t like that option (obviously some will do so regardless of my desires) Ultimately, it makes for more victims and we still end up supporting them in their new incarceration.
subsist on some level of state support. again - I’m supporting them. not happy w/that alternative either.
Underground economy - under the table jobs. I’ve seen the data on the real cost to my state for that, and again, IMO, it’s just another level of me and other tax payers footing their (tax) bill. not in favor of that.
unsubsidized employment - make 'em earn their own living. Of course, this can only happen if employers actually hire them
So, no, I am not particularly in favor of routine exclusion.
And I"m sure some idiot will then twist my words to mean that I’m in favor of bank robbers becoming bank tellers.
[QUOTE=wring]
And I"m sure some idiot will then twist my words to mean that I’m in favor of bank robbers becoming bank tellers.
[/QUOTE]
Or rapists going into gynecology!
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I picture myself running around with my hair on fire, smoking pot, drinking straight whiskey and popping pills.
Wait…isn’t that what I…oh, never mind.
[/QUOTE]
So, are you admitting you’re Richard Pryor? No, his whole body was on fire. It was Michael Jackson whose hair was on fire…and he was drinking Pepsi.
I get so confused.
[QUOTE=TV time]
So, are you admitting you’re Richard Pryor? No, his whole body was on fire. It was Michael Jackson whose hair was on fire…and he was drinking Pepsi.
I get so confused.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe I’m Michael Jackson with whiskey in a pepsi bottle!
Kalhoun, not only are you “out of control,” but you are also “out of line” and your choice was “uncalled for”!
I can’t quit grinning. The exchange between you and Ensign Edison nailed this one perfectly.
[QUOTE=wring]
The employment issue is one I deal w/on a daily basis. Using data base records (like state police criminal files and population records), I estimate that about 28% of the adult population in my state have a criminal record.
[/QUOTE]
I refuse to believe that any state has a 28% adult population with a criminal record. (I exclude matters like traffic citations, which are not “criminal;” but in the nature of violations).
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I refuse to believe that any state has a 28% adult population with a criminal record. (I exclude matters like traffic citations, which are not “criminal;” but in the nature of violations).
[/QUOTE]
Could that figure include misdemeanor assault (husband-wife slap fights, etc.) and shoplifting? That figure seems awfully high to me, too.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I refuse to believe that any state has a 28% adult population with a criminal record. (I exclude matters like traffic citations, which are not “criminal;” but in the nature of violations).
[/QUOTE]
refuse all you want, the state police reported to me the number of criminal records (Ie persons w/record) and it was about 28% of the number of adults in my state. records were for any criminal charge that could result in a sentence of more than 93 days in jail. So the percentage of those w/records is probably higher. (yes, it doesn’t remove folks who’ve moved, but it also doesn’t incude folks who have records elsewhere but move here- I figure that’s likely a wash).
eta: this did not include routine trafffic citations, but does include various drunk driving type of things as well as driving w/o a license, which are, of course, criminal.
[QUOTE=wring]
refuse all you want, the state police reported to me the number of criminal records (Ie persons w/record) and it was about 28% of the number of adults in my state. records were for any criminal charge that could result in a sentence of more than 93 days in jail. So the percentage of those w/records is probably higher. (yes, it doesn’t remove folks who’ve moved, but it also doesn’t incude folks who have records elsewhere but move here- I figure that’s likely a wash).
[/QUOTE]
What state are you from?
Michigan.
[QUOTE=wring]
Michigan.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. Do all states keep records like that? Could I google the stats for Illinois?