*These laws are a vestige of a time when states sought to discourage blacks from voting, and they do, in fact, disproportionately disenfranchise African Americans. Eight percent of blacks in Maryland are deprived of the vote; in Virginia and Florida, a staggering 16 percent of the black population is disenfranchised.
Attempts in Maryland and Virginia to restore ex-felons’ voting rights need much work. A Maryland law that was passed with great fanfare in 2002 and that was intended to automatically restore voting rights to more nonviolent ex-felons is proving ineffective.
In Virginia, where legislative reforms have stalled, Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) has used his executive authority to grant 1,215 restorations of voting rights since taking office – more than any of his predecessors since World War II. He’s also simplified the application to restore rights to nonviolent offenders and accelerated the review process. But that’s almost nothing in light of the 243,000 ex-felons who remain disenfranchised.*
I understand fully that these laws have a disparate racial impact. However, in nearly all states, the imposition of this penalty for felons is done across the board based solely on the nature of the crime committed and not based at all on the race of the offender.
The racial disparity is caused by the fact that black males are overwhelmingly more likely to commit felonies than any other segment of the population. Again, there won’t be anyone on the board who will disagree with this statement either.
The disparity here will cause many other problems for these men, with many of them being lifetime penalties. I mentioned of course the criminal record and the ban on gun ownership. But of course there are many others.
For instance, most felony convictions will cause an individual to fail a pre-placement home study, required in most states for adoption. Again, I think this policy isn’t terribly controversial, and most people will allow that there are good reasons for instituting this.
Do these good reasons become bad ones solely because they fall most heavily on black males?
I would like to see your figures about the overwhelming evil of black males.
Poor people (many of them black males) are also more likely to depend on court-appointed lawyers. They can’t afford the ones who are more likely to get not-guilty verdicts. One doesn’t become a felon by committing a felony–but by being convicted.
Robert Durst comes to mind. The white millionaire admitted to dismembering his neighbor & dumping the body in Galveston Bay. He said his neighbor’s death was accidental, but he was afraid of looking “suspicious.” (There was the matter of his wife who “disappeared” some time ago.)
Robert Durst was acquitted.
(The Annals of Texas Murder have several similar cases.)
That still doesn’t excuse the reason many of these laws were enacted (to keep the black population from voting), nor does it explain why a nation that values democracy would deny its citizen’s a voice. There is no connection! No one on your side of the argument has been able to sufficiently explain why these states chose to withhold this particular right.
From the same statistics, we learn that only 17% of offenders overall are female.
Now, blacks in general are about 12.3% of the population. Therefore, the contribution of black men to the felony rate ought to be 10.2%. Instead, it is 30.7%.
In short, black men are three times more likely to commit felonies than one would suspect based on population figures alone. I would call three times more likely “overwhelming”, so that was an accurate description in my earlier post.
Now, many of the reasons for this disparity are widely known, so it wouldn’t be terribly productive, IMHO, to argue these numbers away. Instead, it would be better to focus on better ways to reintegrate felons into society, and prevent them from becoming felons in the first place.
Now, as I have said before, I support what Governor Warner did in this area in the state of Virginia in the area of voting rights. All it did was impose a short waiting period after the period of direct supervision to ensure that the offender did not reoffend. I would support efforts to codify this process and remove it from the governor’s discretion.
I don’t support the automatic granting of the franchise back without such review, for the reasons I have outlined above.
Can a good law be supported for a bad reason, or a bad law for a good reason?
I think both can be true, so I am not wholly convinced by your argument. I think the law ought to be considered on its merits and its impact on the present situation.
Its merits? What merits? The impact being what, exactly? Explain to me exactly what the voting expectation is for the rest of our citizens. How do we enforce an expectation if we have one? What is the harm to our nation by not enforcing it (which, by the way, we aren’t). These straight questions have been asked numerous times and no one has stated what the harm is and how that harm is specifically made by ex-cons. Also, please tell us how THAT is more harmful than the act of disenfranchisement within a democracy. Now’s your chance. Lay it out in specific terms so we can understand where you’re coming from.
I disagree with the statement itself and how you’re phrasing it. Let’s keep it honest here. The racial disparity exists because the law specifically target blacks. In the 1980 and 90’s, it was blacks that beared the brunt of the War on Drugs and left people born in my generation fatherless. I’ll never understand how white lawmakers thought locking up kids for an inordinate amount of time for non-violent drug crimes was a good idea.
Making something a felony doesn’t equate it to being a fair and just law.
I come down squarely on letting felons vote and letting them vote absentee from prisons.
I’ve read most of the comments and agree there is not one good reason to restrict voting. The logic of losing your vote makes no sense to me. The logic of lifetime gun restrictions make no sense. Many many felons never owned a gun before conviction and being allowed one will not make them go out and use one illegally now.
Not all felons are criminals! Period. I have a felon in my family. It is the result of a plea bargain instead of risking a trial. It was about self defense and without going into incredible details, I will only say fear, youth and overreacton applied. Plea bargain = 1 year probation no jail time. Loss at trial minimum sentence 5 years. Other than this the member has not even had a speeding ticket, ever. But punishment will follow them forever. I have little doubt that this situation is unique. The system is wrong as are many other laws, I will work to help overturn them whenever I can.
And not all criminals are felons. i don’t see what your point is here.
I mean, I value your opinion for what it is, but it doesn’t change the fact that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and most states draw that line at a felony conviction. That makes perfect sense on the face of it, given the different nature of felony crimes.
States differ, too, in whether to immediately give these rights back, not give them back immediately, or not take them away in the first place. Again, I said above this is properly the role of states to play. Perfectly constitutional, too, given the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
The best thing would be trying to act upon your own state if you think laws are unjust there. Personally, as I said before, I think Virginia balances the conflict rather well since the Warner reforms.
OK. You want to focus on better ways to reintegrate felons into society.
As it is in Virginia, 3 to 5 years after completion of sentence/probation/parole, someone convicted of a felony may petition for restoration of rights. If refused, there is no appeal. But the petition may be repeated after 2 years.
The petition is normally granted provided the person in question hasn’t had any felony or misdemeanor convictions or pending charges within that time frame. The three year period is for non-violent felons, the five-year mark is for those whose conviction was for a violent crime.
Given the use to which this review process is being put in practice, I support it. I think this process works well and I would support efforts to codify it and remove it from the governor’s discretion, so a future governor cannot tighten up the standards again.
If this was arbitrary, I wouldn’t support it. It is not so, so I do.
Why does a line have to be drawn? Citizens are entitled to a voice in their government. It makes NO sense on the face of it, and even less when you dig deeper into the concept of disenfranchisement (of a huge percentage of a minority).
Virginia does a pretty shitty job, since it is totally at the discretion of the governor whether or not the felon gets his rights reinstated. There is no standard to aspire to if the decision is based on one guy’s opinion on a given day.
Objectively, we can say that 3+5 = 8, because we have a context for the statement that includes the mathematical postulates that create the framework for objectively determining 3 + 5.
Objectively, we can say that, currently, restricting the voting ability of persons convicted of a felony is consistent with the Constitution, because we have a similar framework: an ajudicative body empowered to pronounce authoritive statements on the meaning of the federal Constitution.
This question is inherently subjective – what course is WISEST for us, as a society, to take with respect to voting rights? We may offfer certain pieces of objective evidence which we believe supports a conclusion one way or another, but inevitably the question is a subjective one.
The “judgemental” aspect of Bwanabob’s post, inveighed against by Kalhoun, is objectively indistinguishable from the judgemental aspects of Kalhoun’s posts.
A lot of posters have equated being a felon with being a criminal, I was simply pointing out that is not true, maybe I was too concise.
But Virginia does not do a good job. Many states restore rights automatically when criteria are met, that is at least a better job. The gov of Virginia does not even have to tell you why and then you wait two more years to ask again. Some states even let their convicts vote while in prison, that is an even better job.
Currently several lines are drawn and their resoning is all over the map with no consistency at all.
I want to erase the line as far as voting is concerned. I wait to be convinced why taking away the rights to vote is needed at all.
You start with that as an unquestionable given. I contend that citizens are entitled to a voice in the government as a starting proposition, but that a wise policy is they may legitimately forfeit their right to such participation by their actions.
Your only response to this appears to be to repeat that it just isn’t so.
I contend it is a wiser course. Your argument doesn’t appear to simply claim that your path is wiser, but that it’s unquestionably correct. I don’t contend my approach is unquestionably correct; I think reasonable minds may differ in which approach is wiser.