Should ex-felons be allowed to vote?

Great Debates
221

[QUOTE=Lanzy]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s wise to take away the right to vote after a felony conviction.

We speak of a social contract, an implicit agreement between the individual and society. We provide near-universal franchise, in my view, in part because we assume that each person approaches the voting booth with his social responsibility under that contract in mind. There are, of course, many ways to fulfill that responsibility, but the idea is that each voter is acting to fulfill it as he believes best.

A felon has breached that social contract. In my opinion, this gives rise to the inference that he will not act in the voting booth to fulfill his end of the social contract, since he has already demonstrated that he will not honor it in more substantive ways.

222

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]

That makes perfect sense on the face of it, given the different nature of felony crimes.

[/QUOTE]

Oh, please.

We have a suite of charges that are classified as felonies that, in reality, should be considered misdemeanors. Why is it that carrying carrying a single rock of crack-cocaine a felony while reckless driving or driving under the influence of alcohol and some forms of sexual child abuse a misdemeanor? The fact of the matter is that the drug laws that are under the umbrella of felonious crimes are there for the sole purpose of disenfrachising minorities.

We jail users and abusers of drugs while giving the child molesters and those who drink-and-drive probation. The justice system reeks of racism and continued governmental negligence in addressing this problem is driving a wedge between racial relations in this country. I am not opposed to temporarily restricing voting privileges, but we must proceed with caution; Indeed, the first step is addressing these inequalities instead of just half-heartedly acknowledging that they exist.

A felony should be a felony; not a smorgasbord of misdemeanors dressed to look like them.

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]

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%.
[/QUOTE]

What percentage of these felonies are drug-related?

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]

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.
[/QUOTE]

I agree.
The first step is a refinement of background checks on felons. How can felons be reintegrated into society if they can’t get a job? Don’t bother thinking of answer. You can’t reintegrate into society if you don’t have a legal and steady source of income. The second step is an reorganization of the justice system and drug rescheduling.

The third step is to put our law enforcement to a higher standard. In many States the requirement for being a police officer is a GED and six months training at a police academy. I suggest that we raise the requirements to an Associate’s Degree or 60 college credits with basic coursework in English, Civics, and Mathematics. Completion of the credits will allow for transfer into a police academy in which an additional sixty credits would be gained via a mix of rigorous physical training, coursework, and seminars. Those who successfully complete the program would be granted a Bachelor’s in Criminal Justice and could start their job immediately.

I also believe all judges, even the ones who preside over informal hearings, should have J.D or, at the very least, a master’s in Political Science or a closely related field. But I’m willing to forego that idea.

  • Honesty
223

[QUOTE=Bricker]

We speak of a social contract, an implicit agreement between the individual and society.

[/QUOTE]

This sounds quite imaginary but I’ll bite.

Where is this sheet of paper that we sign to forge a compact between ourselves and society? Does this “social contract” trascend location? That is, would my contract be the same if I lived in Los Angeles? What about Brazil? Or is the social contract universal? :confused:

  • Honesty
224

[QUOTE=Bricker]

A felon has breached that social contract. In my opinion, this gives rise to the inference that he will not act in the voting booth to fulfill his end of the social contract, since he has already demonstrated that he will not honor it in more substantive ways.
[/QUOTE]

A felon has been convicted of breaking that social contract. Unless no person has ever been wrongly accused and convicted, this doesn’t mean it was actually breached. On the other hand, thousands (millions?) have committed crimes that have not been convicted or even accused.

Allowing someone to vote their consience even it it is absolutely stupid and morally wrong and based on whatever brought them to the voting booth, even bribes, is not stopped, unless they are felons in… certain states, ..sometimes.

225

[QUOTE=Honesty]
This sounds quite imaginary but I’ll bite.

Where is this sheet of paper that we sign to forge a compact between ourselves and society? Does this “social contract” trascend location? That is, would my contract be the same if I lived in Los Angeles? What about Brazil? Or is the social contract universal? :confused:

  • Honesty
    [/QUOTE]

You’re arguing politics but have no idea about social contracts?

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Their books are in the public domain, and can be freely downloaded. Check them out.

226

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
You’re arguing politics but have no idea about social contracts?

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Their books are in the public domain, and can be freely downloaded. Check them out.
[/QUOTE]

I deeply apologize.

I didn’t know there was a literacy test to participate in this thread.

  • Honesty.
227

[QUOTE=Honesty]
What percentage of these felonies are drug-related?
[/QUOTE]

From my link above, we learn that black felons account for 51% of murder convictions, 25% of sexual assault offenses, 59% of robbery, 38 percent of aggravated assault, 25% other violent. They are vastly overrepresented in all levels of violent offenses, as seen.

As a percentage of total property felony convictions, blacks account for 33% of these. Again, this is a vast overrepresentation.

Black defendants make up 36% of felony possession cases, but 47% of trafficking cases, and half of all weapons cases.

Now, we can reschedule drugs till the end of time, but I don’t think this will immediately end the disparity in murder, robbery, and felony assault convictions, among others. Nor can it, given the other problems the black community faces.

So, since this disparity will continue, the debate becomes over the degree to which the punishments we mete out for these offenses help our society to improve. Any set of punishments we choose will fall more heavily on the black community. I do not think there is any way around that.

228

[QUOTE=Honesty]
I deeply apologize.

I didn’t know there was a literacy test to participate in this thread.

  • Honesty.
    [/QUOTE]

No apologies necessary. And no test is needed. I was just pointing out the resources I was pointed to some time back to learn this stuff.

229

[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/QUOTE]

But the basis for most decisions like these is the proof of harm if you do *not * withhold a right. There is nothing to base the decision against because we don’t care how citizens vote, who they vote for, what that vote does to us as a society or if people vote at all. Therefore, there is no harm in letting felons, four-year-olds, or grammar school dropouts pull the lever. The harm, in this issue, is in stifling the voice of a significant portion of our society; members that must abide by the laws of the land and are allowed to resume activities that may very well do harm to society. I’m not simply claiming it’s wiser; I’ve laid out reasons as to why it is. The counter argument has yet to even dip it’s toe into that pool.

230

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I think it’s wise to take away the right to vote after a felony conviction.

We speak of a social contract, an implicit agreement between the individual and society. We provide near-universal franchise, in my view, in part because we assume that each person approaches the voting booth with his social responsibility under that contract in mind. There are, of course, many ways to fulfill that responsibility, but the idea is that each voter is acting to fulfill it as he believes best.

A felon has breached that social contract. In my opinion, this gives rise to the inference that he will not act in the voting booth to fulfill his end of the social contract, since he has already demonstrated that he will not honor it in more substantive ways.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, pffft. We don’t care if anyone fulfills that contract. Who cares? We have a social contract that says “don’t drive over the speed limit”. We repeatedly allow people who speed (which is considerably more dangerous to society than a miscast vote) without thinking twice about it.

231

We allow people who speed do what?

I have to tell you, speeding is also treated pretty seriously here in Virginia, so your argument might be on shaky ground here.

232

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]

Now, we can reschedule drugs till the end of time, but I don’t think this will immediately end the disparity in murder, robbery, and felony assault convictions, among others. Nor can it, given the other problems the black community faces.

[/QUOTE]

  1. Yes, it will.

  2. You know nothing about the problems the black community faces.

  • Honesty
233

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
We allow people who speed do what?

I have to tell you, speeding is also treated pretty seriously here in Virginia, so your argument might be on shaky ground here.
[/QUOTE]

There are forty-nine other States in the Union. How can you attempt to invalidate his argument by pointing to just Virginia? Does Virginia law mirror jurisprudence in other States that closely?

  • Honesty
234

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
From my link above, we learn that black felons account for 51% of murder convictions, 25% of sexual assault offenses, 59% of robbery, 38 percent of aggravated assault, 25% other violent. They are vastly overrepresented in all levels of violent offenses, as seen.

As a percentage of total property felony convictions, blacks account for 33% of these. Again, this is a vast overrepresentation.

Black defendants make up 36% of felony possession cases, but 47% of trafficking cases, and half of all weapons cases.

Now, we can reschedule drugs till the end of time, but I don’t think this will immediately end the disparity in murder, robbery, and felony assault convictions, among others. Nor can it, given the other problems the black community faces.

So, since this disparity will continue, the debate becomes over the degree to which the punishments we mete out for these offenses help our society to improve. Any set of punishments we choose will fall more heavily on the black community. I do not think there is any way around that.
[/QUOTE]

But this still has no bearing on the issue of HARM. You still haven’t answered that question. You still haven’t justified their disinfranchisement.

235

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
We allow people who speed do what?

I have to tell you, speeding is also treated pretty seriously here in Virginia, so your argument might be on shaky ground here.
[/QUOTE]

You let speeders vote, don’t you? They’re a clear and present danger to society, and yet they’re allowed to vote!

236

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
You let speeders vote, don’t you? They’re a clear and present danger to society, and yet they’re allowed to vote!
[/QUOTE]

Not all speeders are allowed to vote here, actually. There are speeding offenses that cross the line to become a Class 6 felony, which will cause revocation of voting rights.

I doubt that is enough to demonstrate harm to you, but there you go.

237

[QUOTE=Honesty]

  1. Yes, it will.
    [/QUOTE]

Perhaps in time, but certainly not immediately.

[QUOTE=Honesty]
2) You know nothing about the problems the black community faces.
[/QUOTE]

Gee, considering that I spent several years living in a city that was 28% black (where my parents still live), where about 20% of the population and 40% of kids lived below the poverty line, and also considering that my aunt taught in this city’s schools for 35 years - I think I have some idea.

238

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Not all speeders are allowed to vote here, actually. There are speeding offenses that cross the line to become a Class 6 felony, which will cause revocation of voting rights.

I doubt that is enough to demonstrate harm to you, but there you go.
[/QUOTE]

With regard to a connection between voting and speeding? Hardly. It’s the most assinine thing I’ve ever heard of.

239

You are the one who has made lots of noise here about the harm speeders do. Wouldn’t you agree that sometimes the offense is so great to qualify as a felony?

240

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
You are the one who has made lots of noise here about the harm speeders do. Wouldn’t you agree that sometimes the offense is so great to qualify as a felony?
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. Those instances are few and far between and would have to involve bodily injury or death to qualify. The simple act of speeding with no injury should not be a felony. But no felony (including murder) should have forefeiture of the right to vote attached to it.