My post was two paragraphs long. You quoted the first paragraph. In the second, I pointed out that the Constitution has been amended within the last century to stipulate how Senators could be chosen.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that I agree with everything you say. Letting currently imprisoned convicted felons vote would add substantial costs to building new prisons, either in the form of the state paying off the town to live with it, or in the form of building smaller prisons that won’t overwhelm the local population, or something else.
How much, in dollars, is maintaining an unjust system of disenfranchisement worth to you?
Prisons are expensive. It costs money to build them, to staff them with enough guards to keep the prisoners, guards, and the rest of society safe, and to maintain them to reasonable standards. That’s one of the costs that we as a society bear. But it is worth spending money to treat our citizens in as just a manner as is possible, even the ones who haven’t played by all the rules. And it’s worth spending this extra money to make sure they have the vote, as well.
Or we could just let them vote absentee as others have suggested.
The problems of a warden influencing the prisoners’ votes shouldn’t be ignored, but they are by no means unsolvable. Secret ballots and a reasonable chain of custody are plenty to protect prisoners from the warden who wants to force their vote. And we already need both for a valid vote anyway.
If they are natural born citizens, pay taxes and have paid their debt to society, then by all means, yes they should be allowed to vote.
But in Virginia, their debt to society includes not being able to vote until they get a pardon. So essentially you are supporting the system here by that statement, aren’t you?
But why is their debt to society in Virginia longer (wrt disenfranchisement) than, say, Texas? Again, what purpose is served by not allowing probationary or ex-felons to vote?
What purpose is served by a state choosing to punish armed robbery more harshly than its neighbor?
As a general principle, states ought to set their rules for electioneering (subject to certain guidelines) and set their own penal sentences (again, subject to certain general guidelines).
What if they are naturalized citizens, pay taxes & have paid their debt to society?
Exactly. And what most of us are saying is that being able to vote if you’re not actually in prison should be one of those ‘certain guidelines.’
I’m of the opposite view.
I think the pardon process ought to be put to work first. After all, this is one of the things it exists for - so that people who genuinely have cleaned up their lives can get that fresh unencumbered start.
As I have said before, I don’t see anyone bellyaching over the prohibition of firearms to felons - and that similarly is a constitutional right. The process is the same - the imposition of a felony sentence by a court.
This is constitutional - clearly so, given my cite above. States that choose to impose this condition on their felons are free to do so under current law.
The comparison is between apples and oranges, though. Prohibiting a convicted murderer (upon completion of his prison sentence) from owning a gun is directly related to the crime he committed. How did he use his right to vote to commit the crime, though? Why doesn’t the court ban him from ever owning a dog or a cat, while they’re at it?
Tangential question - are there laws in place that ban any ex-felon from owning a gun, or just ones that had committed the crime using a gun? If it’s the former, then I have as big a problem with that issue, as I do with this one.
LilShieste
Under federal law, you cannot own a gun if you fall into any of these categories:
- Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
- Fugitives from justice.
- Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
- Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
- Illegal aliens.
- Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
- Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
- Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
- Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
- Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
- Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
So, felony embezzlement or fraud will land you on this list as well, as well as a dishonorable discharge from the military for any number of offenses against the UCMJ.
So it isn’t an apples and oranges thing at all. You do not need to commit a crime with a gun for society to decide you cannot be trusted with one. And this policy isn’t terribly controversial.
Well, then to address your earlier comment - my belly aches over this. Preventing a convicted embezzler from owning a gun makes no sense to me, either.
So, what’s the reasoning behind that?
LilShieste
Well, as I said before, I don’t consider voting to be a right or a privilege- but rather a responsibility. It’s the price we pay for living in our society. I don’t consider gun ownership to be a duty akin to voting.
You’ve stated time and again that there’s no constitutional right to voting for ex-felons. That aside, why do you feel ex-felons shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
On the contrary. I think ex-felons ought to be allowed to vote. But I’d like to determine that they are in fact an ex-felon, which is why I favor a pardon or expungement process to take place before this happens.
Ah, that’s right- I’d read that above. My apologies.
So you don’t think that felons out on probation should be allowed to vote, correct? Why?
(For the record, I’m in agreement that ex-felons should have their records expunged, or be pardoned upon completion of their sentences. I believe that being labeled an ex-felon has too much of an effect upon their employment possibilities, and prevents their reintegration into society.)
They are an ex-felon the moment they complete their sentence and any parole or probation. Expungement is for the purposeof wiping a record clean as if the crime was never committed. Two different outcomes. Both unrelated to logically forbidding an ex-con from voting.
Yeah. But this is GD, not IMHO. This is not a poll.
Ditto.
a) Again with the false claim about current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
b) There’s at least a connection between guns and crime. If someone’s been sent to prison for holding up gas stations or assaulting people, there’s good reason to keep them from owning guns. There is no connection between voting and crime; there’s no reason why an ex-prisoner’s exercise of the franchise should be a threat to anyone.
Again, the circular argument: we can’t amend the Constitution that way because that’s not what the Constitution already says.
What about people who are so societally immature that their guardian is the state?
If you mean the insane, they can’t vote. As for incarcerated felons – they’re not there for immaturity.
Pardons are exceedingly rare, and, in my opinion, should remain so, and only for the exceptionally rehabilitated felon. (They also, as a rule, require that the proposed pardonee have lawyers, [del]guns,[/del] money, and connections.) I believe there is a vast middle ground of people whose criminal record should remain on the record, but I see no good reason to deny them the vote once their sentence has been completed.