[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
What about people who are so societally immature that their guardian is the state?
[/QUOTE]
And again, why not strip them of ALL rights, including those related to religion and speech? These have exactly as much relation to crime as voting does.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
What about people who are so societally immature that their guardian is the state?
[/QUOTE]
AAAAAND…the Red Herring GD Award for 2007 has a strong contender only a third of the way through the year.
You want to know how to keep Virginia perpetually with a Republican government? Make it a felony to vote Democratic.
The point is that in a representative democracy, the people have a right to choose the representatives who make the laws. You forfeit that right by being sent to jail or prison. When you have completed that sentence, it should not, IMO, remain as a restriction on your civil rights. If you are so socially immature as to require a state-appointed guardian, you are not capable of voting. There is a difference between voting, one’s prerogative as a citizen, and the ownership of firearms, the possession of a driver’s license, and the numerous other things that have been brought up.
As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, there are a few people around who lost their franchise years ago for the heinous, felonious crime of having adult, consensual gay sex – which remains on the books as a felony in several states, despite Lawrence.
You are being asked, not if there’s a legal basis for Virginia’s laws – I think we’re in agreement there is – but whether there is a legitimate moral basis for depriving felons who have served their sentence of the franchise.
So far, I haven’t seen one word addressing the ethics of it from your keyboard. Lots of defenses of why Virginia might choose to do it, lots of analogies – which is OK, I use analogies too – but nothing addressing the OP.
Since I find that I agree with you about 20% of the time when you’re not being a knee-jerk defend-the-status-quo-type conservative but actually expressing your personal views, I’d love to see you address the specific OP – not “is it legitimate not to allow them to vote?” but “should they be allowed to vote?” You might actually convince me of your position.
I might point out, Polycarp, that the last two governors of Virginia have been Democrats.
Also, I must point out how this works in practice. Governor Warner streamlined the process for non-violent offenders, It is a one page application, requires a three year waiting period after the completion of the prison sentence or probationary period, and the applicant must have a clean record in that three years - no pending charges or other felony or misdemeanor convictions. Violent offenders required more review, more information in the application and a longer waiting period, which is appropriate, IMHO.
The people who advocate restoring voting rights to ex-felons like Governor Warner’s record in this area, BTW. I have no problem with it myself since the system has a review mechanism built in. I do not think restoration of these rights should be automatic, and I have said so, but a process such as this causes me no problems.
What is your problem with it, if any?
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Also, I must point out how this works in practice. Governor Warner streamlined the process for non-violent offenders, It is a one page application, requires a three year waiting period after the completion of the prison sentence or probationary period, and the applicant must have a clean record in that three years - no pending charges or other felony or misdemeanor convictions. Violent offenders required more review, more information in the application and a longer waiting period, which is appropriate, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
Two questions.
Is this an actual pardon, which would allow <ahem> the right to own guns, or simply a restoration of voting rights?
How is a “violent offender” defined?
This is the restoration of voting rights only.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
This is the restoration of voting rights only.
[/QUOTE]
Then you’re using the word “pardon” in a way with which I am unfamilar, and I agree with your stance in general, our only difference being the length of waiting time.
Right?
And now a question for the rest of you.
Why would you want to give a felon his voting rights back without checking his record in this way and seeing whether he is keeping out of trouble - not racking up DUIs, drug arrests, additional misdemeanor arrests, or even more violent felonies?
[QUOTE=Frank]
Then you’re using the word “pardon” in a way with which I am unfamilar, and I agree with your stance in general, our only difference being the length of waiting time.
Right?
[/QUOTE]
Guess so. Perhaps I was using it incorrectly. In Virginia there are three different kinds of pardons plus numerous kinds of executive clemency, such as the voting rights restoration.
The most important point I was making was that I didn’t feel that this ought to be an automatic process. It ought to be open as much as possible, but there ought to be a review process built in in the way that I have described.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Why would you want to give a felon his voting rights back without checking his record in this way and seeing whether he is keeping out of trouble - not racking up DUIs, drug arrests, additional misdemeanor arrests, or even more violent felonies?
[/QUOTE]
That’s what the probation/parole period is for, isn’t it? The only possible exception would be someone who served the complete term and was on full release, but that’s pretty darn rare.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
In Virginia there are three different kinds of pardons plus numerous kinds of executive clemency, such as the voting rights restoration.
[/quote]
Ah. I interpret a pardon as being as if the conviction had never occurred.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
And now a question for the rest of you.
Why would you want to give a felon his voting rights back without checking his record in this way and seeing whether he is keeping out of trouble - not racking up DUIs, drug arrests, additional misdemeanor arrests, or even more violent felonies?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have any problems with checking their record, to make sure they haven’t committed any voting-related crimes. However, DUIs, drug arrests, additional misdemeanor arrests, violent felonies - why should these matter, when determining whether or not this person should be allowed to vote?
LilShieste
[QUOTE=Frank]
Ah. I interpret a pardon as being as if the conviction had never occurred.
[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, acceptance of most pardons is tantamount to admitting that you have committed a crime.
See Burdick v. United States (1915).
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
On the contrary, acceptance of most pardons is tantamount to admitting that you have committed a crime.
[/QUOTE]
No, no, we’re crossing wires again.
Yes, you’re right, the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of having committed the crime - no argument there. But the result of a pardon is as if that admitted crime had never occurred, and one is restored to all of the rights associated with full citizenship.
Perhaps we’re merely having some semantic confusion, or perhaps Virginia’s mileage varies. 
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Why would you want to give a felon his voting rights back without checking his record in this way and seeing whether he is keeping out of trouble - not racking up DUIs, drug arrests, additional misdemeanor arrests, or even more violent felonies?
[/QUOTE]
You still haven’t answered why we shouldn’t. Why should any of those affect his ability to vote?
Maybe if the question were framed a different way…
Mr. Moto, if the laws were changed so that every citizen of legal age and of sound mind were able to vote, would you have a problem with it? If so, why?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Maybe if the question were framed a different way…
Mr. Moto, if the laws were changed so that every citizen of legal age and of sound mind were able to vote, would you have a problem with it? If so, why?
[/QUOTE]
I highlighted that part of your question because that’s where it hinges for me.
I would prefer to see evidence of rehabilitation before restoring the voting rights to those convicted of felonies.
That said, it is for the states to handle, as I said above. I really don’t have a problem if laws are a bit different in Virginia and Vermont.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I highlighted that part of your question because that’s where it hinges for me.
I would prefer to see evidence of rehabilitation before restoring the voting rights to those convicted of felonies.
That said, it is for the states to handle, as I said above. I really don’t have a problem if laws are a bit different in Virginia and Vermont.
[/QUOTE]
Sigh
O.K., lets try this again.
Mr. Moto, if the laws were changed so that every citizen of legal age and not currently hospitalized or incarcerated for a mental condition were able to vote, would you have a problem with it? If so, why?
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I would prefer to see evidence of rehabilitation before restoring the voting rights to those convicted of felonies.
[/QUOTE]
OK, I understand that. I agree. In what way does the successful completion of probation or parole not demonstate that?
[QUOTE=Frank]
OK, I understand that. I agree. In what way does the successful completion of probation or parole not demonstate that?
[/QUOTE]
The Virginia system attempts to address the problem of recidivism, which posters who advocate for automatic restoration of these rights have not addressed.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Sigh
O.K., lets try this again.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what you missed, frankly. I noted above that we do not let minors vote because they do not have the proper civic maturity. You note that the insane aren’t competent to vote. To a great extent, both of these statements hold true for felons as well.
That is why I want there to be a review process to judge whether the rehabilitation of an individual has progressed sufficiently to permit restoration of this right.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
The Virginia system attempts to address the problem of recidivism, which posters who advocate for automatic restoration of these rights have not addressed.
I don’t know what you missed, frankly. I noted above that we do not let minors vote because they do not have the proper civic maturity. You note that the insane aren’t competent to vote. To a great extent, both of these statements hold true for felons as well.
That is why I want there to be a review process to judge whether the rehabilitation of an individual has progressed sufficiently to permit restoration of this right.
[/QUOTE]
How would this board judge this, and in what way is this different from a parole board? I keep getting this impression that you really don’t want convicts, ex or otherwise, to vote, and you’ve created a “solution” that looks reasonable but is entirely unworkable in reality.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
The Virginia system attempts to address the problem of recidivism, which posters who advocate for automatic restoration of these rights have not addressed.
[/QUOTE]
But recidivism is already addressed. The majority of recidivists commit their new crimes while still on probation/parole from the last crime.
Someone who has completed their term should be allowed the right to vote, automatically. Certainly it is possible they will commit another crime; it is also possible that you or I will commit a crime. Someone who has in full paid their debt to society should be allowed to rejoin society.