[QUOTE=Bricker]
Mr Moto mentioned the loss of firearm privileges. This makes perfect sense if the felony in question was armed robbery… but not so much if it was income tax evasion or embezzlement.
[/QUOTE]
That would presuppose a fine-tuned response in the laws to the differing situations of ex-cons, a group that doesn’t have a lot of clout (especially when they can’t vote) and so rarely gets much attention unless they’re seen as a problem to someone else.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I’ve told you what my personal preference is. But if Virginia decides to enfranchise felons upon completion of their parole, I wouldn’t be too upset.
I would have a big problem with allowing incarcerated felons or those under current parole or probationary supervision to vote, for the reasons I stated above.
[/QUOTE]
Might as well suspend medical care and book learnin’ too. Fuckin’ sub-humans.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Might as well suspend medical care and book learnin’ too. Fuckin’ sub-humans.
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick re the insane: People who are psychiatrically hospitalized don’t routinely or automatically lose the right to vote. IANAL, but I think what would be required for that is a guardianship order with a determination by the court they’re too out of it to cast a ballot.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
This is where we run into circles though. Because the matter of what is and is not a “crime” boils down to what a majority of voters say it is. Sodomites (pre-Lawrence) and Marijuana possesors (if they possess enough to be felons) have had the gall to violate societies rules, yet I argue that they have hurt nobody by their actions and should not be stripped of their right to seek redress in the ballot box for what shouldn’t have been a crime in the first place.
And if a majority of people (but not a majority of voters because aforementioned citizens were stripped of their right to vote) think something shouldn’t be a crime, isn’t that a fundamentally unjust result?
[/QUOTE]
Not in my opinion, no. Or at least if it is, it’s immaterial. Voting rights should be constructed in the way to get the best electorate, not necessarily constructed purely for just reasons. If we were constructing them based purely on just reasons every one, age 2-18, and the mentally insane would have ballots.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Not in my opinion, no. Or at least if it is, it’s immaterial. Voting rights should be constructed in the way to get the best electorate, not necessarily constructed purely for just reasons.
[/QUOTE]
But that’s a slippery slope, isn’t it? I mean, it can be argued that only college graduates have studied the subject thoroughly enough to vote meaningfully. Or that only the more intelligent among us can fully understand the issues at hand, and therefore those with an IQ below, say, 115 or so, don’t get to vote. Or that only landowners who have a certain income or above should get to vote.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Voting rights should be constructed in the way to get the best electorate
[/QUOTE]
The best in whose opinion? In my opinion, any person who opposes full congressional representation for the District of Columbia should be denied the opportunity to elect representatives to the national legislature, because they, in my opinion, have an insufficient respect for democratic principles. Removing them from the electorate would improve its quality. How about that for a test?
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
So, I believe FORMER felons who have completed all incarceration, parole and probation sentences, and who have completed all court-ordered restitution, should be fully restored to their constitutional rights. Period. And don’t even think about preaching to me about guns and crimes with guns and all that crap. A right enshrined in the Constitution is a right, goddamnit! Either honor the right or change the Constitution.
[/QUOTE]
So if the Constitution suggested that we could eliminate the vote for someone if he’s been found guilty of crime, then you’d be OK with all this.
Good.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Not in my opinion, no. Or at least if it is, it’s immaterial. Voting rights should be constructed in the way to get the best electorate, not necessarily constructed purely for just reasons. If we were constructing them based purely on just reasons every one, age 2-18, and the mentally insane would have ballots.
[/QUOTE]
As far as letting minors vote, there is the issue of whether its them voting or their parents telling them how to vote. Unless the child is quite precocious, it will be the latter for at least their first 10 years or so.
The mentally insane? If they are coherent enough to request a ballot, why the hell not? I think you have to be insane to vote Republican, but I’m not going to stop you from doing so.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
But that’s a slippery slope, isn’t it? I mean, it can be argued that only college graduates have studied the subject thoroughly enough to vote meaningfully. Or that only the more intelligent among us can fully understand the issues at hand, and therefore those with an IQ below, say, 115 or so, don’t get to vote. Or that only landowners who have a certain income or above should get to vote.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not a slippery slope; it’s a clearly defined line: those who respect society and the law of the land, and those who spit on it. I don’t want the ‘spitters’ voting, especially if they vote in a bloc.
[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
It’s not a slippery slope; it’s a clearly defined line: those who respect society and the law of the land, and those who spit on it. I don’t want the ‘spitters’ voting, especially if they vote in a bloc.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, my comment was in response to this:
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Not in my opinion, no. Or at least if it is, it’s immaterial. Voting rights should be constructed in the way to get the best electorate, not necessarily constructed purely for just reasons.
[/QUOTE]
If voting rights are constructed in order to get the “best electorate”, then it is, in fact, a slippery slope from “disenfranchise ex-felons” to “disenfranchise people who aren’t smart enough to vote the right way.”
Now, if you want to say that the electorate should consist entirely of voters who respect society and the law of the land, that’s another argument. I tend to agree with this. However, if you want felons to reintegrate themselves back into society, you need to let them enjoy all of the benefits, rights, and responsibilities of being in that society, not just the ones you think they’re worthy of.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
For people whose behavior crosses into felony territory, they absolutely can be punished in this way. And I believe, personally, that until they are rehabilitated that it is a good idea.
[/QUOTE]
Many states really don’t care about rehabilitation. They’re in the business of punishing. And I’d like to see proof that a single person has ever been rehabilitated. I don’t care if we’re talking capitol murder or a husband cheating on his wife. Show me how you see into the hearts and minds of men.
Life’s a crapshoot. Always will be.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I’d like to see proof that a single person has ever been rehabilitated.
[/QUOTE]
(“KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?”)
.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
…
Now, if you want to say that the electorate should consist entirely of voters who respect society and the law of the land, that’s another argument. I tend to agree with this. …
[/QUOTE]
You summed up my viewpoint perfectly.
[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
You summed up my viewpoint perfectly.
[/QUOTE]
What if the law is fucked up and deserves to be broken, though?
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Many states really don’t care about rehabilitation. They’re in the business of punishing. And I’d like to see proof that a single person has ever been rehabilitated. I don’t care if we’re talking capitol murder or a husband cheating on his wife. Show me how you see into the hearts and minds of men.
Life’s a crapshoot. Always will be.
[/QUOTE]
I think you’ve found what I think might be Mr. Moto’s hidden agenda-he’s all for ex-felons being allowed to vote after they have been properly rehabilitated, but I have yet to see his definition of rehabilitation. Short of mind reading, Mr. Moto, what would you accept as proof of rehabilitation?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I think you’ve found what I think might be Mr. Moto’s hidden agenda-he’s all for ex-felons being allowed to vote after they have been properly rehabilitated, but I have yet to see his definition of rehabilitation. Short of mind reading, Mr. Moto, what would you accept as proof of rehabilitation?
[/QUOTE]
He probably thinks the wise and seasoned officials hold that crystal ball.
The three year waiting period we have in Virginia, during which a clean record has to be maintained (no felony or misdemeanor convictions or pending charges), suffices for me. I think the five year waiting period we have here for violent offenses is a good compromise as well.
As I said before, Governor Warner streamlined this process during his term so that the waiting period is reduced and the form required for non-violent offenders is only one page long, and can generally be filled out by them without legal assistance. I have no problem at all with this.
Now, I certainly do not think Virginia’s legal system is a model for the country in all areas, not does it reflect my own preferences right down the line. I do tend, though, in debates like this to look at how actual states tend to run things. In this area, Virginia seems to run things fairly sensibly, especially since Governor Warner reformed the system somewhat. Before this, it was a tad harsh.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
He probably thinks the wise and seasoned officials hold that crystal ball.
[/QUOTE]
You’re doing it again. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
You’re doing it again. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I shall try to be less :rolleyes: .