Should felons be allowed to vote? Is it discrimination?

Great Debates
1

I did the search function, to see if anyone has tackled this specific topic. But couldn’t find anything, so here I am.

The current election situation has prompted this question, but this debate (or question, depending on how you look at it) is more generic, and not specifically about this election. My basic question is, should felons be allowed to vote? In many states, they lose that right when they are convicted of a felony.

On the news today, I saw a woman interviewed who “slipped through the cracks” and was able to vote, even though she has committed multiple felonies. She thinks that her vote should be counted, because she “did her time”. And I think I heard this right - someone else was criticizing the law forbidding felons to vote, saying that it discriminates against certain minority groups. I found this a surprising thing to say, personally, but I am pretty sure that’s what I heard.

My feeling on this is - any felon who complains about not being able to vote should have thought about that before they committed the felony. What say the rest of you?

2

If prisoners voted, presumably Congressmen from certain districts would consider representing their interests. As it is, we live in a country with one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and a tendency towards lengthening sentences. OTOH, I can understand those who would want to remove the political voice of those who have broken society’s laws.

As for those who have done their time, no, I don’t consider it an overwhelming outrage that they are prohibited from voting. At the same time, it seems a little mean-spirited (and, um, unchristian?) to deny someone this particular form of civic participation. After all, it’s not like a single vote is likely to benefit any individual personally.

Fun Facts: Adults on probation, in prison or jail, or on parole, 1993

……… ……… Adults ……… Share of Voting Age Population
Probation……… 2,843,445 ……… 1.5%
Jail ………… 455,500 ……… 0.2%
Prison ……… 909,186 ……… 0.5%
Parole ……… 671,470 ……… 0.3%
Total ……… 4,879,601 ……… 2.5%

3

If we’re going to buy into the idea of rehabilitation (as I believe we should), then it should be possible to re-gain all the usual rights of citizenship once you’ve “done your time”. Anything less reduces the incentive for rehabilitation.

At the same time, I can’t imagine that the current situation acts as much of a deterrent. “You know, I would knock over this liquor store, but if I get caught and sentenced, someday I’ll lose my right to vote. I can’t allow that!”

From one side, losing the right to vote doesn’t seem like a big deal, in the grand scheme. From the other side, it’s a constant reminder that you’re a second-class citizen. I don’t see it doing any good in either situation.

As for the minority argument, it is true that denying released felons the right to vote dampens the voice of certain minority groups, but only because a disproportionate number of black and Hispanic males are or have been in prison. It’s a separate problem, really, and a whole different debate.

Dr. J

4

Amen, I believe that rehabilitation cannot truly be achieved without impressing upon a felon a sense of responsibility for their actions. The loss of this right acts as a permanent reminder that they are responsible for this loss of priviledge and as such serves as an incentive to stay out of trouble.

5

Osip does not find anything wrong with denying convicted felon some rights. The right to own or posses a firearm is one. The right to vote in Osip’s humble opinion is not something as critical. It is a permenant reminder of past deeds and does impress upon them (the felons) a sense of Responsibility as The voice said. (not voice in Osips head, but TheVoiceofReason currently not living in Osips head)

6

What I don’t understand is that some felons who can’t vote can still run for office and win.
What does that say about our tolerance for machine politics?

7

One added dimension to the problem – the felony/vote laws differ from state to state. It is not uniform, I believe. In some states, felons are allowed to vote. Through most of the South, it is a lifetime ban. Other places it is a many year probationary period.

I heard this on Democracy Now! (Pacifica radio program) or NPR. I will find appropriate cites if necessary.

IMHO, as mentioned before, it is a poor deterrent. I believe people can and do change. If you were thrown in the pokey at 18 for something dumb like grand theft auto or possession with intent to distribute (though I don’t know if this is a felony) and you serve your time and rehabilitate, I don’t see why you should have to pay for your crime for the rest of your life.

Also, something like 1 in 3 black males have spent time in prison. Again, I will get a cite if necessary. These laws serve to disenfranchise a large segment of the population in some regions.

I do believe the law will never change – when will it be politically popular to give felons the right to vote? Even if it is a true social injustice, IMHO this is something most politicians will not get near with a 10 foot pole.

8

From the OP:

So as long as the a policy is announced in advance, it’s perfectly fine? If the Nazis had publically announced their plans for the Jews beforehand, would that have justified the Holocaust?

That seems like a strange point of view to me. I mean, if someone breaks one of society’s laws, obviously that person disagrees with society about what should be a law. So anyone who disagrees with the government shouldn’t be allowed to vote? That seems like a mighty strange definition of “democracy” to me. What if a state decides that sodomy should be a felony? Then, poof, suddenly gay men can’t vote. Or what if the government starting drafting people for a war, and declares draft evasion to be a felony. Then anyone who disagrees with the war enough to refuse to be drafted will be refused the political power to stop the war. Does this make sense?

9

If enough of the population is imprisoned to significantly affect an election, perhaps whatever is causing people to be imprisoned at such a rate should face those imprisoned, i.e. drugs.

10

You’re kidding - you somehow are trying to compare the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust to not being able to vote?!?!? Not being able to vote because you commit a felony? And this is comparable to all the innocent Jews who lost their lives…uh, how?!?!?

Hey, when someone commits a felony, a lot of things happen to them (if they are caught and convicted.) They will actually be (gasp!) incarcerated for a spell. (The nerve!) There are always consequences to crimes. People know this beforehand. Like not being able to own a firearm, for instance. Are you against this as well?

11

I do think felons should be allowed to vote, for the reasons DrJ describes.

I think all of Reagan’s administration should be allowed to vote too.

12

Check out http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfelonvote.html

13

I think the felons should be able to vote because that might deter them from running for office.:slight_smile:

14

please keep in mind many things are felonies. (and I’ve used the line by Dr. J when I’ve heard lawmakers debating raising penalties for various things. "gee, it used to be that I was risking 3 years in prison for this, but they’ve raised it to 5, guess I’d better not)

In my state (MI) for example), using some one else’s prescription medication is a felony up to 7 years (ever bummed a tyleonol #3 off some one?) Failure to pay state sales/use tax on purchase done through mail order /internet sales is also a felony. Drugs?? felonies for possession, use, sales etc.

Stealing something from a building is a felony, regardless of the amount of money involved, so I’ve seen people prosecuted for felonies for taking a $0.99 cent bottle of nail polish or a bag of returnable bottles from a car port.

Now, I am not attempting to say that any of these things are routine and ok, just that I’ve met damned few folks who have never done anything at some point in their life that couldn’t be charged as a felony. My son (at 15) was threatened with felony prosecution for hiding a substitute teacher’s coffee mug in a locker as a prank.

I think some balance is in order. Have no problem with denial of voting priveleges while incarcerated. But permanent denial forever? nah.

Keep in mind yosemite, that Mr. Bush was convicted of DUI, which at this point is a felony in most states.

15

Me neither. There is rightful discrimination and wrongful discrimination (or “legal” and “illegal,” if you prefer). Too many people seem to think all discrimination is bad. But to discriminate against children, for example, by not allowing them to vote is rightful (or legal) discrimination and I can’t imagine anyone arguing that children are disenfranchised by not being allowed to vote.

The same goes for the mentally incompetent; they don’t really pay taxes, their guardians do, so they are not taxed without representation. Surprisingly (well, to me, anyway), some states do allow the incompetent to vote. (No Palm Beach jokes, please.) Don’t ask me how or why this is done, it’s something I learned just a few weeks ago. All I know is that my uncle, who has Down’s and lives in Texas, is not allowed to vote because of Texas law. His sister is his legal guardian.

So, are felons like children or like people with Down’s? In a way. Children and people with Down’s are incapable of making rational, reasonable decisions. One could argue that a person who willingly and knowingly committed a felony is unwilling to make rational, reasonable decisions. Or you could argue that they willingly gave up the privilege of voting by committing a felony and shouldn’t whine and complain when that privilege actually is taken away.

And that, by the way, is the crux of the matter and I shall state it here more clearly: Voting is a privilege, not a right. The Constitution does NOT say we all have the right to vote, in the same way that we all have the right to free speech, for example. It leaves this up to the States. And that is why it can be taken away, at each State’s discretion.

Say what? Voting is not as important as owning a gun? You can’t be serious. Please detail your reasons for believing this and please write it in a manner that is less irritating than the one you used here.

16

We do deny voting priveleges to children. I think the Downs syndrom case is not clear at all, and I would definately take exception to the “people with Down’s and felons are incapable of making rational, reasonable decisions”. The fact that one might have a lower IQ or another made a bad decision in the past does not give sustenance to the supposition that they’re “incapable of making rational, reasonable decisions”. As a matter of fact, the clerk in Ingham County MI is a convicted felon (he’d had a drinking problem in his youth and wrote some bad checks, has been clean, sober and legal for the past 25 years, and has made many capable, rational, reasonable decisions.)

There are folks who do seem to have difficulty with that, but frankly, so does my dad who is neither a felon nor has Downs(who believes that wearing a seat belt increases his risk of dying in a car crash).

17

:confused: Your point? It was a misdemeanor (sp?) at the time he did it. Had he committed a felony, screw him. No sympathy for him. Sorry, I don’t see how bringing up Mr. Bush clarifies any points in this discussion.

After reading this thread, I do want to ammend my viewpoint a bit. While I don’t feel too sorry for any convicted felon who loses their voting privileges, I wouldn’t have a problem with a felon who had been on the “straight and narrow” for many years eventually getting their voting privileges restored. But still. I cannot dredge up a lot of sympathy for someone who commits a felony, and loses voting privileges. They lose many other things (like their freedom) for a while as well. Them’s the breaks, they should have thought of that before they commited the felony.

18

My point is that I hear many people issue sweeping condemnations of “felons” all the time. And, of course, they keep that up until some one they know and like is convicted (see** Wildest Bill’s** thread here about his friend the drunk driver).

It’s easy to be condemning of nameless, faceless people, especially when the only thing you know about them is that they did something wrong at some point (and possibly at many points) in their lives.

Most of us have done things we’re not proud of. Sometimes as a youth, sometimes out of frustration or during a battle with substance abuse. I’ve heard enough folks at community meetings with their “we don’t want those people around us” stuff, and seeing in that number, people I knew had ‘dirty little secrets’ (like the woman who’s husband, a life long drunk, had driven under the influence constantly for years, physically assaulted his wife and daughters, but none ever filed police reports, so they were pillars of the community).

Although, at the time of commission of his crime, Mr. Bush’s charge was a misdemeanor, do you really believe that it factored into his game play that night? (Gee, I’m going to drive after having too much to drink, but it’ll be ok 'cause it’s only a misdemeanor, now if it was a felony, no way, no sireee bob!").

If you’ve read these boards for any length of time, you’ll note that there’s quite a few here who admit to experimentation with illegal drugs. Possession is a felony. So, you’re telling them that they deserve disenfranchisement for up to “many years” because they prefer marijuana to a beer?

Yes, people who have committed felonies deserve to have consequences. In some cases, severe consequences. I support the idea that while incarcerated, folks have given up their right to vote. But, if the jury that found them guilty, the judge that sentenced them and the parole board that granted them parole all see some strong rational for them being back in society, (all of this having weighed the individual circumstances of the entire situation), I guess I’d like to see a bit more rational for your stance of ‘they did something wrong x number of years ago’ so they don’t deserve the vote.

19

I think he was an idiot for drinking and driving. But since it wasn’t a felony, he wasn’t risking his voting privileges at the time he committed that crime. He wasn’t risking his voting privileges, stupid and careless as he was. No, of course I don’t think he thought of his voting privileges when he got in that car. He was being an idiot.

You are asking the wrong person here. I don’t usually rant about drug use, but the fact is, I have little tolerance or sympathy for it. I have personal reasons for feeling this way, it’s a hotbutton issue for me. I don’t drink, I’ve never tried illegal drugs (ever) and I don’t understand why anyone else would. As to whether someone “deserves” to be disenfranchised because they are convicted of drug use…hey. They made a choice. They knew the consequences going in. Drug use is not too high on my list of heinous crimes, though, and if given a choice as to who to “allow” to vote, the convicted drug user, or the convicted rapist, obviously I’d pick the drug user as “deserving” to have their voting privileges restored first. But I have little sympathy or tolerance for it, no. I don’t really want to get into a debate about drug use, though.

You’ll see I ammended my stance in my previous post. I wouldn’t have a problem with convicted felons eventually getting back the privilege to vote. But I will repeat again, I don’t have much sympathy for someone who does something, knowing the consequences going in, and then complains about it later. If they commit a felony, they risk, among other things, incarceration, and losing the privilege to vote. If they do the crime anyway, I cannot dredge up a lot of sympathy. And, getting back to G.W. Bush - what he did 24 years ago was idiotic and stupid, but he has been dry for years now. If he had his voting privileges revoked for that rash act (if it had been a felony at the time he committed the crime) I would feel he was entitled to have his voting privileges restored after all this time. Just like I feel (like I mentioned in a previous post) that anyone who has been on the “straight and narrow” for a long time should be able to vote again, eventually.

20

Of course it did. One of the reasons for the reduced rate of drunk driving fatalities since the 1970s would be the stiffening of fines/penalties/jail time for offenders. Back in the early 1970s (when Dubya was arrested), DUI was not AS socially stimatized as it is (thankfully) today.

If DUI was a felony in the 1970s, it would have been taken more seriously by society (although, maybe this is a chicken-egg scenario, in that societal attitudechanges might need to precede some of the statute changes)…and perhaps more seriously by Dubya…I would guess that stiff drunk driving laws are one of the few statutes that DO act as somewhat of a deterrant…