Should felons be allowed to vote? Is it discrimination?

Great Debates
21

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Read my post again, carefully this time. Pay attention to what I am saying rather than what you think I’m saying. I never tried to compare the Holocaust to denying felons the right to vote, and I find your accusation that I did to be a pathetic attempt to avoid the points that I brought up. I asked you a direct question, and instead of answering it you attacked a position I never took. Your attitude is more appropiate to the Pit than GD.

And I will repeat again: can that position not be used to justify the Holocaust? If a Jew stays in Nazi Germany, knowing the consequences, would you have no sympathy for that person?
jab1

Just what do you think the word “disenfranchised” means?

Since when do rights come from the US Constitution?

22

Oh my, you can get so rude, so fast!

Might I comment, my post was mostly increduility - not insulting rudeness. And not, IMO, appropriate for the Pit. Your response, however…:rolleyes:

I think to compare Jews in Nazi Germany to a felon losing their voting privileges to be so totally different, there is little in way of a comparison. A Jew did not knowingly do something in Germany, they were born there. They were born Jewish. They didn’t DO anything. And their “punishment” is death, for being born Jewish. There is no way to “justify” such a thing.

A person who commits a crime is doing something. Something that most people find no need to do, apparently. Something that is socially unacceptable, harmful. A felony. They were not born a felon. Their actions and choices made them one. And with their choices, come consequences. Crimes are punished, by law. So I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for someone who commits a crime, knowing the consequences, and then has to suffer the consequences of committing said crime. And I don’t see how you can bring up the Jews in Nazi Germany when we are discussing people losing their voting privileges because they stole a car, or held up a bank.

So what are you trying to ask here? Are you implying that a government is not “justified” in incarcerating (or otherwise punishing) people who commit crimes? Losing voting privilges is part of a punishment. Like going to jail is part of a punishment - for a crime. How does this compare to Nazi Germany killing innocent people who were born Jewish? I am sorry, once again, with my reading comprehension problem I don’t understand your point.

23

I think we might separate the issue as follows:

a) Does denying voting rights to felons deter crime?
I seriously doubt it. We have voting participation rates of approximately 50%; if it was such a great benefit, more people would vote. I think of voting as more of a civic obligation than a privilege.

This, (the effect of criminal policy on deterrence) is the central issue to me. This approach, I might add, makes appropriate policy more of an empirical matter than a philosophical one. (For example, if you could demonstrate that denying voting rights was a potent deterrent, I would probably favor it.)

b) Does denying voting rights to convicted felons who are out of jail offend the conscience?
Doesn’t bother me too much; as Yosemite says, “It’s part of the punishment.” I sense that questions of appropriate punishment/retribution are central to others of perhaps conservative inclinations. Can’t argue there; it appears to be an issue relating to values.

I might also speculate that bringing felons into the national conversation (of which voting would be a first step) might lead to a more realistic crime policy, or at least one better informed by actual prison conditions/corruption, etc.

Pressing Yosemite a bit harder:
Out of curiosity, what would you think about letting somebody vote who has left probation, assuming they’ve passed it successfully? That would involve being on the “straight and narrow” for a couple of years, as opposed to many years.

And why exactly, do you want to continue to punish somebody after they have left prison? (I suppose a fair response might be, “why not?”) Maybe you consider this policy to be a sort of inexpensive “scarlet letter”, separating certain miscreants from the wider citizenry.

Do you think stealing a pizza (which apparently is a felony in California) should cause one to lose their voting rights for many years? More to the point, should voting rights be something discussed during the punishment phase of a jury trial?

24

After a felon has paid their debt to society they regain their rights, which should include voting.

While they are in jail I see no reason why they should be allowed to vote.

25

I’d have to say that I do not think felons should have their right to vote permanently removed.

Having once been very close to a man that was convicted of the crime of murder (even though I would classify it as zealous self-defense) , I might even say that no felon should automatically be denied the right to vote. Depends on the felony, I think.

stoid

26

Yosemite et al. - We already have a large, expensive system in place to adjudicate convicted folks, based not only on their crime, but on their rehabilitation, any mitigating factors etc. (judges, probation, parole etc.)

in particular, Yosemite, you’ve altered your stance to include folks who did something stupid some years ago etc. but loosely define “long time” etc. I’d suggest to you that instead of having a uniform “25 years” stance, that you continue to allow the people who have experience in the field (Probation/parole officers etc) to figure out if the person has shown themselves to be rehabilitated.

As far as your stance about “they knew, going in, that they’d loose their voting priveleges”, well, you’ve already admitted that it’s not likely that idea was uppermost in a person’s mind, but in point of reality, it isn’t even a fact. Some states require all convicted felons to permanently loose their voting priveleges, others do not. So our mythical person commits a felony in the State of MI, successfully completes all sentencing requirements and moves to one of those southern states that permanently disenfranchise felons. How would you have expected them to have realized that at the time of the felony?

And, how about: Some specific sexual acts are against the law in some states (there’s even a thread going on around here that in some states a man walking around with a visible hard on is committing a crime), but not in others. So, you commit what is called a crime in one state, do the time etc, move to another state that doesn’t recognize that act as a crime, but loose your voting priveleges anyhow?

Also, it’s not actually true that you have to be committing a specific criminal act in order to be found guilty of a crime. If you’re with some one who is shoplifting, or gave them a ride, it’s entirely possible that you will be arrested and found guilty as well. I’ve seen it happen (not just with clients). Or how about the guy who’s nephew asked him to drive a friend to the airport. The “friend” was under survelience, and the uncle is now facing 5 years in prison for conspiracy. And yes, that’s the only connection. It happens.

Actually, yosemite you and I probably have similar views on drug use. My point, however, in bringing it up, is that’s a category where lots of people who are otherwise fine citizens etc. are committing crimes.

just to yank your chain a bit more, too ( :wink: ) Dick Cheney has two drunk driving convictions, and Bush had a couple of other crimes on his record from his college years (stealing some decorations from a hotel was one, I can’t remember the other). Point being that many, many people have had convictions and have gone on to rehabilitate. I think having the standard that while incarcerated, you can’t vote is legitimate. Also, we have an entire system in place (parole boards, probation agents, judges, etc.) to ascertain on a case by case basis, rehabilitation, and that to substitute some arbitrary number of years on top of that will serve no useful purpose. (also, frankly, it’s a much easier system to manage - if they’re physically out and able to get to the polls, ya vote, if they’re requesting an absentee ballot be sent to the county jail, nope.)

27

Criminals in prison for fewer than two years, as well as criminals who have been released from prison, are permitted to vote in Canada, and the constitution has not collapsed (well, at least not for that reason).

28

The question should not be whether felons should be “allowed” to vote, it should be, can they be prevented from voting? Currently there is no mechanism to prevent a felon, or a foreign citizen or any other ineligible person from voting. All they have to do is lie on the voter registration affidavit, and show current identification. There is no cross checking of eligibility. My ex-wife was a Canadian, and she voted in all the elections, including for president. Nobody stopped her. During our particulary nasty divorce, I even dropped a dime on her, but the district attorney in LA County declined to prosecute; as a matter of fact, the DA there has never prosecuted a single voter fraud case. Ever.

29

I remember reading an article reprinted from the American magazine “Free Inquiry” pointing out that the people in prison were more likely to espouse “conservative” religious and political beliefs than the population taken as a whole.

Maybe your republican candidate for president should have taken this into consideration – he probably would have won the felon vote. (Is this what he meant by compassionate conservatism?)

30

Ah, I see I have neglected this thread…

To respond to a few points. After much contemplation, I do not have a problem if voting privileges were suspended for a different length of time, depending on the crime. I can’t see why a pizza-stealer should have his voting privileges revoked for 25 years, (if they stop stealing pizzas, or anything else). A few years would seem fine, if at all. Other crimes might require a longer time frame, like 7-10 years, or 25 years, or life.

Having voting privileges being revoked is just another form of punishment, that’s how I see it. Each person’s sentence is different - some people pay fines, some people have a certain amount of probation, maybe they are confined to their house for a year, whatever. Some forms of punishment are rather creative. So, I don’t see having someone’s voting privileges revoked for a while is so strange, or unusual. It is also kind of like the “gift that keeps on giving”. Even after the felon is out of jail, they are reminded that their actions have consequences, and not being able to vote is one of them. To some people, this might never matter, since they never cared to vote anyway. But to others, it would serve as a reminder. The more I think of it, the more I do like the idea of a felon eventually being able to vote again, if they stay clean. That way, they might (at least some of them) value their restored ability to vote, after several years of not having the privilege.

31

** And exactly how would this be done? as a matter of new laws? So, you would have your legislature spend time debating on exactly how many years the proverbial pizza theif should relinquish their voting ability - I can see it “with all due respect congressman Smith, the pizzas in question were extra large and with pepperoni!”.

It’s easy for all of us to sweepingly state “well, there aught to be a law” or whatever, without thinking through the consequences. enacting any new legislation actually costs money. Our courts are already behind, and you want the judges to also have talk about how many years post release some one should not vote?

Then, of course, there’s the problem of enforcement. Unless and until each and every county clerk does cross checking of voter registration with criminal records (and continues to do so on a regular basis), this is simply unenforceable. It’s not even really easy to run a criminal background check for folks who lived in another state, let alone all 50 of them and other nations.

The amount of checking and rechecking alone would be, IMHO, prohibitively expensive. I personally can think of any number of other ways to spend my tax dollars, thank you.

Granted we can enact any type of punishment that we could possible want (given constitutional grounds), but to what end? Some people will commit crimes, no matter what. Some others would never consider it. Many people fall into the area in between. I just can’t conceive of a person who would consider committing a crime where they realize they can loose their liberty, but would not because they would loose their voting priveleges.

And, regarding " ‘gift that keeps on giving’. Even after the felon is out of jail, they are reminded that their actions have consequences, and not being able to vote is one of them. " Allow me to respond. as I’ve stated, I’ve worked with exoffenders in the community for more than 20 years. Trust me, they have a thousand and one reminders of this all the time. Even people who have been clean for 30 years, realize it.

32

Hey, I am not a lawmaker, and my opinions have no profound weight. I am not earnestly and seriously advocating that these laws be changed. I am just blathering on and offering my half-baked opinion. Which is - I don’t have a problem with felons losing their voting privileges as part of their punishment. These laws (forbidding felons from voting) have been on the books for a while, and I see no urgent reason to change them. But, if I could wave my magic wand, I would allow people who committed less heinous crimes to only have their voting revoked for a few years. And I would support the idea of there being a limit on how long a person’s voting privileges were revoked.

No, probably not many people would reconsider committing a crime on that alone. But losing their voting privileges, along with their liberty, and other things, it adds up. Every little bit sometimes does count. And just because some people will commit crimes, “no matter what”, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t punish them. Including depriving them of voting.

33

How many felons actually vote? With all due respect to the hardworking felons, if a person is a convicted felon, then voting might not be very high on their list of things to do.

34

Just how have I been rude? Have I been misrepresenting other people’s positions?

Yes, at a position you made up.

You really don’t think that misrepresenting other poeple’s positions is rude?

Why do you keep repeating that? That’s not what I’m saying. I’ve specifically told you that I’m not comparing them, yet you insist on pretending that I am.

They chose to stay, didn’t they?

That’s ridiculous. Not registering for the draft is a crime. Someone who refuses to registre is no more “doing” something than a Jew that refuses to leave Germany. So your excuse doesn’t wash. But if you’re really so hung about this distinction, what if Hitler had restricted the Holocaust to those that went to Synagogue?

So?

So?

That hardly is a logical conclusion from the previous premises.

Because you’re being inconsistent. You’re saying that in one case, government is allowed to do whatever it wants, and in another it isn’t.

Let’s see what I’ve written in previous messages:

You have avoided directly answering these and my other questions, instead preferring to accuse me of comparing Jews to felons. If you really wanted to know what I’m asking, just read my posts.

I’m implying that your justification makes no sense. I am not saying that no justification makes sense.

35

Well - this would be a good example:

That’s rude. If I misunderstood you, and was incredulous, you could have merely said “Whoa! You have misunderstood me completely! This is what I meant!” But you rudely questioned my reading comprehension skills. Had you explained what you really meant (so someone with my reading comprehension problem could understand) I probably would have apologized for misunderstanding you. As it was, you were simply rude.

Sheeeeeeesh.

OK. Let’s put it this way. A person holds up a bank. They are forced to go to jail. Why does the government make them go to jail for holding up a bank? What is the point of it? Why jail? Why a cell? What punishment would you suggest? Do you suggest a punishment? What “justification” does the government have? What is your opinion on this?

Not being allowed to vote is a punishment, just like being put in a jail cell is a punishment.

I say to anyone who complains that they are being put in a jail cell (because they held up a bank) “Well, you should have thought about that before you robbed the bank.” I say to a person who complains about not being able to vote because they held up a bank, “Well, you should have thought about that before you held up the bank.” Why should I not hold this sentiment? What part of it do you apparently disagree with so vehemently?

Do you think that a person who robs a bank shouldn’t think of the consequences before they commit their felony? I am not assuming you think that, by the way, I’m asking. Do you think that I am not entitled to wonder why they didn’t think of the obvious punishment for a robbing a bank before they robbed it? And do you think I am not entitled to feel less sympathy for someone who knew the consequences of robbing a bank, and did it anyway? And, mind you, I am talking about *robbing a bank. Not about living as a Jew in Nazi Germany. Let’s keep it with the OP here - talking about AMERICA, in the year 2000. Could we do that?

36

Let me see if I can make a point similar to Ryan’s.

Just because a punishment is pre-announced by the government, doesn’t make it just, per se. That’s why we have a consititutional prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment”. So a twenty year sentence for an overdue library book would probably be overturned by an appeals court.

Similarly, any penalty, even if pre-announced by the government, that applies to something that is not anti-social or morally offensive can be argued to be inappropriate. For example, if the US government set penalties for defaming a member of Congress, most North Americans would oppose that. The response, “Hey, that’s the law”, wouldn’t be taken too seriously. But in the case of drug and vice crimes, things become more contentious.
So it’s not entirely sufficient to say, “He should have thought of that before he did the crime.” That said, I don’t think either of the above circumstances applies in this case: depriving someone of their voting rights is a pretty mild punishment and for the sake of this discussion we can assume that the law being enforced is not unjust.

37

Yes. Exactly. It wouldn’t always be entirely sufficient to say “Well, you should have thought of that before”, but in this instance, in this thread, discussing this topic, in THIS CONTEXT, for the most part it applies.

We could discuss whether some crimes (like stealing pizza) even should be felonies, but it would be more appropriate to start a new thread for that. Or, we could discuss the Jews in Nazi Germany. But that would be bettyer as an entirely new thread. So, what I am talking about are felons. People who apparently did something bad enough (according to the current laws of the land) to put them in the pokey for a while. And, along with putting them in thet pokey for a while, we are discussing (on this specific thread) the efficacy (sp?) of also revoking their voting privileges.

38

So, Yosemite, you aren’t advocating new laws, just don’t change the ones on the books already? Ok, then, please follow up with my other objections to it: namely,

  1. they are largely unenforceable (doing criminal background checks on every registered voter and having to re-do them on a regular basis). So, they can easily be used selectively (for example, let’s check the criminal background on this minority precinct here.)

  2. Laws regarding voting privileges after conviction vary largely state to state. So, how do you propose to deal with the issues of a person convicted in State A that does allow felons to vote after they’ve served their time, but now moves to State B where they aren’t. Here, they’d be subjected to a consequence that they had no reason to know prior to their act.

  3. The fact that you haven’t thought this through to it’s logical consequences (i.e. the expense of running criminal background checks on each potential voter) demonstrates the problems. I doubt seriously that even with the states that do disallow it, that they actually run criminal background checks (certainly not nationally, since those stats aren’t readily available).

My comments about if this would be an actual deterrent apparently need clarification.

  1. There are people who will continue to commit crimes, regardless of the type, severity and methods of punishment. Some one who is addicted to drugs etc. unless they go into recovery, will probably continue, for example. Threatening to deny voting privileges will do nothing to prevent additional criminal behavior.

  2. There are people who commit a crime, find the punishment so repugnant that they never will place knowingly place themselves in such a position again. Denial of voting privileges will do nothing additional to prevent already prevented behavior.

  3. For the vast quantity of people, they may or may not again knowingly place themselves in a position again. For these people, the punishment is often not the issue – they certainly know, better than most, the consequences of their action. In these cases, they are most likely to be looking at the probability of getting caught and convicted. So, increasing or changing the punishment doesn’t effect this group either.

  4. Also, you keep on making the statement that “they should have known”. I dispute that. I think that it is common knowledge that, for instance if you rob a bank, you face the probability of going to prison. The laws about voting rights connected with felony convictions are not nearly as well known, and certainly not across state lines. While you can, in fact, for example look up in a jurisdiction what the potential sentence would be for a specific crime, it’s unlikely to repeat “and remember, that any criminal conviction denies voting privileges for the rest of your life.” As support for this point, while running the correction center, in 1980 the national election came around. Some of our clients expressed intention of voting. We called the parole officer (who had many years experience) –no one at the local parole office knew if they could vote. We ended up contacting the clerks’ offices in the jurisdiction to find out if there were any laws regarding felony conviction. And we were people who worked in the field of corrections. So, no, they “should have known” doesn’t cut it.

And again, please let me remind you that some one found guilty in a criminal case may not have knowingly done anything illegal at all. Ever heard of the concept “ignorance is not a defense?” Hell, I’ve been in the position before of being with or giving a ride to some one who’d just shop lifted. I had no idea. After I found out, I’d lay right into the person, and in one case refused to so much as stand near him (he’d dropped some batteries into my purse as we were at the cash register) would /could I have been found guilty? You bet.

Goose – actually, many of the felons I know do vote, especially if they’ve been out for a while. Many of the ones who’ve told me who they voted for, voted republican since they hear the words “tax cut”.

39

Different people, different restrictions. People like my uncle, whose disability is especially severe, cannot vote because they cannot decide. (My uncle can’t even read, the poor man, and his speech is so impeded, only his family can even understand him.)

In the case of a felon, I say you can argue they were, temporarily incapable of rational, reasonable decisions (unless you think deciding to steal or commit rape or murder can ever be considered reasonable or rational behavior), as opposed to my uncle, who is permanently incapable of such decisions. So, I agree with those who say a felon should lose voting privileges, but only temporarily, until it can be proven that he is rehabilitated.

Your dad sounds stubborn. Not necessarily unreasonable, but it depends on HOW stubborn he is. However, even an unreasonably stubborn man should be allowed to vote.

40

See Robert Downey, see Darryl Strawberry.