Should felons be allowed to vote? Is it discrimination?

[jab1]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
If a Jew stays in Nazi Germany, knowing the consequences, would you have no sympathy for that person?

If a man named Ryan stayed in a country that decreed that all men named Ryan shall be put to death if they do not leave the country, would you have sympathy for him? I would have both admiration and sympathy for a man who stayed and fought such an unjust law, who fought to retain his home and property, but, OTOH, I couldn’t really blame him for leaving if that was his choice.

jab1

I can’t imagine anyone arguing that children are disenfranchised by not being allowed to vote.

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

You cannot disenfranchise someone who was never franchised in the first place. People earn the franchise of voting when they turn 18, when they are no longer children.

**Since when do rights come from the US Constitution? **

Where did I say that they did? The Constitution does not grant us rights, it merely describes what rights we do and do not have.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by flowbark *
We have voting participation rates of approximately 50%; if it was such a great benefit, more people would vote.

It’s not because there is no benefit to it, it’s because people are not aware of what those benefits are. I bet we get record participation in the next election!

[jab1]

*Originally posted by wring *
So, you would have your legislature spend time debating on exactly how many years the proverbial pizza theif should relinquish their voting ability

And what else is a legislature for? Since some states have decided to deny convicted felons the vote, they must have thought that determining this was worth their time and money. Also, I’d bet that even those states which have not taken away a felon’s vote ALSO spent time on the question and decided differently.

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.

Then let’s build a network that makes it possible to do so. Hang the expense; it would be worth it to make sure that all the voters were eligible. No properly educated person ever said that democracy (republican or otherwise) was easy.

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.

There are more important things to spend money on than making sure an election is run properly? Like what?

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.

Irrelevant. Punishment has little or no deterrence on the criminal mind. Nearly all of them believe they will get away with it. (A few will commit crimes in order to return to jail because they can’t find a job on the outside and would rather go to jail than starve. Or they are emotionally ill-equipped to handle freedom. Freedom can be terrifying because of the responsibility it entails.)

[katie1341]

In Georgia, we have a mechanism to allow people who have committed a youthful indiscretion to retain most of their civil rights. If a person is a first (and hopefully last) time felon, they qualify for “first offender treatment”. At the time of entry of a guilty plea (or a verdict of guilty), the sentencing judge does not actually adjudicate the person guilty but imposes a sentence under 1st offender. If the defendant succesfully completes probation (or incarceration sentence followed by probation), a finding of guilt is never made and the defendant’s record is expunged. Since there is no ajudication of guilt, the defendant can, from the time of sentencing, honestly say that s/he’s never been convicted of a felony. S/he can vote, serve ofn a jury, etc., but cannot own a firearm until the sentence is completely served and the case is discharged.
Interesting (at least to me) aside- first offender is available for any crime, felony or misdemeanor- except DUI (which is still a misdemeanor in Georgia). The legislature specifically excluded DUI from the 1st offender statute because they want DUIs to stay on people’s records.
But I digress… As for the question of whether a felon can vote, I think if he’s not incarcerated, why not? Some felonies are complete B.S. Up until a couple of years ago, sodomy- even consensual sodomy BETWEEN MARRIED PEOPLE- was a felony in Georgia. So, the question isn’t so much “should felons be allowed to vote” as it is “should a person who has committed a felony and gotten caught and gotten convicted be allowed to vote”.

[wring]

Jab 1, re: persons with Down’s Syndrome – you had made a sweeping statement that is not supportable. There are, undoubtedly, people who, because of a mental condition or disability may not be considered competent in court, etc. This may or may not affect their ability to vote (different jurisdictions). I merely pointed that your sweeping statement about Down’s Syndrome was not correct.

Re: persons with felony convictions, you state “, 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),” Actually, the reasons people commit crime vary widely. Some are in fact, rational reasonable (at least to them at the time) decisions, your facetiousness aside.

And pointing out Darryl Strawberry/R, Downey Jr. so what? My point was that there are people whose crime relates to a desire (and some times an addiction) to use illegal substances. How does this relate to some one being “incapable of rational reasonable decisions?”

My comments about “so you would have your legislature…” were in response to Yosemite who had stated an opinion that different crimes should have a different resultant amount of time of no voting. Her first stance was that all should have a life long ban, which would and could be enacted in one bill. Her next stance was that different crimes should have differing lengths of time. I was suggesting that the legislators would have better things to do with their time than to go over their entire criminal code and come up with specific #’s of years of lost voting privileges per crime. Certainly there are states that have enacted the former type of legislation as well as choosing no action.

Let’s look at your stance of “well, let’s build such a system and hang the expense”. In the first place, it is NOT the case that all states disenfranchise all felons, so why should a state who doesn’t have that a law, be required to ante up, and participate in it so other states can? In addition, are you aware of just exactly HOW expensive such a system would be?

In my state, to run a criminal background check (just a local state wide one) costs $5. multiply that by number of voters, and remember, you’d have to do it either just before the election, and/or repeatedly throughout the year. PLUS, if our experience with “Megan’s laws” are any use, the error rate on something like that is pretty substantial. AND, in order to run a criminal background check you need more information than is generally asked for on voter’s registration cards (you need name, dob and SS # for it to be effective). It’s nice that you’re prepared to pay for this, frankly, I’m not, and as soon as the price tag comes along, I would suspect that it’d be a hard sell.

And finally, your statement about the “irrelevance” of the deterrent value of disenfranchisement, ** Yosemite** was arguing that it might, and if it deterred even some people it would be worth it. I contended, along with you, that there wasn’t much deterrent value to the concept in the first place.

To sum up, I maintain that to disenfranchise some one while incarcerated would be easy to accomplish, and suit the concept. That to attempt to disenfranchise all who’ve committed felonies would be cumbersome cost prohibitive and serve no particular purpose.

[eggo]

You’re damn right it’s discrimination! Think about it, if enough people are breaking a law to sway an election if they voted, then a large group of the people don’t agree with that law–they should be allowed to express that by voting.
If a group is being unjustly prosecuted (GASP!) they should have the opportunity to replace those who are oppressing them.
I think the problem is that people don’t stop to ask themselves “am I really right? or am I just serving my own needs?”

A few (more than a few actually) of you are confusing a felon with someone who is incarcerated. A felon is anyone who has, at any time in their lives, committed a felony. (For the record, I think that incarcerated folks should be able to vote also.)

I voted, though only through a loophole (or maybe an oversight) in Texas law.

[Moirai]

I suppose that an easier way to continue a convicted felon’s disenfranchisement after incarceration would be to have the period of disenfranchisement equal the period or parole or probation. When they’re clear, they’re clear.

I believe that most convicted felons made a decision to commit their crime. Those who were “associating” or simply in the wrong place at the wrong time need competant legal representation. Most DA’s will deal these cases down to non-strike non-felonies because it is easier than going to trial with a flimsy case. Juries hate bullshit, and DA’s don’t have the time to waste on it, as a general rule. Sure, one might lean on a driver to testify against a perpetrator, but they will then usually give them a lighter charge, else what is the point?

Sorry, I do not have a problem with the disenfranchisement of convicted felons. The length of the disenfranchisement could vary with the crime, I suppose. Could that be up to a judge at sentencing?

[wring]

Originally posted by EJsGirl *
**
I believe that most convicted felons made a decision to commit their crime. Those who were “associating” or simply in the wrong place at the wrong time need competant legal representation. Most DA’s will deal these cases down to non-strike non-felonies because it is easier than going to trial with a flimsy case. Juries hate bullshit, and DA’s don’t have the time to waste on it, as a general rule. Sure, one might lean on a driver to testify against a perpetrator, but they will then usually give them a lighter charge, else what is the point?*

I’ve covered the other statements (about judges making that decision at time of sentencing, difficulties with enforcement post release). but, felt I should also address this.

“need competent legal representation” -naturally, but if you follow the death penalty debates, you’ll see what passes for “competent legal representation” even when a person’s life is at stake. You can figure out, then for yourself, what will happen to the person accused of shoplifting.

regarding your assumptions about plea bargains and the deals that prosecutors make, I suggest (actually to everyone) that you sit in your local courtrooms sometimes (especially on sentencing day) to get a real clue as to how your system works. One day I saw two cases of “home invasion” appear for sentencing. In the one case, a known local prostitute (prior record for prostitution and stealing) was convicted of stealing prescription drugs from the home of quote a male acquaintence end quote. The proposed sentence for her was 13 years in prison. (not that I’m not saying she shouldn’t have been given any punishment…) The next case, was a guy from out of town, who had a record of violence in another state. entered the house of strangers, held an old man and several children at gunpoint. He was being offered (by the prosecution) one year in the county jail. Why? because the prostitute was an easy conviction, even without a plea, the other guy would have been more difficult to prosecute, so they cut a deal.

Prosecutors are interested in a high convict ratio. More people they can convict, better for them. They’ll over charge a case, then offer to drop several, to get the guilty plea. They’ll offer sentencing recomondations for “time servered” in exchange for a guilty plea etc. What would you choose: plead guilty to a lesser offense and have the threat of a long incarceration removed, or go to court, hoping that you’ll convince the judge and jury that you’re innocent and risk a much longer incarceration. It’s easy to say “oh, I’d ‘never’ plead guilty to something I didn’t do…”.

Did you read my prior posts??? I told of two people in my direct friends/family situations that had done nothing more than shopped with a friend or gave a ride as a favor to a relative, and in the one case she was found guilty, the other one is pleading guilty (doesn’t want to risk being sent to prison for 5 years) -and of the second person, before you go thinking that ‘oh, they’re pleading guilty…’ I’ve talked to the person who wrote the pre sentence report. He doesn’t see that there was any criminal action.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
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?

Self defense, of course.

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?

There’s a difference between holding a sentiment, and holding up a sentiment as justification. You are perfectly free to have whatever sentiment you wish about felons. What I disagree with is your using this sentiment as a justification.

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?

I do wonder why it’s so important to you. If robbing a bank is morally wrong, isn’t someone who robs banks less deserving of sympathy than someone who doesn’t regardless of how much knowledge that person had of the penal system?

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?

If a principle applies only to one act, in one society, at only one time, that suggests that the principle is seriously flawed.

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.
…
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.

My impression of what you’re saying is that you have a principle, and it only applies to certain situations, and the situations in which it applies are those in which the person has done something wrong enough to deserve to lose their right to vote. In other words, if someone deserves to be disenfranchised, they deserve to be disenfranchised. Rather tautologcal, it appears. If the deciding factor is whether they have done something deserving of disenfranchisement, then why did you state that whether they had advanced knowledge of the consequences was the deciding factor? This exchange is a bit like you saying “I think that everyone who wears a yellow shrt should be put in jail”. I say “That seems like a silly idea”, and you say “Oh, what I meant was everyone who wears a yellow shirt while murdering someone should be put in jail”. Okay, that makes sense, but why didn’t you say that in the first place? And what do yellow shirts have to do with it?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
If a man named Ryan stayed in a country that decreed that all men named Ryan shall be put to death if they do not leave the country, would you have sympathy for him?

Of course? What’s your point?

You cannot disenfranchise someone who was never franchised in the first place. People earn the franchise of voting when they turn 18, when they are no longer children.

Disfranchise:
1.To deprive of a privilege, an immunity, or a right of citizenship, especially the right to vote; disenfranchise.

Deprive:
4 : to withhold something from

And why do you say that people “earn” the right to vote?

[quot]

**Since when do rights come from the US Constitution? **

Where did I say that they did? The Constitution does not grant us rights, it merely describes what rights we do and do not have.
[/QUOTE]

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.

(My bolding) Here, you clearly state that the reason that voting is not a right is because the Constitution does not say that it is.

[Great_Dave]

IIRC, thet US is the only country with permanent disenfranchisement. (now there’s a good SAT word). we also have the largest prison population. Land of the free, yeah right.

[jab1]

Ryan, are you being deliberately obtuse? You’ve never given me reason to doubt your intelligence before.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
**Ryan, are you being deliberately obtuse? You’ve never given me reason to doubt your intelligence before. **

No, all of my puzzlement is guinine. And seeing as how you have failed to specify what prompted your question, it has increased. Are you referring to your hypothetical involving the the exile of Ryans?

[jab1]

When you asked someone if they would have sympathy for Jews living in Nazi Germany after it was clear their lives were in danger, it seemed to me that you were saying you would NOT have any sympathy for them. I therefore made up a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the error you had made.

If I was wrong, I apologize.

I still say we aren’t disenfranchising children by not allowing them to vote. I still say that rights do not come from the Constitution, it merely lists and describes many of our rights. (In fact, the writers were careful not to list too many.) Voting is not one of them. It is a privilege, not a right, and can be taken away.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
**When you asked someone if they would have sympathy for Jews living in Nazi Germany after it was clear their lives were in danger, it seemed to me that you were saying you would NOT have any sympathy for them. I therefore made up a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the error you had made.

My question was of the same nature as yours. I was no more implying that I would not have sympathy for Jews as you were implying that you would npot have sympathy for Ryans.