This isn’t the thread to get in a discussion about the purposes of prison; I’ll just say that a one-size-fits-all attitude towards prisoners is, in my opinion, counter-productive. And I agree that rehabilitive efforts leave a lot to be desired, mostly because they are not narrowly and effectively focused on the class of prisoner to which they could be of the most benefit.
Do you believe that the case of Sanford McLaughlin cited by Alien above is worthy of lifetime disenfranchisement? How about someone who spends a couple of years for, say, cocaine possesion? Do you believe that someone who has served his time and has changed his ways should forever be denied the right to be a full member of society again?
I simply do not understand why our society feels the need to punish someone for their crimes after their sentence is completed. If the goal is to reintegrate them into society, to allow them to be useful, productive members of society, to give them a stake in maintaining their fellowship in our society, continuing to deprive them of their right to vote does nothing to advance that.
Hello Airman. I don’t know, but this is another debate entirely: Should convicts rehabilitate themselves while in prison, or should the Department of Corrections use additional resources to rehabilitate prisoners? There are many countries with low rates of recidivism for most crimes, so it’s doable.
Here in Florida, it was recently ruled by the court that a state maintained list of thousands of disenfranchised voters be made available to everyone. Previously, an interested person could see the list, but couldn’t copy it or any portion of it and couldn’t take any part of it away with him. The main point is that already focus groups have discovered hundreds of names on the list WHO ARE NOT disenfranchised, but who would have been disqualified from voting. Many of these people are ex-cons whose right to vote has been restored, but most of them didn’t know it and assumed they couldn’t vote. IF their voting rights were restored automatically on completion of sentence or parole, they might be more inclined to vote. When you consider that GWB carried Florida by a little over 500 votes, a few Ex Felons For Kerry would be welcome.
I favor allowing those who have completed their sentences to have all the rights of “regular” citizens.
That’s like saying “If providing for the public good is the purpose of government, then why do we have so much pork-barrelling and corruption and the concentration of power for its own sake? I don’t see much governing for the public good going on, so I’d have to say the purpose of government is exploitaton of the governed.”
In other words, you’re kind of mingling descriptive with prescriptive, aren’t you?
The usual description of the penal system and the underlying philolophies regarding what it should be for divides the terrain up into retribution, deterrence, prevention of recidivism, rehabilitation, and recompensation (of society and/or the specific victims).
IMHO the penal system does virtually none of the latter two, which is the majority of what it ought to be doing; it gets highly mixed reviews on preventing recidivism — society at large is safer from incarcerated people until they are released but less safe once they are released than if they’d never been sentenced at all (this is intuition but not entirely without some evidence in support of it); its success at deterrence is vastly overestimated, although I think there is some deterrent effect anyhow; and as for retribution, I don’t think we have any business doing it.
Oh, and what we’re doing is costing us a hell of a lot of money. We get damn little worthwhile return on it.
Mostly I think the criminal justice system, and the penal system in particular, needs to be rethought from the ground up. When people display an ongoing tendency to commit minor antisocial crimes, or commit a serious crime, we need to engage them, find out why, and address the person and the situation until we’re reasonably certain it isn’t going to happen again.
And if rehab / negotiation fails to work? Kill them. Humanely, perhaps with a lethal heroin overdose, and not as punishment but as 100% guaranteed recidivism elimination strategy.
Should inmates and ex-cons be allowed/denied to vote in elections?
Inmate? No.
Ex con? If it was a misdemeanor, yes. Felony, no.
I could even go for saying if you have X number of misdemeanors, no voting for a certain number of years. The misdemeanors would have to be separate occasions, though, as you can rack up more than one during a particular crime.
One of the ideas of prison is that you’re removed from society and you don’t get to participate. I see no reason for inmates and convicted felons to have a voice. Wanna vote? Then behave yourself. Nobody’s putting a gun to anyone’s head to make them rob a bank or kidnap someone and murder them. Poor widdle child molester is mad that he doesn’t get to vote? Hell with 'em.
There’s a very good reason why inmates should not vote - THEY’RE CRIMINALS. They don’t care about society. They broke the law. Their judgement is poor. They are being kept incarcerated by the state, and therefore are not free actors in the first place.
I that felons should be able to vote is simply idiotic. Misdemeanors are another matter. That’s a grey area. And ex-cons are another gray area. After you serve your time, should you get your franchise back? That’s not clear.
But giving felons who are currently incarcerated the vote is bleemin’ ridiculous, if you ask me.
Neither a sense of social responsibility, nor good judgment, is a requirement for exercise of the voting franchise. Nor should they be. The point of democracy is not so that the people can impart their wisdom to the government, it is so they can use the franchise to defend their own interests. That is why we no longer have property qualifications for voting, nor literacy tests.
I suggest you read Polyarchy by political scientist Robert Dahl. Addressing the question, does democracy really make a practical difference? Dahl determined it does, in that the general level of civil rights and liberties is much higher in states that have both a free press and genuinely competitive elections, than in those that lack either. What is more, any group in society that is systematically denied the franchise might as well be living in a dictatorship, in civil-liberties terms – that was the case of the blacks in apartheid-era South Africa and the American South between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement, even though both societies had a free press and free elections (in which only whites could vote). The enfranchisement of women by the 19th Amendment did not bring about the compassionate social utopia some suffragists had predicted, but it did make things in general better for women, and lead to the abolition of certain legal disabilities on them, and pave the way for the later feminist movement of the '60s and '70s – for the obvious reason that, after the 19th Amendment, politicians had to court the female vote.
Now convicts in prison necessarily are living in a dictatorship, that’s what incarceration means. But that doesn’t mean they have to be entirely silenced and voiceless in political terms. As I noted above, if convicts had the vote, then politicians would have to pay some attention to their interests and needs, and that would not be a bad thing. They might be criminals, but they’re still people, aren’t they? They wouldn’t dominate the political process – it would be practically possible for any democratic society to incarcerate so many of its people that their vote would be that significant – but their needs and desires would merit some attention. And I contend that would not be flatly inconsistent with their punishment.
As for their not being “free actors” – what are you suggesting, that the warden or the guards would tell them how to vote, and they would obey? We have a secret ballot everywhere else to prevent that kind of pressure; why couldn’t we have a secret ballot in a prison polling station?
I’ve been doing some googling on to what extent a conviction for a misdemeanor leads to a loss of voting rights, but there appear not to be much information out there. The following two cites may be of interest:
Aw, come on . . . My husband has worked in corrections for years. While I wouldn’t compare prison to a vacation at Club Med, I’d never go as far as to say it’s cruel. Yes, it’s an unpleasant place, as it should be, but the inmates are treated with reasonable dignity and respect, and given all the necessities of life, with a few added luxuries.
Hell, a lot of them have better living conditions on the inside than they did prior to their incarceration. They get the medical care which they probably couldn’t afford if they had to pay for it. (My husband says that a lot of inmates need extensive dental work when they enter the prison . . . many of them have never been to a dentist before they were incarcerated.)
There are extensive checks and balances in the system to ensure humane treatment. Civilian groups monitor the conditions, and advocate rather successfully when there is a problem. Corrections professionals are very concerned with the health and wellbeing of the inmates, and are constantly working to develop programs which will assist the inmates both inside the institution and once they’re released. Frankly put, an angry, unhappy inmate is a dangerous inmate. It’s in the best interest of prison officials to treat inmates well.
I personally don’t see a need for disinfranchisement once an inmate has been released. As casdave said, they’re not necessarily a politically active segment of the population, nor do I see any danger of politicians pandering to the inmate vote. They’re too afraid of seeming soft-on-crime in the eyes of the Soccer Moms who are an important part of their voting base.
It seems to me that this disinfranchisement may raise a few issues which I wonder if the courts have addressed: taxation without representation, and double jeopardy.
We should either exempt a group of individuals from taxes or allow them to vote.
That’s my take.
That’s also why I say minors should be exempt from tax.
Good point. It pisses me off that our society is willing to hand out responsibility all the time, but begrudges giving those people rights along with those responsibilities (18 year old soldiers that can fight and die for their country but can’t drink beer, for example).
Lissa, they are still cages and unless I’ve been very badly misinformed about what life is like in them, they are places of arbitrary rules and coercive enforcement thereof, sexual segregation, intensive power hierarchy both the formal type between convict and staff and the informal type among the convicts, and that they are really no place for a nonconformist person uninclined to do things merely because other people want them to and will apply coercive pressures to make them to so. That they are, in fact, bastions of violence and power and control struggles — not so much that violence breaks out left and right on an everyday basis, but that there are no other major organizing principles or belief systems that organize social behavior in there.
People don’t belong in cages.
If I ever commit a crime of sufficient seriousness to justify subjecting me to major penal sanctions, and a prison sentence of more than a couple months is considered appropriate and necessary, I’d prefer that you simply supply me with a lethal substance and some privacy and I’ll take myself out.
I have similar feelings about Republicans yet wouldn’t deny them the ballot. If elections are to determine the will of the people then what is the purpose behind disenfranchising those who may have made poor decisions? Are they no longer people? On Election Day shouldn’t the populace be judging the government and not the other way around?
I think that they should recieve all ‘citizenship rights’ after doing their time (including probation and parole). All this no voting, no gun owning stuff came pretty late in our country’s (USA) history anyway. It’s taxation without representation and cruel and unusual punishment AFAIC.
Besides lots of crimes and criminals really aren’t that bad.
“Behaving” is not a condition of voting nor has it ever been, which is (or should be) obvious because deciding just what “behaving” is is something people vote on (or about). Now if you want to take away the right to vote from a person who is criminally insane and wasn’t even competent to stand trial, I won’t say peep. But you want to take away the right to vote from a guy who smokes dope all the time and the cops keep busting him. That’s ridiculous.
Carrying a concealed, loaded weapon is a felony (or at least it was). That person would lose their right to vote. Were they “behaving like an animal”? :rolleyes:
God, seriously. If my only criteria for removing someone’s voting was that they didn’t care about society and acted like it, there’d be a whole lot more than criminals that lose the right to vote.
Maybe they’re worried that too much of the population will be in jail and will form a significant voting block. Because that says nothing about our society and only about those nasty criminals.
What I find absolutely precious about this thread is the way that people that support removing voting rights from convicted criminals is the way they portray every single crime as either a rape, murder, or devious plot to overthrow the government when the majority of prosoners are incarcerated on victimless drug crimes and aparenty a great deal of states include crimes such as shoplifting in the list of crimes for which you can have your voting rights denied.
I wonder what proportion of the population has never been involved in shoplifting, a drug crime, a bar fight (which a zealous prosecutor could easily turn into assault and battery charges), writing a bad check, or perjury (how many politicians does that eliminate from the voting roles now?).
I know that I wouldn’t be allowed to vote if enforcement of these laws was fair and universal, and I am guessing that the solid majority of this board would be in the same boat, along with the vast majority of the white, upper-class, future conservative voters of America that I went to high school with. Hardly behaving as an “animal.” If people still want to restrict more serious crimes, fine, but for drug possession?
Are you suggesting that the majority of Americans engage in these behaviors?
Either you know a particularly downmarket slice of this country or I know a particularly upmarket one, because I can’t think of a single one of my regular associates who could’ve ever been convicted of any of the above. Unless, of course, you’re including “4 year old takes a candy bar from the store without parents’ knowledge” in shoplifting.
