Ditto, TeaElle.
It’s rumored that Bush Jr. had a bad cocaine habit “back in the day”.
If this ever become substantiated, would this be enough to vote him out of office?
Because to me…it only seems far. If a former coke-head can’t vote, why should he be able to run for office, let alone the top office?
The guy also has a DUI under his belt. A serious misdemeanor IMHO. But I guess that’s okay since he’s born again.
He lied in court once. In Mississippi, perjury is enough to revoke your voting privileges. Lucky for Bush, he wasn’t a regular joe from Mississippi.
I see no problem with giving people with sordid pasts a break as long as they’ve paid their debts and have disavowed themselves of bad behavior. The American people seem to have forgiven the president on a lot of things (most people know he hasn’t been a straight arrow his whole life). I wonder why people can’t be as equally compassionate for regular people who have done things just as bad.
It doesn’t bother me much that prisoners can’t vote, but I don’t like that some ex-cons cannot.
When a person is released from prison, it’s because they are deemed fit to regain society. If we do not allow they to fully participate in society after their debts are paid- by being allowed a say in how that society is governed- what incentive do they have for sticking to the straight and narrow? Perhaps being allowed to vote isn’t a major incentive for not commiting more crimes, but it’s something positive regained, anyway.
Also, do not forget that Bush was arrested for theft and vandalism while he was in college.
Under Mississippi law, people like that are told “NO VOTE FOR YOU!”
I expect people, especially all those so-called Christians, who are for this kind of disenfranchisement to not see how hypocritical they are when they vote for Bush in November.
Quick example to hopefully shed some light. Here in Minneapolis, there’s a school called CRCS (K-12). It just happens to be located smack dab in the middle of a housing complex. By federal law, anyone caught selling drugs (or just caught having enough drugs to be plausibly selling) within 1000 feet of a school can be charged with a federal crime. Within 1000 feet of that school there are nine apartment buildings, housing (rough guess) 20,000 people. And a university. Not to mention the fact that there are eight bars within that radius. Eight bars that do quite a lot of business on an individual basis, not to mention the aggregate basis. I shit you not. EIGHT BARS!!! (And we ain’t talking NYC density here. It’s a neighborhood with houses and apartment buildings.) And perhaps it’s an oddity of the local culture, but I would bet that at least 90% of the people in that area have smoked marijuana at some point in their lives. And, by these rules, I’d bet that 20% of them have committed a felony. A non-violent felony that would, in some other states, deprive them of their right to vote.
Thank God Minnesota ain’t on that list, huh?
Yeah, that law sucks. In fact, 90% of the ‘war on drugs’ sucks. When I think of the overcrowding in jails, the actually violent people released early to make room for some single mom caught with a couple of grams of crack, and the gross racial and class disparity in the law (for example, Cocaine often carried lesser penalties than crack, which is the same thing but used by poor people), it makes me sick.
I suspect, though, that the 1000 yard rule might be challengable in court in the case of homes that are within that zone. I can’t see it being constitutional to charge someone in their own home with a felony when someone down the block doing the same thing is a misdemeanor.
Yes. Every citizen who will be penalized if they break the law should have some ability to change the law by voting. That’s democracy.
Many of them have no “cages” or cells any more. The prison in which my husband works is “dormitary style”, with rows and rows of bunk beds.
There’s nothing arbitrary about the rules. Actually, the inmates have a handbook to which they can refer at any time if there’s a question as to what is allowed or forbidden. As to coercian, sometimes it’s regretably necessary. The officers don’t like it any more than the inmates-- they get the third degree in any use of force. They have to prove that force was justified or they face disciplinary action, up to losing their jobs.
Of course. I’ve never heard of a co-ed prison. Such a thing would be incredibly difficult to run. Showers, sleeping arrangements . . .
Forgive me for saying so, but the reason they’re probably in prison in the first place is that “nonconformist” stance. We all have to do things we don’t want to do merely because society dictates it. That’s life.
Many inmate have a very poor grasp of social values. They don’t see why it’s wrong to steal. For some, prison is their first introduction to a system of rules and punishments for disobedience. Naturally, some have a great struggle with this, but often, they learn to work within the system.
As the long-timers in the prison in which my husband works, it’s best to “lay down” rather than get into trouble. Other inmates don’t like it because it disturbs their peace and routine, so they will often try to talk a new inmate into obeying the rules just to avoid all that bother.
Most prisons are not like that. There hasn’t been an incident of violence at my husbands prison this year. Yes, there are power struggles between the inmates, but it can’t go to far because staff keep a close eye on that sort of thing. There are gangs, but the’re mostly powerless thanks to close observation by the staff. They’re known as an SRT-- Security Threat Group, and their activities are closely watched.
As for helping to organize the social behavior of the inmates, the staff works very hard to see that inmates get the kind of positive social contact which helps with rehabilitation. This include collaborating with civilian groups and community leaders, along with religious groups and counselors who generously donate their time to help the inmates.
Except many crimes don’t involve the kind of violent behavior you’re thinking of, if thinking is the right word here, when you use the phrase “act like an animal.” Frex, drug possession. Harms no one. Prostitution. Harms no one. What kind of animal did Martha Stewart act like? Or Charles Keating?
“Act like an animal.” Pathetic.
Perhaps the people who know you are unwilling to talk with you openly.
For some reason or other.
Frex, drug possession. Harms no one. Prostitution. Harms no one. What kind of animal did Martha Stewart act like? Or Charles Keating?
Hey, nobody’s arguing that our current laws are perfect. If you can come up with a fair way to take away the vote from some felons but not others, be my guest. Until that time I’d still prefer to not allow the worst of the bunch making decisions about how this country is run when they have shown no respect for the law and for other citizens.
Re the OP’s survey of voting rights: you can add Canada to the countries that don’t restrict the right to vote. There was a restriction in the federal Elections Act, but the Supreme Court struck it down two years ago in Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer).
Unlike the 14th Amendment, the relevant provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t include an exemption for previous criminal acts:
The Supreme Court held that the bolded wording of the provision meant exactly what it says: every citizen has the right to vote.
There were a few news stories in the recent election that mentioned that prisoners in federal penitentiaries were voting for the first time this election. I believe that they got mail-in ballots for the riding they were living in prior to their conviction, so I doubt that their votes would have heavily skewed the results in any particular election.
Does the value of a person depend upon the worst thing they’ve ever done? Good or bad, ex-cons are still a part of our society.
It is utterly ignorant to make such a blanket declaration of all people who have been convicted of felonies. You’re willing to disenfranchise countless good apples who have made mistakes just to punish a lesser number of bad “never do well” apples.
Which still makes me wonder, “Why even bother removing their right to vote?”
Making decisions? How many felons do you think there are, and what do you think they’re voting on, exactly?
Neverminding the fact that far more criminals aren’t caught and are voting anyway.
I’m fine with removing voting for inmates. I don’t like it, but I see the justification. Once they’ve served their time, however, they should be reintroduced into society as much as anyone else. Innocent (again) until proven (again) and all that, you know.
Y’know, conservatives often depict liberals as starry-eyed idealists and themselves as gimlet-eyed realists, but I just don’t see it. This is a case in point: although there is, near as I can tell, no practical value whatsoever to denying inmates and ex-felons the franchise, conservatives in general seem pretty upset about the idea.
But there is a practical value to giving inmates the franchise. Airman’s incorrect beliefs about the correctional system notwithstanding, rehabilitation both is and ought to be a major goal. These folks are gonna be walking the streets again some day: when they do, we want them to be fully integrated members of society.
Giving them the franchise isn’t going to turn hardened killers into Fred Rogers, but it’s a small step. It gives prisoners a voice in society, gives them a responsibility for who’s in office. It ties them into the government. It demonstrates to them that, on the most fundamental level, they are citizens.
Pragmatists ought to be clamoring for this, never mind the human rights issues involved.
Daniel
I disagree. How does an opinion about what the role of prisons should be make my beliefs any more incorrect than yours? That’s a bit arrogant and presumptuous of you to assume that your belief is the correct one at the expense of all others.
Human rights? What about the rights of the people that these violent felons killed, crippled, or severely injured? The scumbags that do that sort of thing aren’t human, they’re animals, and should be treated as such.
Are you saying that prisoners lose their human rights once convicted?
Man, replace “felons” with “soldiers,” “occupiers,” “insurgents,” or “terrorists” and you’d think this was another Iraq thread.