Taxation without representation OR Voting rights of felons

One of the reasons that the founding fathers started this country, was to escape the “taxation without representation” of the british. They reasoned, that if one is supporting the governing body with money, one should have a say in how said government is run. Makes perfect sense to me.
Today, we are faced with a similar situation regarding the disenfranchisement of convicted felons: once one breaks a law made by a governing body, he loses all power to change the law. He has already been punished, served his time, and in theroy “paid his debt to society”. Why than, should he not be returned to his former status as a citizen?

If you ask me (and perhaps I’m a bit biased), even people currently incarcerated should have the right to vote. I see the power to change the government as one of those unalienable rights.
Look at it this way: the law is meant to serve the will of the people, if there are enough people breaking those laws to sway an election, obviously the laws need to be changed. What better way to keep law in check than to allow those who have broken them to have the opportunity to change them?

Just for the record. There are fourteen states that permanently bar felons from voting, and TX which bars felons for four two years from completing their sentence (cite)

I believe that convicted felons who have served their sentences should indeed be able to vote. Moreover, since this is a States Rights issue, I believe that even if a State bars a felon from voting in a State and local election, said felon has a right to vote in Federal elections.

Well, such “inalienable rights” as liberty or (in most states) life itself may be forfeited for violating the rights of others. There are rights which are not forfeited even for the most heinous of crimes (the right to be free of torture or excessively cruel punishment), but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to bar imprisoned felons from voting. This might perhaps be extended to criminals who have been released but are still on parole or who are on probation. On the other hand, I think prisoners who have entirely completed their sentences, including any sort of parole, should have their right to vote restored, along with their other rights. (Some people’s rights should never be entirely restored; some criminals, even if they are released from prison, will be barred from possessing firearms, or having contact with children. In such cases it seems to me that we ought to say–as part of their original sentences–that these people are still “on parole”, for the rest of their lives if need be.)

Heh. We got you beat here. Ever since the mid-80s convicts in PR (an American jurisdiction, remember?) have a right to vote even while in the clink.

Recognized today here as a classic What the hell were they thinking?? moment in policymaking. But alas the courts said we can’t ungrant it.

Over four million citizens are denied the right to vote due to felony convictions.
Lest we forget,most of the laws were enacted to block political access to African Americans post-Reconstruction.

Even if civil rights are restored it is likely most refranchised voters would turn out at the same levels as the general population or less.

JRD: I’m curious, why is it seen that way?

light strand: Thousands of so-called felons were barred from voting in the 2000 presidential election in Florida here’s a story covering it

First of all, I think that those currently in prison should not be allowed to vote. They have broken the law, and they have had many rights temporarily revoked - effectively, they have lost their right to participate in society. Voting is perhaps the most profound and sacred method of participating in society, by literally helping to shape the laws by which society is governed. As such, it makes perfect sense to me to revoke that right.

Those on parole, I’m fairly ambivalent about. Let 'em vote, don’t let 'em vote, whatever. Parole is effectively a way of granting you your rights back in a limited fashion - some you get, some you have to wait a bit longer for. Whether voting goes in column A or column B seems fairly arbitrary.

However, once you are off parole, I see no reason to further prevent you from voting. Keeping, for instance, convicted child molestors from being near children, or convicted murderers from possessing firearms, makes sense in light of the laws they broke. They’ve demonstrated that they can’t be fully trusted with Right X, therefore, don’t grant them Right X just yet - depending on the severity of the crime, maybe not ever. However, I don’t see how voting fits into the pattern. Unless the person in question committed some heinous voting-crime (???), I see no reason to continue to curtail their right to vote, once they’ve served their time and made their peace with Johnny Law.

One thing, however, I must comment on:

Umm… no. By logical extension, if enough people are committing murder that they could form a signficant voting bloc, we should legalize murder. Sorry, but no. Laws should be determined by what is just, not by what is popular.
Jeff

Well, to take this a bit further, if the OP believes that taxed = right to vote then I would wonder if he would allow voting to extend to non-citizens as well, since they are taxed?

And lastly, since incarcerated felons don’t earn anything, they, in effect, aren’t taxed. So, should they be barred from voting for that reason?

Zev Steinhardt

zev: Most (all?) prisons require you to perform some sort of job while you are there, to avoid being called slave labor, they usualy pay on the order of 2 cents an hour. Such a wage is well below “minimum wage”, so it could be said that the portion witheld is “tax”
And yes, I believe taht anyone who is taxed should have the right to vote.

Jeff: (can I call you Jeff?) I’m one of those people who believes in utter democracy, regardless of the outcome. Laws imposed for “the moral good” tend to lead to things like the war on drugs. I believe that the majority of society will always believe murder to be wrong, as such would never legalize it–but they should be free to do so if they wanted to.

So, who determines what is just? The majority does.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Guy Montag *
**And yes, I believe taht anyone who is taxed should have the right to vote.

And, just for the record, would you extend that to illegal aliens as well. Even though (being illegal) many of them do not pay income tax, they do pay other taxes (gasoline tax, sales taxes, etc.).

Zev Steinhardt

I’ve got a problem with them being illegal aliens in te first place. Anyone should be free to immagrate, after all, thats how most of our families got here. (appologies to Native Americians: sorry about that whole taking your land thing, we didn’t mean it)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zev_steinhardt *
**

Zev the discussion deals with citizen rights. Illegal aliens by definition fall out side that as do landed immigrants.

Taxation seems a reasonable criterion for voting. Not a sole criterion (what about people on welfare etc.?) I’d also apply age, mental competency and lack of active criminal punishment (i.e. out of jail and off parole)

Do you have a cite on this?

I prefer “All-Knowing and Wise Master Who Is Also Really Handsome”, but “Jeff” will do in a pinch. And if you rely on “utter democracy”, you wind up with what is referred to as the “tyranny of the majority”. In most parts of the Middle East, it’s legal to maim or kill your wife if she gets too far out of line. The majority has no problem with this. Is it just? Should we not care about that? If you lived in such a society, and the government decided to outlaw wife-beating against the will of the majority, would you support or oppose the government’s actions?

Jeff

Well, you make a good point that we obviously withdraw a lot of rights in order to actually imprison people. Much of this is for punishment (incarceration and fines), some is for public protection (incarceration, inability to own a firearm). But I am not quite sure I actually understand why they cannot vote. Can they still write books? Can they still write letters? Have we otherwise removed their freedom of speech?

I think it is that I am just missing the connection to why they can’t vote, other than a slippery slope of “Well, we take other rights away, see?”

Yes, especially when those laws might in fact affect prisoners themselves. I am simply not afraid of what a prisoner’s perspectiv on politics is. A law passed today will affect a prisoner (well, depending on the law, of course) when he is released. Do you not see a problem with barring him from partaking in his future?

You call voting one of the most fundamental rights, and you are satisfied with an arbitrary decision on when a person can use it? :confused: Please explain.

Death penalty, anyone?

No, but I would extend it to someone who is a legal alien. It bothers me greatly that we allow people to live here, contribute to our society, but allow them no political voice.

[De Niro]Are you lookin’ at me?[/De Niro]

When you are in prison (felony or not) you should not be allowed to vote, because that enables a huge voting block with one main concern - getting out of prison - which is against public policy.

Once you are out of prison, though, you should have all your voting rights restored immediately.

If we have that many people in prison, all the more reason to allow them to vote. Something is out of whack.

erislover: no, because then “i’m not tough on crime, and i believe in parole for everyone” politicians will get unnecessary, unworthy votes.