All-Knowing and Wise Master Who Is Also Really Handsome: yes. I wuold support the people’s decision to legalize wife beating if it were passed. But you are missing my point that it never would be: the only reason it is so in these uncited middle-eastern countries is because the women have no say. Do you realy think that, in a country where women have every right a man does, such a law could pass?
There is no such thing as an unworthy vote, possibly excepting dimpled chads and such.
Do you really suppose that “I’m not tough on crime and I believe in parole for everyone” would win if onle we let all felons vote?
Guy, it has an element of principle (a swing in public opinion in the direction that those in prison indeed should forfeit political rights, and that the 1980s decision was shortsighted vote-grubbing) and of practical application (how come we’re using money and resources to make sure pushers and rapists vote)
Maybe if we ostracize them more for longer they will rehabilitate quicker.
Yes, Sojournersampson- i’m with December- got a cite? I think that even before the Civil war felons were barred from voting, in fact it seems to be a facet of English Common Law.
“No Taxation w/o Representation” although indeed a rallying cry, is not in the Const, nor a cornerstone of US Law. Taken to the extreme, the concept would allow any who pay taxes to vote- including minors, the insane, aliens, and Corporations. While barring those who are legally Citizens from voting, if they don’t pay taxes. You could make a cae for this- but then do those who pay lots of taxes get more votes? How much in taxes, and which sort of taxes allow you to vote? A tourist who has piad $1 in sales taxes?
Going to SCOTUS with a brief that claims “No taxation w/o rep” as your cause would get you booted. It’s just plain silly. Just because a few of our Founding Fathers made that a cause does not mean it is enshrined in US Common Law or the Const. It’s even weaker than claiming your right to the “pursuit of happiness”, which at least is mentioned in one of our basic documents.
I don’t see a problem with allowing minors to vote. They pay taxes, they are subject to our laws, and in many areas they can be tried as adults.
Indeed, the only reason I see for not allowing them to vote is so politicians can pass laws restricting the rights of minors (curfews, graduated drivers’ licenses) without fearing for their chances of re-election.
erislover:
Do I see a problem? No. We are keeping him from working, which would be partaking in his future. We keep him from socializing with those outside the prison, which would be partaking in his future. He may partake fully in his future when he’s done serving time. In the meantime, he is effectively removed from society. Doesn’t bother me at all.
Now, we do allow prisoners to do certain things that will lessen their chances of reverting to crime upon their release. We allow them to pursue education, and we allow them to work in a limited fashion, and build a savings of sorts (I think). Voting will not lessen his chances of reverting to crime, so there is no reason to allow it.
Freedom to go where you please is also a fundamental right. There are many fundamental rights that are revoked when you go to prison. When you get out on parole, we give you back some. Some, we reserve until you’re off parole. Which of these rights we give you back immediately, and which we give you back later, is fairly arbitrary. As such, yes, I am satisfied with it.
Murder and the death penalty are hugely different, whether you agree with the death penalty or not. One is unprovoked, one is punishment. At any rate, this in no way invalidates my argument. If you think that the death penalty is unjust, than this illustrates my point even better - to wit, the death penalty is legal because a majority of people agree with it. If you feel the death penalty is unjust, then wouldn’t you agree that justice-through-majority-rule is a bad idea?
Guy:
[QUOTE]
I wuold support the people’s decision to legalize wife beating if it were passed. But you are missing my point that it never would be: the only reason it is so in these uncited middle-eastern countries is because the women have no say. Do you realy think that, in a country where women have every right a man does, such a law could pass?
[QUOTE]
Whether or not Nasty Law X would ever be passed is irrelevant. The point is that it is inherently unjust to provide society with a mechanism to do whatever atrocities it please, as long as the majority can agree. How about current laws that discriminate against gays? Are those just ducky, as long as the majority is fine with them? If everybody else decided that we should tie you down and beat you daily for the rest of your life, you would support that, because if the majority supports it, it must be just jim-dandy?
Jeff
As you say, some of the things we do to prisoners is to punish them (we punish people both out of an abstract sense of “justice”–“they get what they deserve”–and as a rational deterrant–“Gee, I’d better not do that, or unpleasant stuff will happen to me”.) Depriving criminals of the right to vote–at least while they are still in the clutches of the corrective system–is a punishment. OK, it probably won’t deter your really hardened criminals, but I wouldn’t want to lose any of my civil and political rights, so it would deter at least some people.
A more important point: Criminals have shown themselves unable to respect the rights of others*. If they can’t govern themselves to the extent of not infringing on other people’s rights and liberties, I think it just to deprive them of the right to govern everyone else by voting. I agree that this deprivation shouldn’t be permanent, unless the crime was so severe that we have sentenced them to be permanently deprived of their liberty.
*I am assuming here that criminal convictions are the result of committing a crime which harms another. This doesn’t really apply to “victimless crimes”, like drug use (unless you do something like drive a car on a public street while under the influence); for that reason, I don’t support depriving people of any of their rights or liberties for “victimless crimes”. But that’s a whole other debate.
I think you’ve all got it backwards. If one can’t vote, why must they pay taxes? If we hold to the “no taxation without representation line,” then if felons who’ve served their time can’t vote, I don’t see any reason why they should then have to pay taxes into a system they have no say in. Likewise immigrants.
Um… you really want my 5 year old to VOTE? How about my 10 month old?
This would in effect give more power to parents of several children. If I told my children to vote for Senator A, they would most likely do it. I have 3 children so my vote would be in effect magnified.
Yes, at some point they would stop voting the way I told them, but I would have several years before that happens.
Still trying to figure out how my baby will vote. I assume you have to have some age limit. If not 18, then should it be 12? 8? 4? Or should I bring my infant in her baby stroller and guide her hand so she can ‘punch’ out chads?
ElJeffe
But he isn’t removed from society, he is removed from us having to look at him. In doing so, we put him in another society.
Sure it will, if the crime committed is overturned because of voting. Like… drug legalization?
Can I ask you, please, not to use the word “fundamental” anymore? It actually sickens me to hear you trivialize it so.
Yes, and when I kill a rabbit we call it “hunting”. It is still killing.
No, I would agree that we shouldn’t remove their ability to affect justice.
I agree that it is a punishment.
But that’s like saying Texas never killed an innocent man—the very thing that makes them criminals are the laws you now won’t let them address.
I might sound naive; after all, they could vote before they were caught and prosecuted, so if they had anything to say, then they could have said it before. In this way, I suppose the road for me to take is the middle, and accept ElJeffe’s idea (and your hint) of only not letting them vote while in prison; they could regain their rights after release.
In my opinion, no citizen of majority age should be denied the right to vote. If there are ever enough felons to swing the vote on critical issues, then something is seriously wrong.
Murder is a straw man – instead, think about the many controversial felonies on the books, from being a bystander to a drug transaction, to “disorderly conduct” at airports, to breaking feeble encryption used for copyright control. These laws are under active protest. Isn’t it a bit scary and undemocratic that breakers of them are disenfranchised?
Do we really want the following scenario?
- Politicians strengthen zero-tolerance laws to make any drug possession a felony.
- Millions of drug users are arrested and convicted as felons.
- Prisons can’t hold them all, so they’re let off with light sentences, but are no longer allowed to vote.
- Politicians campaign as “tough on crime” without fear of electoral backlash.
- Aforementioned laws remain on the books forever, since their most vocal opponents have been disenfranchised.
Why not just take the moral high ground and decide to never deprive any grown citizen of his personal protest vote?
Right, that’s why I mentioned drugs. There are plenty of felonies besides murdering innocent babes.
Managed to delay my response so long that I didn’t see your post, erislover. :o
I agree with it almost completely, except that I wouldn’t even compromise on imprisoned felons. If anything, they have the most stake in elections, since it is one of the only forms of political expression we can safely allow them.
Right, I guess that’s my beef… we punish people and do things to make ourselves safe from them… isn’t that accomplished without denying them a vote?
That’s what they said about giving women the vote. “Oh, they’ll just vote for whoever their husband tells them to.” But I know when I was 10, I had my own opinions on political issues.
To be practical and avoid the abuse we saw with “literacy tests”, there would probably have to be some lower limit; say, the age at which minors can legally work, or get married, for consistency. However, anyone under that age shouldn’t be taxed or tried as an adult.
zev_steinhardt
Don’t you mean “most”?
Grey
Really? I thought it was about human rights.
So should people dying from cancer be barred from voting?
Mr. 2001
That’s an incredibly specious form of reasoning.
Y’all seem to be arguing that the laws need to recognize that they themselves are unjust: “Anyone guilty of malicious muggery in this state shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 20 years in the state penitentiary; but since this law is so unjust, those convicted thereof shall be free to try to change it”. But the presumption of any law is going to be that it is itself just and proper. If the law is unjust, it’s unjust to deprive people who have been convicted of breaking it of the right to vote to repeal it, but more to the point, it’s unjust to put them in prison in the first place. The solution is not to give felons more rights, but to repeal laws which unjustly criminalize behavior that ought not be criminalized. I’m not saying that even convicted felons should have no rights, but if they’re rightly convicted of breaking a just law, I have no problem with curtailing their rights fairly seriously–I don’t want people who have been rightly convicted of violating just laws to have the power to make decisions about my government, at least not until they’ve paid their debt to society. If they’re convicted of breaking an unjust law, I don’t want to increase their rights while imprisoned (or on probation or parole), I want them to be not imprisoned (or on probation or parole) at all. For those wrongfully convicted of breaking a just law, I still don’t think increasing their rights as felons is the answer; the answer is to not wrongfully convict innocent people.
But again, to argue that we shouldn’t prohibit felons from voting because some of them may be innocent, or may have been convicted of breaking unjust laws, is really to argue that we shouldn’t punish felons at all, because some of them may be innocent, or may have been convicted of breaking unjust laws.
MEBuckner
Hardly! If that were the case we could dispense with democracy.
Well, I don’t either. I think imprisoning people and/or fining them severely, nevermind making their crime something they must report to all employers in the future is already fairly serious. In general. But this is because when I think of felonies I tend to think of violent crimes against other people, which is not always the case. It isn’t the case now, and I don’t know that it would ever be the case in the future.
You wouldn’t be increasing their rights by simply not taking away something they already have!
Oh get off your high horse. :rolleyes:
People allowed to vote must be citizens of the country. Unless you feel a deep and abiding need to have the whole world vote in you next City/State/Federal election. It follows that someone deprived of the right to vote had to have it to begin with.
Now if you want to debate who should be eligible to possess the right to vote in the fist place, that’s different.