I have no problems with restoring gun rights, perhaps with an exception depending on what the convictions were for and whether they involved guns or violence. I feel the same for voting. Voting rights should be restored, but there should be some kind of exception for those that were convicted of voting fraud or tampering.
In truth, I think felons should get to vote, period. I am against taking voting rights away from convicted criminals because I think it has the definite potential to perpetuate treatment of criminals that would not be tolerated if they had representation in government. There are just far too many ways to abuse the ability to take away voter rights, so I’m against it even in the case of convicted criminals.
And I suspect this is the crux of the debate. I cannot cite the truth of my statement, any more than you can cite the truth of yours. It’s simply a conviction (no pun intended). The right to vote is, in Virginia, not so fundamental a right that it gets automatically restored after the felony sentence has been served. The people of Virginia have never seen it that way, and the law of Virginia is consistent with the guarantees of the US Constitution. So it’s not a legal issue: it’s a “should be” question of wise social policy.
And I continue to believe that people who commit felonies have shown enough disregard for the social contract that it makes perfect sense to remove their ability to vote, and condition its restoral on some non-trivial task. It doesn’t have to be essays either spoken or written. It could be hours of community service. But it should be something to show they care enough about the right to vote that they want it back.
And to me this essentially looks like a thought crime – I will not let you be an equal citizen unless you somehow prove to me that your mind has been altered to a form that pleases me. I don’t think society has any business policing someone’s thoughts like that. If the ex-felon becomes a felon again, it is society’s duty and right to punish him for his actions, but should have no right to continue to punish a person on the suspicion that his mind continues to be objectionable.
If someone commits a felony, then society takes away some of their rights. Having to write an essay makes it clear to the felon that they are a supplicant and the state does not owe them the return of their franchise. It is contingent upon the felon to prove worthiness to be readmitted to the voting public. The right to vote is not a right that is endowed by our creator but one that is granted by the social contract. Expressing remorse and an acknowledgement of past wrongs is a way for those who have previously violated the social contract to be restored to full citizenship. Filling out a couple of forms is too easy, expressing a commitment toward civil society is not too much to ask.
I find it disturbing how many people seem to think that all felons are black and that black people are incapable of writing.
It’s not. The whole concept of “thoughtcrime” revolves around punishing people for crimes they haven’t committed. This obviously does not apply when the crime has been committed.
Bricker’s suggestion has more in common with parole for good behaviour.
Except it’s not. Parole is a punishment set out for a specific period of time and then expires automatically, restoring full freedom. That’s exactly how any restrictions on voting should work. The default assumption should be that all citizens are equal and there shouldn’t be “half citizens” walking around amongst us. Any punishments that limit freedom should be self-expiring.
And the underlying assumption of this argument is why I could never be a conservative. If we realize that we are unjustifiably burdening the dignity and liberty of an individual, then the history of such burdening cannot be an argument that it should continue.
I specifically came in here to make a suggestion akin to what Bricker already did. If there is a requirement that the essay must be written by the felon, then I would agree it is, at least in part, some sort of a literacy test. If they allow someone else to transcribe, translate, or whatever else to remove language and literacy bariers, I think this is a good idea.
I do believe voting is a fundamental right as a citizen, but way we punish criminals is by removing rights. And I do think the gun rights part is a reasonable analogy. Generally, people won’t have an issue with a non-violent criminal having their gun rights restored, but they often would for a violent criminal because they’ve objectively demonstrated that them having that right very well could put the public at large at a greater risk. I would argue that the right to vote has a larger impact. Why should someone who has objectively demonstrated a disregard for the laws of society have an equal say in establishing what those laws should be? At that point, it’s not about giving them back their rights, but by protecting the people at large from them. And also like gun laws, I would argue that some types of crimes represent more of a disregard for the rules of society than others. Certainly, I would say drug violations, crimes of passion, etc. show less disregard for laws in the sense that they’re primarily hurting themselves or enabling others to do the same in the former, and probably generally know better under typical situations in the latter.
So, I think this sort of thing is a good idea. In fact, I would argue that it’s a good idea even if the essay isn’t given any meaningful weight in the decision as to whether or not an individual deserves their voting rights back. I think that if someone can’t be bothered enough to express, even if it’s very badly worded, why they want their voting rights back, given that they represent their equal say in establishing the laws for which they have already demonstrated disregard, then they’re just wasting the time everyone involved in that process.
A nitpick: parole is technically considered a leniency, not a punishment. It’s letting someone who is presumably on the path to reform to spend some of their sentence under supervision outside the prison walls. Which means that anyone paroled from a life sentence would never, ever finish their parole. In a simpler, less merciful age they would simply have been branded and sold into slavery.
The biggest problem with our prisons is that too many harmless (or relatively harmless) people get sent there for nonviolent drug offenses. The second biggest (related to the first) is that real problem people (rapists, drunk drivers, white-collar scammers) are in and out too quick, if they go at all.
If we could do something about these issues, I’m fine with an automatic restoration of voting rights on the day of release (or end of probation/parole).
I think the Governor’s idea stinks, not because of its implementation, but because i think that anyone not in prison should be able to vote. Period. They shouldn’t have to apply to get their voting rights back at all.
I’d go even further and adopt a practice like Australia, where those serving prison sentences are only disqualified from voting if their sentence is longer than three years. In Canada, it used to be that prisoners serving more than two years were prevented from voting, but a 2002 court decision found that denying prisoners the vote violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so now all prisoners can vote.
This seems reasonable enough, but it makes me wonder about all the other rights which are removed when a convicted felon is imprisoned; why is the right to vote, specifically, more special than these others? Why add any extra burden on the restoration of that right, but no others?
And if voting is special enough that we want to see “something to show they care enough” before letting them have it back, why not something for 18-year-olds and others who haven’t voted before, to show that they care enough in the first place?
(Not a full-formed argument here, just some thoughts.)
The moment I start a thread, my life intervenes and pulls me away. Two quick thoughts:
I actually think ex-felons have a greater need for guns than most people. I’d be up for amending the felon-in-possession laws.
As to the general thrust of the post, I just disagree. Voting isn’t a privilege we reserve for the just. It is a way of justly governing a people. If you deny the vote to 300,000 black Virginians, you deny the vote to the very people who might know exactly what needs to be changed in order to prevent there being 300,000 black felons in Virginia.
You ever give some drugs to a friend, or take some from a friend, Grumman? Most of the country has. But the drug war isn’t waged against most of the country. It is waged, in large part, against black and Hispanic people. Why do you suppose that we incarcerate far higher percentages of black people for drug crimes when drug use and distribution rates are about the same across races?
I agree. If anything, the person being punished has an even greater imperative interest in the system of governance. In a democratic system, sovereign power derives from the consent of the governed; thus, the person being subjected to the awesome power of such sovereignty must not be denied his or her voice/share in the system.
Liberals want to give almost all people including former felons the franchise yet do not want anyone to have guns or at least certain types of guns.
To be quite frank I admire in some ways Robert Heinlein’s system of earning the franchise as described in Starship Troopers (the book not the movie version). While I wouldn’t support it in many ways such a system is quite superior to ours.
And? Giving more people the vote gives more people a say in running the country (presuming the rest of the system is working naturally); the prevalence of guns just means lots of people get hurt and killed. There’s no contradiction.
And conservatives are always trying to divide people up into the “deserving” and “undeserving,” when we’re all just human beings.
I won’t speak for “liberals” but I will speak for myself.
Having a voice in the government that has the power to impose its will on you is fundamental, no matter who you are, and it should not be taken away based on some perception of the inadequacy of a person other than in exceptional circumstances (incapacity, for example).
Guns have absolutely zero relevance to this value. It’s a complete non sequitur.
Wow, a fictional military dictatorship dystopia trapped in an endless war is “quite superior” to what we have. Just wow. You really live in your own mind, don’t you?
There are some people who deserve something and others who don’t. For example millionaires do not need welfare. Similarly if someone has commited a wicked crime enough to be a felony they have betrayed their trust to the community and should not be allowed to participate in it.
I think you’re talking about the movie version. The book version is a meritocratic democracy where other than the franchise noncitizens have virtually all rights (and are free to criticize the system).
