Why prevent felons from voting?

There’s an overly-long Pit thread which I won’t bother linking to in which issues of voter identification are being discussed in a manner suggesting a horse skeleton being reduced to a fine powder, but I am curious about a related issue: why do some venues routinely disenfranchise convicted felons?

A check of wikipedia’s “Felony disenfranchisement” shows the U.S. is big on it (though it varies considerably from state to state), with 5.3 million disenfranchised felons as of 2008. Are these people still expected to pay taxes? Wasn’t taxation without representation a big deal, way back when?

I can understand denying the vote while the felon is incarcerated (Maine and Vermont allow it) - they are, after all, not participating in the political process in any conventional sense, and there may be security issues - but after release and completion of parole? Is it not in society’s interest that the ex-con re-assimilate into quote-unquote normal society, part of which is nonviolent participation in the election process, i.e. voting?

I have no illusions that any politician who calls for the ending of felony disenfranchisement benefits from it - opponents can easily twist it into accusations of being soft on crime - so if it was going to end, would it be up to the judiciary to find some means to declare it unconstitutional?

Well, 47 states now have some form of felon reenfranchisement, 13 upon release from prison, 4 after parole, 20 after probation, and 8 after certain conditions are met.

But historically, and the reason it got started was that felons were, historically, considered to suffer “civil death”, that the felon lost the rights of the citizen. He couldn’t vote, he couldn’t sue, he couldn’t enter into contracts. The idea was that the felony put him outside of civilized humanity.

Perhaps one could also note that a prominent sector in the demographic of convicted felons just happens to be the exact same sector that racists have been surreptitiously trying to disenfranchise for more than 140 years. Whether or not that’s a primary motivation, it has certainly been – for the racists – a marvelously fortuitous side effect.

Recent threads on this subject

No logical reason for it at all. Some states automatically restore their rights, all states should.

Disagree. It’s part of the punishment. A felony is a serious crime, by definition. Part of the punishment is the loss of the right to vote.

Regaining it should be a matter of some effort, not an automatic function of the passage of time.

By the way: how do you feel about the prohibition against felons owning guns?

Call me a unforgiving fascist, but I think convicts should be prohibited from bringing firearms into prison.

When they get out, maybe after parole or a few years of paying tax, they should be allowed firearm rights. Extend the time if they were convicted of violent or gun related crimes.

Do you imagine that felons have such an obsessive desire to vote that depriving them of it is “punishment”? Given the appallingly poor rate of voter turnout in general? You really don’t see that just maybe there’s something else going on?

How do you feel about a convicted child molester living next door to your kids’ playground, or your kids’ school?

I’ve never understood either. What’s the worst thing a felon could do by voting? Vote for a candidate whom numerous law-abiding citizens will also be voting for?

Heh, I feel a tad embarrassed for not checking at least the first page of GD threads for ones with this topic.

Why? Getting the vote in the first place is an automatic function of the passage of time.

I’m sure whatever feelings people have are already under discussion in the fifteen or so gun threads now running. Hopefully, guns won’t make hijacking easier in this case.

And being a citizen, although I understand some folks wish to do away with that requirement as well. But so what? We start out with automatic right to vote, and remove it as punishment for a felony.

Guns are not a complete hijack here. There’s a clear similarity: felony conviction, under federal law, forever removes the ability to own firearms. Even a state restoration of civil rights may not effectively restore this right.

What “else” is going on?

But it punishes us all, by eroding the principle of universal suffrage, the truest form of democracy.

In my opinion, even green card aliens ought to be allowed a vote, and maybe even illegals, for all I care. The voting right should be for anyone subject to US laws and taxes, and to deny it is taxation without representation. We still have the same philosophy as when votes were only cast by rich white male landowners, but a few more classes of people have been let in. Why not let everyone in, and have a say in what laws and taxes they are subject to?

I don’t believe in segregating the nation into those I approve of and those I don’t, and allowing ballot privileges on that basis. I do not fear a free election with universal suffrage.

Technically, foreign tourists who stay in the US for just a few days are subject to US laws and (sales) taxes, too. Should they get to vote, too?

We don’t actually want that. We want to limit the vote to those of a certain age and a certain citizenship.

Yup.

But suppose the mass of the people of a State are pirates, counterfeiters, or other criminals, would gentlemen be willing to repeal the laws now in force in order to give them an opportunity to land their piratical crafts and come on shore to assist in the election of a President or members of Congress because they are numerous?

We, “we” don’t automatically remove the franchise; various U.S. states (as well as several European countries) do, to varying degrees, and Maine and Vermont not at all, allowing felons to vote even while incarcerated, to no social ill-effects I’m aware of but I’m open to being informed on the matter.

Your comment about people wanting to do away with citizenship requirements might make a handy strawman soundbite, if you ignore their reasons for arguing such.

As the OP, I feel entitled to make a second good-faith attempt to discourage such an obvious hijack, but if others want to indulge it, that’s their option, with no further comment from me about it. I invite you to start a thread specifically about felon gun rights, if that is your inclination.

That’s a tad broader than I had in mind - can permanent residence be a requirement for noncitizens? Hence, tourists don’t get to vote, but someone with a green card and residence in the U.S. and (one hopes) an income on which they pay taxes.

Come to think of it, do noncitizens with green cards file a return with the IRS? If not, I can see that being a deal-breaker.

I gather that was from a time when felons were routinely executed or driven into exile (even for crimes we would not now consider deserving of such), before the penal system of limited prison terms after which a felon, if released, was expected to rejoin society.

Is that attitude still common, or is there inertia behind it?

Seems odd to say “even illegals” should get it by dint of being “subject to US laws”.