# Why prevent felons from voting?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [August 9, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187 "2014-08-09T21:16:44Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 8
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/141 "2014-08-11T20:20:50Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> Why **wouldn’t** any decent person believe that’s inappropriate?
Any decent person would know you’re completely incorrect.
> [@](#):
>
> Punishments are supposed to be related to the crime - if in no other manner, prison terms are supposed to be proportional to the severity of the crime. (And prison serves other purposes besides punishment: putting criminals behind bars protects the rest of us from such people, and the possibility of incarceration deters most of us from the temptation of crime.) Other aspects of a sentence, such as restitution, community service, or being restricted from living in certain areas or resuming certain professions, usually have a connection with the crime: sometimes clear and direct, other times more tangential. But by and large, they’re not “punishment for the sake of punishment,” and that is a good thing.
Some sanctions serve other purposes, to be sure.
But nothing in anything you wrote, except the meaningless claim that you and not I understand decency, suggest that punishment for the sake of punishment’s sake is wrong.
> [@](#):
>
> Denial of voting rights, OTOH, is punishment for the sake of punishment. It is punishment with no object. It does not make the rest of us safer. It isn’t likely to deter anyone who isn’t deterred by the threat of prison, and it does not relate to the nature of the particular crime.
Yeah, it’s just punishment. So what?
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/142 "2014-08-11T20:26:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I’m convinced that applying your concept of morality to our country would destroy us in a couple of generations. So the mere fact that you announce a decree of rightness or wrongness is utterly without relevance to me.
Well, o-_kay_, then.
But seriously, thanks for a great new sig line. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/143 "2014-08-11T20:32:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> But nothing in anything you wrote, except the meaningless claim that you and not I understand decency, suggest that punishment for the sake of punishment’s sake is wrong.
You’re right - I’ve really only demonstrated that we hardly ever engage in punishment for punishment’s sake, that denial of voting rights is an exception in this regard.
Not quite the same thing, perhaps, but given that you believe that applying my concept of morality to our country would destroy us in a couple of generations, what I’ve actually shown should be more persuasive to you. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/144 "2014-08-11T20:33:50Z")
The Left has done an excellent job of substituting moral claims for argument, while simultaneously decrying right-wing attempts to do the same thing as “legislating morality” or “imposing Christianity.”
Nice job, guys. Very effective.
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/145 "2014-08-11T20:51:51Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Your ideas of “right” and “wrong” are not remotely persuasive to me. I’m convinced that applying your concept of morality to our country would destroy us in a couple of generations. So the mere fact that you announce a decree of rightness or wrongness is utterly without relevance to me.
Is this just meant as a gibe at **Bryan Elkers** ’ general philosophy, or is it a comment on allowing felons to vote? If the latter, I’m curious how allowing felons to vote would “destroy the country in a couple of generations”, because I simply cannot see how.
The idea of denying felons the right to vote seems peculiar to me. If they are like the majority of Americans (sad to say), they won’t be motivated to vote anyway, so the “punishment” isn’t felt at all, and has nothing but a symbolic point. If the felon wishes to vote, but is unable to by a preventive law, you are retarding his rehabilitation and his restroration to society. This is true even if you provide some series of stations he must achieve in order to be re-integrated. And in that case, your putting additional hurdles in his way after he has served his time and otherwise been sent back into society is going to cause a feeling of persecution and resentment. I don’t see the upside on this. It’s going to increase his alienation. It certainly doesn’t help that the disenfranchised population is disproportionately black, which adds a further dimension to this.
It’s certainly likely that in many cases politics plays a part. As **Bricker** has reminded us, felons seem to be more likely to vote Democratic party (that they are disproportionately black, and blacks tend to lean more to the Democrats might have something to do with it.) And as a recent story on restoration of voter rights states:
> [@](#):
>
> According to a 2002 academic study on voter disenfranchisement, former vice president Al Gore might have prevailed in the 2000 presidential election had felons been allowed to vote nationwide.
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/eric-holder-makes-case-for-felons-to-get-voting-rights-back/2014/02/11/b0556492-932b-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/eric-holder-makes-case-for-felons-to-get-voting-rights-back/2014/02/11/b0556492-932b-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html)
You could cynically argue that Holder is urging the repeal of felon disenfranchising for political reasons, but you could as easily argue that actions increasing disenfranchising and overzealous purging of voter rolls is cynically actiuvely disenfranchising more people.
---
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/146 "2014-08-11T20:58:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> As I recall, Heinlein proposed (in\* Starship Troopers\*, anyway) that the franchise, once earned with two years of service, could not be taken away for _any_ reason.
Heinlein stressed that to gain the franchise one had to demonstrate a commitment to society over the individual. My spin on it is if you demonstrate that you value yourself to the detriment of society, then you should lose your franchise. Same in spirit if not actual mechanics.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/147 "2014-08-11T21:28:18Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#):
>
> Is this just meant as a gibe at **Bryan Elkers** ’ general philosophy, or is it a comment on allowing felons to vote? If the latter, I’m curious how allowing felons to vote would “destroy the country in a couple of generations”, because I simply cannot see how.
Well, the comment was directed at **RTFirefly** , and was intended to convey my horror at the idea of his personal philosophy as a whole being mistaken for a valid governing set of principles for this country.
Does that help?
> [@](#):
>
> The idea of denying felons the right to vote seems peculiar to me. If they are like the majority of Americans (sad to say), they won’t be motivated to vote anyway, so the “punishment” isn’t felt at all, and has nothing but a symbolic point. If the felon wishes to vote, but is unable to by a preventive law, you are retarding his rehabilitation and his restroration to society. This is true even if you provide some series of stations he must achieve in order to be re-integrated.
Why, specifically, do the stations not constitute a valid set of tasks that symbolize the felon’s interest and willingness to rejoin society?
---
### Author:  [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/148 "2014-08-11T22:35:54Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Heinlein stressed that to gain the franchise one had to demonstrate a commitment to society over the individual. My spin on it is if you demonstrate that you value yourself to the detriment of society, then you should lose your franchise. Same in spirit if not actual mechanics.
But _permanently_? We all make stupid decisions when we’re young, and not all felonies are equal.
Personally, I’ve just never understood the purpose of disenfranchising felons. It’s not like it’s a deterrent- “I \*would \*rob that convenience store, but I might want to vote sometime again in my life,” said no criminal, ever.
Like someone said, above, it just smacks of _meanness_. If they’ve done their time, _they’ve done their time_. If you don’t think they’ve been sufficiently punished, _don’t let them out_.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/149 "2014-08-11T22:41:18Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> Nice use of the passive voice, buckaroo. In the rationales you give, **you** make much of the felon having completed his sentence, and making the distinction between prison and parole less important than that between probation and a complete lack of supervision.
>
> Because **Bricker** , that’s why.
Here’s another:
> [@Lightnin](#):
>
> Like someone said, above, it just smacks of _meanness_. If they’ve done their time, _they’ve done their time_. If you don’t think they’ve been sufficiently punished, _don’t let them out_.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/150 "2014-08-11T22:43:02Z")
> [@Lightnin](#):
>
> But _permanently_? We all make stupid decisions when we’re young, and not all felonies are equal.
>
> Personally, I’ve just never understood the purpose of disenfranchising felons. It’s not like it’s a deterrent- “I \*would \*rob that convenience store, but I might want to vote sometime again in my life,” said no criminal, ever.
I favor leaving open a path for the felon to apply to have his rights restored, but not an automatic restoration. He should have to expend effort.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/151 "2014-08-11T22:50:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Yes. Punishment is an appropriate goal of a penal system. The word penal means punishment.
>
> Why would you possibly believe punishment for the sake of punishment is somehow inappropriate?
I’ll let George Orwell answer this utterly silly question on my behalf:
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
I’m not sure if that counts as a Godwin, but I don’t much care. The question is foolish, and quite surprisingly so.
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Heinlein stressed that to gain the franchise one had to demonstrate a commitment to society over the individual. My spin on it is if you demonstrate that you value yourself to the detriment of society, then you should lose your franchise. Same in spirit if not actual mechanics.
I admit I’m no expert on Heinlein’s beliefs, and it’s been several years since I’ve read that particular novel, but I’ll have to disagree with the “same in spirit” idea. There’s a passage early on that I recall of a classroom conversation between Rico and Dubois (Rico’s school instructor in “History and Moral Philosophy”). Rico says something about how the two years’ service says something about one’s moral character, but Dubois shoots him down, describing citizens as just as varied in their moral stances as the population in general. The service imparts a respect for responsibility, but truth be told we’re not really given that much information about the political structure except that:
[ul][li]It works; and[/li][li]It works very well.[/ul][/li]Anyway, as a thought exercise, if I start from the Canadian position (no disenfranchisement) and was considering supporting its implementation, it strikes me as logical that the felony should be of a type that showed a specific intent to harm the political fabric, namely (but not limited to):
[ul][li]Treason;[/li][li]Insurrection;[/li][li]Sedition;[/li][li]Murder or attempted murder of government official(s), barring a finding of legal insanity;[/li][li]Acts of terrorism of a political nature; and[/li][li]Electoral fraud or sabotage.[/ul][/li]
I’m not keen on this generic nonsense about harming “the body politic”. That could apply to speeding tickets, if one is fussy enough.
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/152 "2014-08-11T23:17:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Why, specifically, do the **stations** not constitute a valid set of tasks that symbolize the felon’s interest and willingness to rejoin society?
Your religion is leaking through.
(my bolding}
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/153 "2014-08-11T23:20:52Z")
> [@Frank](#):
>
> Your religion is leaking through.
To be fair, CalMeachem prompted the response with “This is true even if you provide some series of stations he must achieve in order to be re-integrated.”
Not being Christian myself, I would have used the phrase “hoop-jumps”.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/154 "2014-08-11T23:21:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> I’ll let George Orwell answer this utterly silly question on my behalf:
>
> “Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
>
> I’m not sure if that counts as a Godwin, but I don’t much care. The question is foolish, and quite surprisingly so.
If it’s a foolish question, then perhaps you can explain your inability to answer it. The Orwell quote above does not.
Punishment is the purpose of a penal system, and the word penal means punishment. A recognized purpose of the penal system is punishment.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m not keen on this generic nonsense about harming “the body politic”. That could apply to speeding tickets, if one is fussy enough.
Sure it does.
Why do imagine your debate position is enhanced by announcing what you’re keen on? Have you a favorite liqueur preference you’d care to vouchsafe?
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/155 "2014-08-11T23:31:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> If it’s a foolish question, then perhaps you can explain your inability to answer it. The Orwell quote above does not.
Inability? None. Disinterest? Utter.
> [@](#):
>
> Punishment is the purpose of a penal system, and the word penal means punishment. A recognized purpose of the penal system is punishment.
Careful you don’t hurt yourself spinning in circles like that.
> [@](#):
>
> Why do imagine your debate position is enhanced by announcing what you’re keen on? Have you a favorite liqueur preference you’d care to vouchsafe?
My “announcement” (which I see you took out of context by omitting the lines that preceded it) demonstrates a good faith position in negotiating the idea, i.e. I’m not automatically, ideologically or dogmatically locked into a particular position, but can see an acceptable and rational range of options. If you can get around to demonstrating the (hopefully non-tautological) benefit of disenfranchisement for general felonies and the value of the felon taking “symbolic” steps toward restoration, I’d take that into account. Or maybe you don’t believe I would… whatever.
As for liqueur, I like Bailey’s, but I can’t see the relevance, the worthiness of the analogy or the wit in your attempt at sarcasm.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/156 "2014-08-11T23:31:36Z")
> [@Frank](#):
>
> Your religion is leaking through.
>
> (my bolding}
Your inattention is leaking through. (My bolding)
> [@CalMeacham](#):
>
> This is true even if you provide some series of \*\*stations \*\*he must achieve in order to be re-integrated.
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Why, specifically, do the \*\*stations \*\*not constitute a valid set of tasks that symbolize the felon’s interest and willingness to rejoin society?
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/157 "2014-08-11T23:34:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Your inattention is leaking through. (My bolding)
You’re quite right. I apologize.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/158 "2014-08-11T23:37:51Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> Inability? None. Disinterest? Utter.
You spent at least a bit of effort getting that Orwell quote in there.
So you TRIED to answer it. But you couldn’t figure out how, and thought Orwell was enough of a Godwinish reference that no one would question you.
> [@](#):
>
> Careful you don’t hurt yourself spinning in circles like that.
The person denying the definition is you.
> [@](#):
>
> My “announcement” demonstrates a good faith position in negotiating the idea, i.e. I’m not automatically, ideologically or dogmatically locked into a particular position, but can see an acceptable and rational range of options. If you can get around to demonstrating the (hopefully non-tautological) benefit of disenfranchisement for general felonies and the value of the felon taking “symbolic” steps toward restoration, I’d take that into account. Or maybe you don’t believe I would… whatever.
The benefit is punishment.
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/159 "2014-08-11T23:41:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The benefit is punishment.
You’re pretty locked into that. I think less of you due to your obsession with unjustifiable punishment, and I have no intention of arguing with you further on this subject.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [August 11, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/160 "2014-08-11T23:51:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> You spent at least a bit of effort getting that Orwell quote in there.
Google. Copy. Paste.
> [@](#):
>
> So you TRIED to answer it.
Okay, but I’m not answering it any further.
> [@](#):
>
> But you couldn’t figure out how, and thought Orwell was enough of a Godwinish reference that no one would question you.
Okay, I’ll resume answering long enough to say “what are you talking about?” but that’s it, really. It’s not an actual request for an explanation, just my way of saying that you are expressing yourself nonsensically. Go ahead and take the last word on this matter.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187.md?page=7)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187.md?page=9)