I’d say it is:
Also, even in the US, most states allow most convicted felons to vote eventually, typically either after release or after completion of parole.
Personally I don’t care. If someone [insert hideous act], then they are lucky we allow them Life … Liberty is out of the question … and if they think [insert hideous act] makes them happy, then NO, they can’t pursue happiness either.
It is “We the People [who must] insure domestic Tranquility” … those who don’t are expelled.
Similarly, execution by hanging and vigilante justice have a long history, so there’s no way lynching in the United States could’ve been motivated by racism.
Isn’t that begging the question - what’s rational about taking away his voting rights in the first place?
“Much” care? “Likely?” I gather you’re operating from a stereotype.
That said, I can picture some specific types of felonies that could indicate a lack of concern for (more accurately, a desire to cause harm to) the health of the body politic, i.e. an attempt to overthrow the government, an act of domestic terrorism, or engaging in a deliberate act of election fraud like stuffing a ballot box. For these, I could picture a rational decision to “ban” someone from the electoral process including running for office, working for a political campaign, or at the extreme, voting.
If mere “lack of concern” is a benchmark, than picture someone who has shown utter indifference to the process from age 18, never bothering to vote, until they decide at age 40 to register since a particular election is of interest to them. Does their previous and demonstrated “lack of concern” suggest they should not be allowed to do so?
It’s a punishment. Our entire penal system is… er…
Penal: “of, relating to, or involving punishment, penalties, or punitive institutions.”
No. Felons are people that show their lack willingness to conform their actions to the required conduct. That’s not stereotyping.
Is it a punishment of relevance to the crime? We could postulate any number of punishments, but have (mostly) settled on imprisonment, fines, community service and parole conditions. How does preventing exercise of the franchise matter, especially since you seem to be operating on the premise that felons don’t care about it anyway?
Personally, I think some do, or at least I’m open to the possibility.
If they want to vote, isn’t that a sign of wanting to conform their actions to socially acceptable conduct, arguably a socially required duty? Anyway, you’re comfortably generalizing, which I’m okay with calling stereotyping, but if you know of any ill-effects to the societies of venues that don’t disenfranchise felons (or benefits to those that do), I invite you to share.
I agree with you. I just wanted to add that your comment reminded me of the general undercurrent of a line of thinking that emphasizes punishment rather than rehabilitation. IOW, that it’s somehow more important to make an ex-convict a permanent outcast than to try to re-integrate him into society (albeit perhaps with necessary restrictions in extreme cases). If anyone doubts that this kind of thinking exists, take a look at this. It inevitably seems to be associated with culturally regressive backwater shit-holes.
I mentioned racism as a possible contributing factor to felony disenfranchisement, and I think this kind of thinking is another one.
If you decide the law doesn’t apply to you, you don’t get to decide how the law applies to everyone else.
Sure, a desire to keep punishing someone forever. I can see the appeal and it’s a tricky thing to politically oppose - come out against felon disenfranchisement and someone will say you are supporting the rights of child molesters! which is strictly-speaking correct; child molesters are a type of felon.
I appreciate the sound-bitery of this, but do you mean a felon should never get to vote, the disenfranchisement should be permanent?
And loss of the vote. And loss of the ability to own firearms. And loss of ability to hold public office.
Those are ALSO punishments we have settled on.
How do any of those punishments “matter?”
What does it mean for a punishment to matter?
And is this some universal rule, or a Bryan-Ekers-Rule?
Personally, I think some do, or at least I’m open to the possibility.
No.
Or maybe “yes.”
By that I mean the mere expression of some diffuse, generalized desire to vote isn’t a sign of much of anything.
But a felon who is willing to undertake the effort to complete forms and affirmatively petition for restoration of his right to vote is indeed signaling that desire.
That doesn’t answer my question. I understand that punishments can be devised and imposed - I’m asking what is the justification for disenfranchisement specifically.
Well, of the four I mentioned:
[ul][li]Imprisonment: Isolates the offender from society for a time, puts them in a tightly-controlled environment where (hopefully) they will be unable to re-offend and be discouraged from re-offending upon release.[/li][li]Fines: Imposes a financial hardship. Requires the offender to partly reimburse the state for the cost of the offense.[/li][li]Community service: Requires the offender to engage in activity useful to the state.[/li][li]Parole conditions: Imposes limitations on a parolee’s activities as they transition from incarceration to freedom, with the threat of violation returning them to prison.[/ul][/li]
I’m not seeing the analogous punishment to the offender or benefit to society in disenfranchisement. What purpose does it serve?
Rather than delve into the deep philosophy of it, I would hope that a punishment does matter - that it be useful in discouraging further crime. I’m unclear how disenfranchisement accomplishes this, even in the highly theoretical.
I don’t know what you’re asking here, but I’m not going to ask you to explain.
Since I remain unclear on what purpose is served by the disenfranchisement, I can’t say I’m much impressed by making a felon jump through hoops to reverse it. Besides, I see the potential problem - how much effort did you have in mind? Could the form-completion and affirmative position be satisfied by the felon signing his name once on a single document? If not, why not? Did you have in mind that the felon would have to commit multiple hours to the process? Is there a satisfactory limit being suggested, beyond which the process becomes excessive?
And, still unanswered, how are the societies of Maine and Vermont (which do not disenfranchise) worse in way for it?
Hmm, typos in the above post, and with me noticing too late to correct them. Oh, well…
What’s the justification for a fine?
The money paid does not go to a victim – separate restitution costs can do that, but when a criminal law specifies a fine, the money goes into government coffers. It’s purpose is to punish.
The removal of the right to vote, hold office, and the like are punishments, too, imposition of civil liabilities.
Same format:
Civil disabilities: imposes a civil hardship, isolates the offender from the ability to participate in governing the society he damaged
I would say that each state’s procedures are presumptively correct for that state.
I’m unclear as to why the offender has not already, via prison, fine, community service, and/or parole, sufficiently been punished for that damage. It seems to me that the permanent removal of the most basic right of a member of our society is simply piling on, and makes it more difficult, if not impossible, for the offender to feel that he has been returned to that society.
It doesn’t seem that to me.
Why don’t we cancel fines?
'Cause then I could say, “I’m unclear as to why the offender has not already, via prison, community service, loss of voting rights, and/or parole, sufficiently been punished for that damage.”
In other words, you list existing sanctions and then imply that imposition of civil disabilities is the extra one. But in fact it’s just one of the sanctions.
It is, in fact, an extra one, differing in kind. It serves no purpose but to continue to hold the offender outside of society following completion of their sentence.
And we wonder why the US has such a high recidivism rate. Could it be the US and their archaic views on this that is at least partially responsible?
I figure that once the guy is out of jail and off of probation, that he’s paid his debt to society generally speaking. I’m old fashioned that way. But not completely.
A ex-con should be allowed to free speech rights as well as the right to vote, as they have special insight into the running of our nation’s correctional institutions. Given their track record though, I can see restricting their freedom to give to political campaigns. Generally speaking, they are permitted to do this, AFAIK.
Example:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/kingston-donors-linked-to-felon/ngFbK/
Kean proposes law to prevent elected officials convicted of felonies and in prison from donating to campaigns. I’m not sure whether it passed. A politician behind bars apparently had $1.1 million in his campaign finance account that he was itching to use.
It’s equal parts amusing and disturbing that despite the fact I have said about eighty-seven times that it’s purpose is punishment you are completely sanguine about announcing, “It serves no purpose but to continue to hold the offender outside of society.”
No, Frank. It does serve another purpose: PUNISHMENT.
It’s purpose is to punish. A fine takes away something of value, money. The loss of civil rights takes away something of value: civil rights.
You don’t get that I am saying it is an unnecessary and gratuitous punishment based on a code of ethics from a time when most felons where subject to execution or exile.
When an offender finishes his sentence, he’s done. Pays his fine, done. Perform his community service, done. Completes his parole, done. He should be reintegrated into society. You won’t allow that. That’s not punishment, that’s simple meanness.