I am unaware of any evidence supporting this conjecture. Are you?
Again, you seem to be simply defining the word to suit yourself. That IS punishment.
Now, you may at least defend “unnecessary” as an opinion. I think it’s necessary, but I can see another view. “Gratuitous,” is either a synonym for unnecessary, in which case I simply disagree (again) or it means “unearned,” in which case I disagree because it was earned.
In either event, it’s beyond dispute that it IS punishment.
Well, actually, with respect to my claim that there is a high recidivism rate.
*The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:
- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders.
The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983, compared to 61.7% in 1994).
*
Yes. But you offered that as established fact. The conjecture was that the reason was, in whole or part, the voting rights lost to felons.
Well, why? Why is it necesary?
Well, the word “Silly” comes to my in the context of viewing it as punishment. It’s hard to see how it fits into the 4 theories of punishment. Does it deter? (snort). Is it retributive? Ok, that’s a win. Does it reform? No, quite the opposite. Does it warehouse? No. What about repentance? Woops, that makes five theories and I didn’t know about that one. Anyway, no, I think. And restorative justice is off the table of course.
Basically, we are left with retribution: preventing felons from voting pleases the plebes. Of course there are also demographic and electoral considerations.
Except, again, in most states, ex-felons can or do regain the right to vote.
Because it symbolizes the choice commit a felony is the choice to disassociate oneself with the body politic.
Requiring felons to apply for a restoration of their civil rights furthers repentance.
But let’s say it doesn’t – you acknowledge it fits the retributive theory.
That’s a perfectly legitimate approach to punishment.
…in your opinion. Not in the opinion of many others: which is why we are debating this.
Just looked up on wiki. 5.85 million people blocked from voting. WOW. Thats more people than live in my country. Are you sure the reason why you don’t want felons to vote is because they would vote for candidates you don’t want to win? That would be a really sucky reason to support taking away someone’s right to vote.
.
So why voting rights in particular? Why not deny the felon the right to, say, own a newspaper, or contribute to a political party?
Why, for that matter, should the prohibition on voting extend beyond the period of the felon’s incarceration? It seems to be felons are (usually) removed from the body politic by, you know, putting them in prison. But why, after that’s over, should a prohibition on voting continue?
Perhaps on the 88th attempt, a good rationale will magically appear.
The problem of course with symbolic punishments is that they are by definition arbitrary and by possibility, endless. Could society demand a convicted felon wear a scarlet F on their clothing, for example? Can the local sheriff post a sign outside a felon’s residence, announcing the felon’s name and presence?
The act of voting does not profit the felon (or the citizen in general). What value is served by denying it, and if there was a genuine societal benefit in doing so (or a societal harm in not doing so), should we expect to see certain signs thereof?
This is not a difficult question. If a rational thought process follows the lines of “if P then Q”, should the existence of Q be measurable in some fashion?
Can I propose an if-then idea and ask for your input? “If convicted felons are made, even after their sentences are complete, to feel like societal outsiders then a greater percentage of them will not re-assimilate into society.” Does that seem particularly far-fetched or baseless?
I have to admit being surprised to learn the standards were so widely varying among the states. Somebody somewhere must have done a study on the effects of felon disenfranchisement.
You may consider it so. I don’t because it contradicts everything Christianity stands for. “‘Vengence is mine,’ says the Lord. ‘I will repay.’” Retributive theory is an explanation for why we punish, not a prescription. It’s an indication of our own human frailties. It’s no more legitimate than thinking that I get to punch you in the face because you said something I don’t like.
Our legal penal systems works to try to curb this desire in the populace, because, when left as the only purpose, you just have cycles of violence. A desire for retribution is largely what landed people in jail in the first place.
Retribution alone is never sufficient to establish a form of punishment as legitimate. Our desire to hurt others when they’ve wronged us is a human flaw, not a virtue. It does not in any way improve our society.
Not that I buy that it is retributive in the first place, because the inability for an individual to vote is no big deal. It has a rather tiny effect on the individual, as their vote wouldn’t accomplish anything. It is the cumulative effect of disenfranchisement that has any possible value. The punitive purpose is incapacitation, to prevent the dangerous criminals from affecting the democratic process.
The question is, is this always a good thing? I would argue it is not when a prisoner can’t vote against people who want to make their lives worse and worse. We do have an interest as a society to make prisons humane while still being punitive. I do believe the lack of pushback on that is why being perceived as “soft on crime” is such a killer for a politician. It is why it is so much harder to get things decriminalized, and why our prisons hold so many people per capita than is shown to be necessary by other societies.
Like I said, Repentance (or Expiatory Theory) is a new one to me: according to the Encyclopedia Britannica " A variation of this idea is that punishment is a kind of expiation: offenders should undergo punishment in their own interests to discharge their guilt and to make themselves acceptable to society again." That’s at odds with with permanently taking away their franchise - though I admit allowing them to apply for restoration after time served seems consistent with it, assuming I understand it, which I don’t. For completeness, there’s also a 6th consideration, restitution. But I don’t think that applies.
Modern scholars take a dim view of retribution, according to a law paper I once read (no citation). While I personally put zero weight on that consideration, I disagree with modern scholars: retribution seems to me to be a workable motive, though it is unchristian and makes advocates of it vulnerable to moral denunciation, derision, table pounding and excessive quoting of the code of Hammurabi. Also my criminology text by Glick (bought used, hurray for Amazon) seems to think it legitimate if perhaps old fashioned.
BigT: “The punitive purpose is incapacitation, to prevent the dangerous criminals from affecting the democratic process.”
We both think this is a problematic perspective. That said, nice catch: I hadn’t thought of it that way. There is a concern that politicians will pursue the crook vote, whether it be overblown or not. The Canadian experience is reassuring, but of course their incarceration rates are lower.
Bricker: I maintain that this categorization of punishment helpfully focuses us on the underlying issues.
Felons also can’t (without additional steps ) become or retain a CPA license, or be a member of the bar, hold public office, qualify for many jobs. If you are convicted of a felony -. You will be punished for life.
The problem is not the punishment. The problem is we have too many felonies. If we limited the things that were actually felonies then punishment for life is perfectly fine with me.
What relevance does a religious system have to the design of our laws?
Right.
And, indeed, many states have expressed their agreement with the general proposition that they are better served by not applying this principle.
Good for them.
Yes, I am quite sure.
Well, since the arguments for felon disenfranchisement remain tenuous at best, as a matter of practicality, wouldn’t it simply be easier to give every citizen upon reaching 18 or being naturalized a permanent voter ID number which is theirs for life and can never be taken away, like the franchise itself? Surely that would greatly simplify the whole voter ID issue. As it is, voter rolls in various U.S. venues have to strike people off and then put them back. … what’s the point? It just significantly increases the chances for errors.
I’m scared to death of a violent felon with a ballot.
No telling what he might do with that thing.