Limiting the franchise has always been a prerogative of the franchisees.
We limit the franchise to people over 18. I don’t see how denying a 16 year old the vote is any worse than denying someone convicted of a erious crime the right to vote.
It’s useful as a punishment.
It is a punishment that symbolizes the rift the felon created by his conduct between himself and society. By committing a felony, he separates himself from society. The loss of civil liberties, like voting rights and Second Amendment rights, is a tangible expression of that separation.
That’s why it’s useful.
Yeah, all residents are subject to income taxes, whether they be citizens, permanent residents, visa holders of illegal aliens. In fact when Elton John plays in Madison Square garden, he is subject to US taxes on the income earned from that performance.
Agreed, the racism was not in the denial of the vote to felons, it was in making minorities felons in record numbers. It was through selective enforcement and prosecution to put minorities in a disenfrachised class rather than the disenfranchisement of a class that minorities belonged to.
My opinion:
Be free from any sentence served and/or supervised probation or parole – that is, totally outside the supervision of the state
Not have any subsequent misdemeanor or felony convictions in any other state
Have no pending criminal charges
Have paid all court costs, fines, penalties and restitution
A letter or reference from your most recent probation officer
Letters of reference from at least three people, non-family members, attesting to your good character
A letter from you to the governor, or other state official in charge of the process, that lays out your crime’s circumstances, a statement of repentance, and your desire to restore your civil rights
It seems that most states think that this rift should not outlive the term of the original sentence. Unless somsone is convincted of felony voter fraud or something, the continued prohibition has nothing to do with the initial crime. Unlike sex offender requirements or restrictions on gun ownership by felons.
A quick view of this cite shows that 22% of the states follow your logic. And some of the states on the list of 11 who do aren’t exactly known for their exemplary treatment of prisoners. (Alabama, Arizona, Florida…)
You’re arguing a position held by 22% of the states. I’d call that a minority position.
Why is the opinion of “most states” binding on all states?
Woo Hoo! If franchised voted for it it must be good. Let’s hear it for Jim Crow!
Personally I think Democracy works best when all special interest groups have a say in the electoral process. Those who have been previously convicted of crimes have their own specific sets of interests and concerns and those interests deserve to be heard by the body politic. If as Bricker fears pirates and counterfeiters find themselves to be a significant political body than that would indicate to me that it might be worth while reviewing the piracy laws to determine why so many people fall under them, and that perhaps those that violated these laws might have legitimate concerns. I understand that it is in the franchised’s best interest to limit voting to as small a group as possible so as to not dilute their power, but frankly complaining about loss of influence in this case raises as much sympathy in me as those who complain that thanks Rosa Parks they can’t find a seat at the front of the bus anymore.
Yes.
So complete your argument. How persuasive is a majority-state position?
To who? Someone who feels good reminding felons that they aren’t true citizens anymore? I stand by my “petty” assessment, and that’s before we get to data-integrity issues in voter rolls where law abiding citizens who happen to have a name similar to a felon get purged.
Got any evidence any of this would reduce recidivism, because if it’s all just for symbolism, why not quadruple the requirements?
Not to go all Heinlein but I think being a felon pretty much demonstrates yu do not have societies best interests at heart.
You haven’t even attempted to explain why it’s useful, actually. You’ve asserted that it “symbolizes” something. Fine, so why is that useful? What aim does it accomplish?
“Symbolic” and “useful” are not synonyms.
Perhaps Bricker, this book will cause you to see that it’s not a black and white issue.
Felon for Peace: The Memoir of a Vietnam-Era Draft Resister
Jerry Elmer
Vanderbilt University Press, Sep 9, 2005 - History - 280 pages
The only felon to graduate from Harvard Law school in 1990
Was he a hero or a villain?
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.
Of course, if a citizen or civilian was executed for crimes that the U.S. does not currently consider capital, that was another matter.
Strawman. Where do you see me arguing that this reduces recidivism?
Well, symbols can be useful as shorthand. In this case, denial of the franchise is shorthand for “YOU’RE A GODDAM FILTHY SINNER WHO SHOULD DO SOCIETY A FAVOR AND JUST FUCKING KILL YOURSELF AND BURN IN HELL SO YOU DON’T CONTAMINATE HONEST FOLK!!!”
Of course, I may be reading too much into it.
Nowhere. That’s why your position is pointless.
You seem to have real trouble differentiating between my position – that this is punishment – and your strawman of my position, which apparently involves recidivism. You’ve defiantly rebutted my non-existent claim of recidivism and now suggest that this disproves punishment.