As punishment, what purpose does it serve?
It’s needless retribution that has no socially desirable benefit. At least, 78% of the states see it that way.
No, I cheerfully recognize that denial of the franchise is punishment. It’s just as far as I can tell, it’s a petty and utterly useless punishment that quite possibly does more harm than the as-yet-unproven good you claim it offers.
Unless you see simply keeping “the wrong sort of people” from voting *as *being a benefit.
It certainly does not aid the rehabilitation/reintegration process to legally bar it from being completed.
Sure it is. You can’t vote until you are registered. That’s the law.
The difference is that the 16-year-old is deemed to still be a child, but in two more years, he won’t be.
It’s a “punishment” that has no demonstrable benefit to society, unlike all the other punishments that the convict has already endured, or further limitations imposed on him that are directly related to the risks he may still pose to society. Disenfranchisement is related to nothing, and protects nothing, AFAICT. It does, however – just as you say – serve to separate and alienate the person from society and inhibits reintegration and rehabilitation. That’s why it’s the opposite of useful – it’s counterproductive.
“Registering to vote” is not an application to regain voting rights.
“Registering to vote” is fairly, if inartfully, described as an application to gain voting rights. I suppose.
If it punishes, how can you say it’s useless as a punishment?
If it doesn’t punish, how can you object to it?
There’s no good reason for the latter requirement, other than you think it is fitting.
A question for you: while you’re on parole, or have criminal charges pending against you, do you lose your First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly, and the right to petition for redress?
So are you saying that the right to vote is less fundamental than these rights?
A poll tax for felons! What could be wrong with that?
Oh yeah, there’s something in the Constitution (24th Amendment) about that, isn’t there?
So: if you jump through all these hoops, should restoration be automatic, or is it dependent on the approval of the governor or other state official?
I feel like googling up articles about nonfelon citizens who were purged from voter rolls because they have names similar to disenfranchised felons. They would show the “symbolic” punishment in an amusing light - the paperwork John Smith (felon) isn’t bothering to do to restore his voting rights gets transferred to John Smythe (nonfelon).
If John Smythe can’t or won’t go through the process… well… we can assume he just didn’t want to vote hard enough.
-
I don’t concede your authority to decide what reasons are “good.”
-
In the rationales above, much is made of the felon having completed his sentence. Probation is a part of that sentence.
Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. That’s why the Constitution specifically and explicitly says that the right to vote can be conditioned on lack of criminal convictions, but doesn’t say the same about speech and assembly.
Nothing. Would you like a legal citation?
It should be an exercise of discretion.
Let’s reverse the order here:
Good.
How not?
At any rate, you said the felon should do something proactive to regain his voting rights. Registering to vote is a proactive act. There you go.
But apparently, you want a whole bunch of proactive acts - not just from him, but from four other people, which means he’s got to pester four other people to do stuff for him that (other than the probation officer) is outside their normal experience.
I remember the first time I had to ask people to write references for me. It was in high school, when I was applying to colleges. I absolutely hated doing that, it was hard to go to people and ask them to do something extra like that for me - for something they had experience doing, and I was getting A’s in their classes, so it wasn’t like it was going to be all that hard for them. But I still had to really screw up my courage. Asking people to write letters for me was outside of my experience, outside of my comfort zone.
However, I had the carrot of college dangling in front of me, and the stick of parents who expected me to have these conversations so I could send in my applications.
It’s not going to be any easier for an ex-con to have these conversations. And there’s no parallel incentive structure, needless to say.
Are you seriously asking why I might object to punishment for the sake of punishment, or is this a stall for time?
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?
Well, I don’t make the same concession to you. So what? You’re the one who’s saying, in effect, “the requirements should be these because I think that’s what they should be.”
[QUOTE]
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.
You mean “rebellion, or other crime” in the Fourteenth Amendment? And “high crimes and misdemeanors” means that the President can be impeached for a moving violation.
And there’s no reason why it should be done, just because it can be.
No, because even if the law (which on occasion is an ass) has decided that it’s OK to condition voting on such things, that doesn’t mean it’s right to do so.
So you’re asking an ex-con to jump through a pile of hoops, and it’s still a crapshoot at the end.
I’m a bit more advantaged in dealing with this shit than the average ex-con, and I have a hard time seeing why I’d bother applying under your rules, except out of sheer cussedness.
I think you have proposed a system that’s both counterproductive and hardhearted.
Because the word “regain,” means to gain after having been lost.
I said the felon should be required to apply, proactively. I did not say that any proactive action, no matter how insignificant, should suffice.
The point of the exercise is to show an integration into society.
Why wouldn’t any decent person believe that’s inappropriate?
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.
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.
It’s a pretty damn big exercise, as you would design it, with a very real possibility of nothing to show for it at the end.
Not to mention, as I’ve been saying all along, it’s just the Wisdom of Bricker that says restoration of voting rights should be the result of and a demonstration of reintegration, rather than a factor to help bring it about.
The right to vote is about control over other people. It is the right to have a say in what people should be forced to do or not do. There is nothing hypocritical about believing a felon deserves or can be trusted with the right to communicate, but not the right to steer the government in the direction he wants it to go.
[quote=“RTFirefly, post:134, topic:695187”]
Well, I don’t make the same concession to you. So what? You’re the one who’s saying, in effect, “the requirements should be these because I think that’s what they should be.”
Um:
(Bolding added for emphasis)
Yup. Richardson v. Ramirez.
Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, though. So my point is twofold:
-
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.
-
We are both subject to the law.
I don’t.
The problem is, the flip side of this is also true. Law enforcement can be applied unequally to different groups to control certain groups, and denying felons the franchise as well after they’ve served their prison time acts in a long-term manner to continue reducing the say of those groups in how our society is run.