Posted on 11/24/2015 1:56:52 PM PST by lowbridge
Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear on Tuesday signed an executive order restoring voting rights to most felons in state in an action that he said will affect some 180,000 people.
Once felons have completed their sentences, including any probation or parole, and have made court-mandated restitution, they will have their rights automatically restored as long as they have no additional cases pending, Beshear said.
Previously, felony offenders needed to apply to the governor's office to have their voting rights restored. Now, Beshear said, the Department of Corrections will make the determination.
"The old system is unfair," Beshear said. "It's counterproductive. We need to be smarter in our criminal justice system. Research shows that ex-felons who vote are less likely to commit new crime and return to prison. That's because if you vote, you tend to be more engaged in society."
The outgoing Democratic governor, speaking to reporters in the state capital, said the order does not cover those convicted of violent, sex-related, bribery or treason crimes.
Kentucky is one of four states that requires its governor to sign off on the restoration of a felon's voting rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at aol.com ...
[ I doubt most ex-felons vote, but am a firm believer that one’s debt to society, once paid, must restore the individual to normal citizenry. ]
Agree, but one who is currently serving a sentence should never be allowed to vote.
“I doubt most ex-felons vote, but am a firm believer that one’s debt to society, once paid, must restore the individual to normal citizenry.”
You need to LEARN HOW TO WIN and part of that is to NEVER give away votes to your opponent. Society will do JUST FINE if these FELONS never vote again...in fact, it will do better.
(sorry, but I cannot stand this Rand Paul line of reasoning)
If winning for you requires denying rights to others, you need to rethink the issue.
The punishment is the debt repayment, along with any restitution.
In Virginia the dem governor is restoring rights to felons who have NOT paid restitution or court costs.
Why not gun rights, too? They have paid their debt to society.
No problem. If they’re still serving a sentence, their debt to society is not yet paid, thus no voting.
GROW UP! It’s not a right. THE LAW, as I understand it, meant that people who commit FELONIES would lose their right to vote, forever. If I’m wrong, then please correct me.
So people HAD A CHOICE. They could either keep their right to vote, or they could rape a woman. For those that chose the second, they knew it meant jail time AND losing the right to vote, forever.
They chose to take the risk. No different than killing a person...while knowing the death penalty awaits you (and with it, the loss of voting rights, except in Chicago).
THEIR RIGHT IS GONE. It is time that conservatives learn how to play HARD BALL and stop trying to create more DEMOCRAT VOTERS. It’s bad enough with Amnesty...and now this? Why?
Nope.
They have been punished. Punishment is different from restitution.
Type scumbag move by a scumbag Democrat. 180,000 new Democrat voters.
Figures! A Rat.
Now restore their right to keep and bear arms upon completion of their sentences.
Agreed. Once they have paid the debt they should be restored.
It doesn’t apply to violent felons, which seems reasonable.
Many states have some variety of rights restoration, if an ex-con appears before a judge to ask for it. Most commonly, they want to be able to have a gun. Generally, for non-violent offenders, or even some violent offenders who didn’t use a gun, judges will restore that right.
For the simple reason that ex-cons are high on the list of those who *need* guns for self defense.
However, in this case, the Democrat is just having sour grapes about the win of the Republican, even though the Democrat candidate was favored.
Good to hear, and sad to see some responses.
Either they are Free men, whom have paid their debt to society, or they are criminals and should be in prison.
We do NOT have a class-system in this country.
Does this include violent felons? That’s the billion dollar question.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which party felons will favor.
If they paid their sentence and met all requirements, I have no problem with them voting. They are still Americans.
Not a popular viewpoint on this forum, I'm sure, but I agree.
Thanks.
That is an interesting question. Can a governor disenfranchise a group of people who have (now) the right to vote? Taking away voting rights might cause an injury to the individuals involved. Granting a voting right may not create an individual victim.
I read elsewhere it was non-violent. Apparently Gov-elect Bevin supports this as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.