Posted on 03/01/2014 2:42:36 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Attorney General Eric Holder’s call to restore voting rights to felons after they’ve served their time in prison has split Senate Democrats.
Liberal Democrats who are not facing tough re-elections this year say it’s the right thing to do, but vulnerable incumbents are steering clear of the proposal.
ADVERTISEMENT
Holder has become increasingly outspoken recently. This week he declared that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that are discriminatory.
Political experts say barring ex-felons from voting impacts African Americans disproportionately.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
One who has served his sentence.
I agree with you for the most part, technically there isn’t a “God” given right to vote.
I was touching more on constitutional rights, particularly the 2nd Amendment.
IMO, if a man can’t be trusted on the streets with a gun, he shouldn’t be on the streets....and therein lies the real problem.
Holder is apparently counting on people forgetting that voting rights is properly a matter for the states, not the federal government--we are too accustomed to the federal government usurping power it does not rightfully have. The 14th amendment recognizes the right of states to deny the vote to male citizens 21 years of age if they have committed a crime.
So if the federal government can intervene it could only do so lawfully for female prisoners and ex-cons, and for those aged 18, 19 or 20.
In practice I think most states have mechanisms whereby felons can regain voting rights but it isn't automatic. Holder presumably wants it to be automatic to increase voter turnout. If having to get an ID is horrible because it disadvantages minorities, then having to follow steps to get your right to vote back would "disproportionately" disadvantage Holder's people.
Yes, you're correct....thank you ;)
Ahh, the ‘black felon’ race card now.
The U.S. needs to take a close look at our penal and court systems. Plea bargaining is something that needs to be re-considered.
We need to decide what the purpose of the system is. Are we incarcerating people to punish them, reform them, or to protect society from them? If they have fulfilled their sentence and have made restitution, should they ever be fully restored to society?
Compared to most other countries, the United States incarcerates a large percent of our population.
RATs must be unable to dig up enough dead voters, ya think?
Maybe we have better detectives than most other countries. The correct statistic to look at should be the percentage of our crimes we solve and actually jail people for.
holder seems to find felons peculiarly attractive..
Agree, voting is probably the last thing on someones mind when they commit a felony, but again maybe the individuals lack of responsibility in committing the felony DUI (i.e. knowingly drinking too much and driving) shows an underlying lack of responsibility. While some convicted of some felonies just made a mistake one time (like maybe the example you gave), most are repetitive law violators and in my opinion, they should not get their vote back. Why give a criminal the right to vote on laws/lawmakers who would make it easier for him/her to continue to commit crimes, whether blue/white collar crimes or street crimes. To say all felons get their right to vote back is insane. AND, it should not be the damn federal government that says
Yes, the Willie Horton ad. The version I saw mentioned Willie Horton, but didn’t show a picture of him, and I pictured him in my mind as white (probably because I already knew a black Willie Horton—the former slugger for the Detroit Tigers—and knew that it must be a different Willie). I was really confused when a media brouhaha ensued because of Bush supposedly using race in the ads, and then I learned that a PAC had run ads showing Horton’s picture, and that Horton was black. The media always “forgot” to mention, of course, that the first political opponent of Dukakis to mention Horton’s crimes while out through Dukakis’s furlough program was none other than Al Gore (during the 1988 Democrat primaries).
So, someone who has done their time and is now working, paying taxes, perhaps for decades after their offense... you think they're still thinking of committing more crimes and voting will help them elect someone who will make crime pay better for them?
If someone's a habitual criminal then they should be locked up for good. If some idiot teenager cops a felony plea for selling a bag of pot to a narc or makes a mistake while being drunk and does a felony assault on someone who insulted his mother... should they be hobbled for life or should they be given a chance to redeem themselves and grow into productive citizens (with all the rights/responsibilities) that entails?
Bingo! As if a prison stint completely wipes away horror, unreplaceable loss of loved ones, innocence, or sense of security - all snatched away by an evil intent.
Sorry, but some things make you a permanent enemy of society. We don't want them making decisions which affect it.
"Wow, felony convictions are a dime a dozen these days, you would be surprised what a felony is today."Which is why after some consideration I made a choice to comply with my state's newly minted AWB law and register my "evil black gun", rather than risk felony prosecution and a nearly certain conviction. The personal cost of a felony conviction today is simply too great to bear and it lasts a lifetime. And I am not talking about a right to vote either. Many self-righteous freepers somehow think this only applies to serious violent felons, like murderers, robbers, but like you said so many things are a felony these days. Your entire life is eviscerated, even if you have served your time and the consequences last a life time. No good company will hire you. You will be excluded from renting in a decent place. Unlike a 100 years ago, you can't move to a different part of the country and start over, if you mean to. Some of the legendary lawmen of the West had a checkered past before they turned around. You simply can't do that in a modern America. Not without a gubernatorial, or a presidential pardon (like winning a lottery).
Yes those decided democrats. Like like those decided democrats that voted enmasse for Obama are and every other Freedom destroying law they care to pass. The only thing that decides democrats od their room assignments in hell!
Should the same judgement be applied to a murderer and lets say, someone who cheated on their tax return?
Both are felonies.
Should a felon who has done their time and gone on to hold a job and live an otherwise normal life be exempt from taxes, or do you support the concept of taxation without representation?
I’d say violent crimes, those of moral turpitude, which rise to the level of felonies should disqualify.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
“If someone’s a habitual criminal then they should be locked up for good.” Couldn’t agree more, but our legal system is so piss poor that they aren’t, even murderers aren’t. It is a rotating door. As far as the individual you represent as having done his time and is being a good citizen, how long after he is paroled does he get the vote back—upon release, three years, ten, twenty or? And, who then decides which ones those individuals are, because as I have said above, it is a revolving door with most returning for one reason or another. I guess the bottom line is, we have a fundamental difference. I believe the right to vote is precious and one of the things that gives value to the way our country runs. It has already been degraded by cheating and people not knowing or taking the responsibility to know the issues or do what they need to do to vote that allowing felons to vote degrades it further and is not something I support.
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.