Replies

I understand your point, and I can’t definitively say you are wrong. While you consider the Constitutional rights of the person in question, I contemplate the following.

1. This person has demonstrated not just a little anti-societal incompatibility, they have gone past mere ticket, fines, and misdemeanors. They were out of control and unable to make sound decisions. Has all that stopped when their sentence is served?

2. People and issues that show up on the ballot have to do with what type of society we are going to have going forward. So do we want very flawed people voting for presidents, governors, mayors, judges, and other important issues?

3. Any issue that serves to benefit someone who has chosen a life of crime, is certain to attract a person who may not have learned his lesson. The question is, how do you tell which one that is? A judge known to be soft on criminals is on the ballot. Do we want this person voting against us to keep that judge?

4. Do we want sex offenders who have served their time voting on whether it’s a good idea or not to make it a law that people on the sex registry must stay 1000 feet from schools? You probably know that crime has a very high rate of recidivism.

This was enough to let you know where I was headed in my thinking. I think there are other examples that would contribute to my line of reasoning.

I do recognize the value of your argument. I see more of a competing interest here for society.

As with all penalties for crime, those penalties are public record. If people don’t care about those penalties and go ahead and commit felonies, is it my fault they have to live with the penalties?

Voting has always been one of those penalties. They didn’t care. Why should I after they signed away those rights?