VANITY: Do you think felons should be allowed to vote?

me

[yonif]

A friend of mine was wondering about this topic and discussed it with me.

Do you think felons (those in jail and those who are "reformed") should be allowed to vote (not felons convicted of voter relating crime)?

There are those countries, such as Israel, which allow felons to vote (both in and out of prison, as long as they were not convicted of voter related crimes).

What do you think? Why is it a good or bad idea?

[satan]

The question should be would they want to vote?

Do we really, really have a choice of candidates?

[nmh]

No, it's a privilege not a right.

[nicmarlo]

I am NOT a convicted FELON. I have NOT been sentenced to jail for commiting heinous crimes against the state. Should I ever do so, then PLEASE also make sure I cannot vote for laws for law-abiding citizens to be ruled by, so that I can continue to ignore them, myself.

[beavus]

How about NOBODY receiving government largess be allowed to vote?

[nicmarlo]

If your opinion is to have the likes of "persons" such as Mason, the Martinez brothers, Jim Baker, etc., voting once they're released from jail, that's your preference. I PREFER NOT.

[beavus]

No, unless it is a conviction for failure to pay taxes. No need to compound their martyrdom.

[marron]

If you are a felon it is because we, collectively, have decided we do not want to live at your mercy. We, collectively, have taken steps to protect ourselves from you, by denying you your freedom.

If we do not trust you to walk the streets, we do not trust you with the reigns of power.

The vote is how we share our sovereignty with our fellow citizens. We do not give up our sovereignty to just anyone, we have rules by which we specify who we trust with this power, such as the citizenship rules and voting rules.

If you are a felon, you are a threat to me, and I choose not to allow you to have physical access to me, nor would you have access to governmental power over me.

[marron]

continued from my previous post...

But once your sentence has been completed, and you are no longer on parole, which means you are no longer under any special supervision, you are effectively returned to full citizenship. It seems that should include the vote.

[TheDon]

I agree. The question is perhaps too broad. You must list all of the felony crimes and state whether or not a person convicted of that crime should have their voting rights permanently taken away.

Another way to look at the question is the one you have taken, and I tend to agree with, if you have paid for your crime, i.e. served your sentence, including any parole, you should have your full rights restored.

[quietolong]

YES

Why?
Make every little thing a felony to take your oppositions vote away. Easier that vote fraud and legal.
Were in the constitution does it allow your right to vote to be taken away?

[I got the rope]

It's a difficult question. Yonif really stumped me. On the one hand...we don't all want to be treated as the lowest common denominator, but on the other hand ....it is the only FAIR way. Law-abiding, moral citizens should be the ones telling us what is acceptable in our communities.
This being said...it should be up to them and not the courts to decide what rights would be given back. People who knowingly break the law cannot be trusted to judge it (jury).
My only problem with this is that not all rules or laws that are broken justify the withdrawl of ones rights. For instance, if I travel from Florida to Texas with a firearm to protect my family on the trip, then I am breaking at least 5 state laws(I don't hold a CCW license). Would a jury nullify my arrest since this is a victimless crime and I am protected by the Constitution. I would hope so.

If I am a thief and steal someones property, then pay my victim restitution and never steal again...does this warrant the removal of my right to defend myself? The answer is yes since the law states that this would happen before I even stole the thing in the first place. This is being treated as the "lowest common denominator".

There should be a method in which rights can be restored based upon community standards, but there probably won't ever be one. San Francisco morality is not the same as those found in West Texas.

[TLI]

Their right to bear arms should also be restored as well, BTW. If they are not suited to exercise all the rights & responsibilities of any other citizen, then they should not be off probation or parole. If they are, then they should be as free as the next person. They've 'paid their debt' to society.

Well, well. Someone got it right. Here is a nice little quote...

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Apr-13-Fri-2001/opinion/15846227.html

"" What is the justification for denying people who have paid their debt to society the right to vote? The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are equal, inseparable and take precedence over any subsequent enactments; they are the highest law of the land. Would anyone assert a felon, once released from prison and having successfully completed parole or probation, has no right to attend a church or temple -- to exercise his freedom of religion -- until those specific rights are restored in writing by some executive order? Of course not.

Likewise, no one would consider barring former prisoners from writing books or letters-to-the-editor after their release pending issuance of some document formally "restoring" this First Amendment right.

This notion that Americans become second class citizens -- some of their constitutional rights selectively and permanently impaired -- even after they have "done their time," is anathema in a free country, because it accustoms us to a dangerous precedent under which government bureaucrats are empowered to decide which rights shall be "restored," and when. ""(no author found...)

What if my conviction was for a federal crime? If you were convicted of a federal crime, your right to vote is restored once you have been fully discharged from the terms of your sentence or once you have received a pardon. In other words, the "hang-`em-high" crowd is in for a big disappointment, the entire argument is probably the opposite of what they thought, federal felons already automatically regain their right to vote. There are a few states that restrict voting in federal elections, if the person moves to a state that does not, then the laws of that state apply.

TLI

[A. Pole]

I am sure I have never knowingly or unknowingly committed a felony.

You must live on some other planet.

[TLI]

From reading these posts, I am under the impression that most people think a FELON is a person who used an illegal handgun to rob a bank, and then raped the preacher's daughter on the way out the door --- when nothing could be further from the truth. Check out the laws in your home state, and you will be shocked to find out how little it takes to become a FELON.

Which is exactly the problem. The Feds would just LOVE the popular mis-conception of a felon, is serves their (current) purpose of controlling the population.

In the succinct words of a rather prophetic sit-com stereotype... Archie Bunker... the whole thing of "second-class citizen" is .... A BUNCH OF CRAP-OLA."

TLI

[TaxRelief]

Why don't you take a stab at it and suggest some non-substance abuse felonies that I and millions of others like me could be guilty of.

---

from CDC web site:

Sixty-two percent of Americans ages 18 and over have drank alcohol in the past year. (2000)
Thirty-two percent of current drinkers had five or more drinks on the same occasion at least once in the past year.
Sixty-one percent of men 18-24 years and 42 percent of women had 5 or more drinks on the same occasion.

---

So if I do the math:

68% have not gotten to the illegal blood alcohol level, in the past year.

38% have not even had one drink, in the past year.

61% off young people have gotten drunk at some time in their lives, but there is no crime if they don't drive.

---

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

So what felony have the non-drinkers (and the imbibers who don't drive) committed?

[A. Pole]

Why don't you take a stab at it and suggest some non-substance abuse felonies that I and millions of others like me could be guilty of.

What about dispensing an old codeine pill to a family member in emergency?

[EGPWS]

If your opinion is to have the likes of "persons" such as Mason, the Martinez brothers, Jim Baker, etc., voting once they're released from jail, that's your preference.

It's not and I am surprised that I gave that impression.

[EGPWS]

How about NOBODY receiving government largess be allowed to vote?

That would just lead to the extinction of the Democratic party and would leave us with a single party system.

Now that I think about it beavus...maybe it isn't such a bad idea! : )

[EGPWS]

Otherwise, I just see it as an implicit punishment that wasnt part of sentencing.

Kinda' like the punishment bestowed upon tax payers who have to foot the bill for their "realignment" to fit back into society in a productive manner.

[TaxRelief]

Nope.