DescentBB

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... /41479.htm

If you don't want to read, Clinton and Kerry are pushing to allow Felons the right to vote after they have done their time.

This isn't a topic I have ever given much thought, so I am more so just prodding here to know the other side. But why not? Whats wrong with allowing all free members in America the right to vote? It is clearly as partisan of an issue as they come, as around an estimated 85% would go to the Democrats.

I am willing to bet that that alone is the dominant reason for opposition.

But how can you vote against the "Count Every Vote Act?"

Gooberman wrote: I am willing to bet that that alone is the dominant reason for opposition.

No, that is the dominant reason why the Dems are for it.

I see no reason to disallow voting privileges for ex-con's, other than a supplementary 'piss off,' of which there are many for ex-felons. I wouldn't have a problem cutting them a little slack once they've paid their debt.

Besides, I would imagine felons that most people would rather not have vote, don't and won't.

If a former felon votes Republican instead would that make him a ex-con-neo-con?

Gooberman wrote:how can you vote against the "Count Every Vote Act?" ;)

I wrote this elsewhere:

"count every vote" is an idea that everyone can get behind... but the specifics of this particular bill which has been cleverly titled "count every vote" aren't.

There are too many controversial provisions in the bill for it to be realistic to pass. She's trying to fight too many battles at once, and not all of them need fought. Want to make the voting system secure, give people paper receipts, and make it easier for the handicapped and non-English speakers to vote? Cool, write a bill for it. But when you start including extra provisions like restoring voting rights to felons, making election day a holiday, etc. it gets harder to pass the bill.

I'd be totally behind a bill that lived up to the name "count every vote" -- but not a bill that should be named "count every vote, and furthermore, do a bunch of controversial and unnecessary election-related stuff".

I haven't studied every provision in the bill, but I know there were quite a few on the list that I'd be hesitant about.

With respect to restoring voting rights to felons in particular... IMO, if you commit a serious crime, you give up a lot of your rights. I'm not convinced voting rights should be restored to those who've committed felonies, no matter how long they've been in prison.

Lothar wrote: With respect to restoring voting rights to felons in particular... IMO, if you commit a serious crime, you give up a lot of your rights. I'm not convinced voting rights should be restored to those who've committed felonies, no matter how long they've been in prison.

Why bother with letting them out then? Not granting them their right to vote back, and yet still expecting them to live up to their responsibilities as citizens makes it seem like they are serving their sentence for the rest of their lives.

Why bother with any pretense, and just strip felons of their citizenship, from the start, and not worry about giving them the vote.

Hmm, so why were felons ever denied their right to vote in the first place?? Have to do some digging ....

Lothar wrote:. But when you start including extra provisions like restoring voting rights to felons, making election day a holiday, etc. it gets harder to pass the bill.

I'm a strong supporter of moving E-day to Saterday. But I would also support making it a holiday. The reason we vote on Tuesday is to allow farmers a days travel after observing Sunday as a day of rest. It's a little outdated...

woodchip wrote:No, that is the dominant reason why the Dems are for it.

Well, the Dems arn't the ones denying a large opposing group the right to vote. I still havn't really heard a good argument as to why they shouldn't be allowed. Maybe Dissent's search will pull up something.

Theyve paid their debt to society. Let them vote.

This is a tough one. I don't know the exact numbers, but iirc, many felons (a majority of them, I think) end up committing another crime(s) after they've been released from prison. I just can't support giving voting rights to people who don't respect other people. (Before you flame me, keep reading.)

HOWEVER, if someone commits a felony, pays their debt and then demonstrates through actions (not words) that they are not going to be a repeat offender, then let them vote. Perhaps some sort of vote-probation period would be in order. If they don't end up committing another crime, restore their right to vote. How long should vote-probation be? Hard to say. You'd have to look at the statistics amongst ex-cons . . . determine how long a crime-free stretch needs to be before the rate of recidivism drops.

It's such a transparent line of Bullshiz to say "We are trying to help these ex-cons get on with their life"

Of all the things they could have offered ie; education, housing, grants for job training, continued care in drug counseling, cash etc, etc. etc.
What do they offer the felon?
A chance to vote for someone?!?!
Wow!! How helpful....well, helpful to someone!
Once again their self serving motives aren't hidden even though they've wrapped themselves in a cloak of compassion

Will, you use to be one of the best, if not the best, conservative poster here. That was just a republican pow wow post where you didn't even make an attempt to respond to the question at hand. Don't you see the Irony of that entire post? As, it is your side who is strongly opposed to letting them vote just because they will most likely vote Dem. It is so obvious that the sword swings both ways. But you only acknowledge the cuts in one direction.

I have heard nothing close to a good argument in this thread so far, as to why they should continue to be denied the right to vote, after they have done their time.

Will Robinson wrote:Of all the things they could have offered ie; education, housing, grants for job training, continued care in drug counseling, cash etc, etc. etc.
What do they offer the felon?
A chance to vote for someone?!?!

Ah, but everything on your laundry list costs tax dollars. Giving them the right to vote is a freebie.

How many ex-felons do you think would actually take the time to vote?

googled 'felons' and '"right to vote"'. got 50000+ hits

Here are a few -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug17.html

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/fe ... 17/202/285

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 050202.asp

barely scratching the surface, I'm sure

Genghis wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Of all the things they could have offered ie; education, housing, grants for job training, continued care in drug counseling, cash etc, etc. etc.
What do they offer the felon?
A chance to vote for someone?!?!

Ah, but everything on your laundry list costs tax dollars. Giving them the right to vote is a freebie.

Do you think it's all the good will the dem's think they can afford to give a felon or is it the only thing that has a return in it for them. Of course once the felons can vote those other 'expensive' things can be carrots on the stick too....

I was just commenting on the irony of Democrats proposing a zero-cost piece of legislation, and then a conservative coming along and advocating more costly programs.

I agree it seems to be a self-serving piece of legislation. That was probably a big factor in them proposing it. However, looking past the motivation for it, I think it raises some interesting societal questions.

So how are the Republicans doing with their proposal to reduce the number of votes needed to pass legilation to a simple majority now that they are in control of Congress?

Genghis wrote:I was just commenting on the irony of Democrats proposing a zero-cost piece of legislation, and then a conservative coming along and advocating more costly programs.

I agree it seems to be a self-serving piece of legislation. That was probably a big factor in them proposing it. However, looking past the motivation for it, I think it raises some interesting societal questions.

So how are the Republicans doing with their proposal to reduce the number of votes needed to pass legilation to a simple majority now that they are in control of Congress?

I'm not proposing the other options, just pointing out the fact that altruism or compassion isn't their motive.
As to the simple majority thing... Do you mean the appointment of judges and wasn't it written that way in the constitution and somewhere along the way they just adopted their new method without changing the law? So actually, going back to following the rules doesn't bother me....

Once you get out of prison or off parole/probation, you should be restored your right to vote. That's one of the basic rights guaranteed to everyone in this country.

and here are a few more -


http://www.answers.com/topic/suffrage

www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2003-04/04cib12.pdf

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur ... mpson.html

http://www.njpp.org/rpt_votingrights.html

As far as I'm concerned, if you've committed a serious crime against society, you automatically relinquish some of your rights as a member of that society. In my opinion, this covers convicted felons, whether they've been out of prison for thirty years or thirty days. Many people have been asking why they don't have the right to vote; instead, let me ask you this: Why should they be able to vote? Do we want the same people who committed grand theft, arson, and sexual assault aiding in the process of enacting laws for a community? I, for one, don't. When you commit a crime, you disregard the law; if you're convicted, you surrender some of your rights granted under the law. Seems fair to me.

Gooberman wrote:I have heard nothing close to a good argument in this thread so far, as to why they should continue to be denied the right to vote, after they have done their time.

Thats because you've already made up your mind. Anything anyone from the other side posts here is just fuel for a retort.

Will's post made perfect sense. All the things they could be providing for ex-cons to enter back into society and this is the one they could come up with? and then you consider that response a cop out to your subject matter?

I don't have a party affiliation, so before I get called for being biased, just take into consideration that Will's post was virtually as nuetral as one side SHOULD be taking on this subject. THAT should be the focus, and it isn't because everyone wants to do their typical posturing.

The basic premis for denying the right to vote to criminals is to keep the criminal from shaping the law to accomodate and/or protect his criminal lifestyle.

Since they vote primarily democrat and the democrats obviously sense there are enough felon votes to help elect them then obviously the criminals will be offered incentives in the democrats platform!

Before you dismiss this out of hand bear in mind there is a small town, in Tennessee I believe, where the majority of citizens is made up by inmates in a large prison and a county jail. If they are allowed to vote they will decide who the local sherrif is, the local mayor, etc.

What is the character of the person most likely to get their vote? An excon who will decide barbed wire and search lights and guard dogs are too expensive for the budget perhaps?

On a lesser scale than that worse-case-scenario, but still very detrimental to law and order, you will see denser criminal population in communities with high crime rates produce elected representatives that are very lenient towards crime which will result in more crime for that area.

If you don't see the negative effect of having the criminal shape the policy that protects us from them then you are really naive or an anarchist. It is taking one step closer to letting the inmates run the asylum...literally!

perhaps allowing criminals to vote will add a safeguard against laws being created mainly to criminalise certain groups. it will allow those laws to be repealed.

allowing ex-criminals to vote is prettymuch evolving the civilisation. being always open to refining the ideas of what is and isn't "unlawful".

you cant get half the country to vote let alone some guy who is gonna get turned down by the majority of employers.

let's write essays! let's write essays!

Anyone in the least curious as to why Hillary broached this idea...at this point in time?

As much as I abhor long posts, I seem to have a lot of spare time today. Or maybe I'm just procrastinating to avoid working on a Sunday. In either case, I've got kind of a sound-byte format going on here, so this shouldn't be too boring.

Will Robinson wrote:I'm not proposing the other options, just pointing out the fact that altruism or compassion isn't their motive.

I've already agreed with you on their motive, I just couldn't resist a little off-topic jab.

Will Robinson wrote:As to the simple majority thing... Do you mean the appointment of judges and wasn't it written that way in the constitution and somewhere along the way they just adopted their new method without changing the law? So actually, going back to following the rules doesn't bother me....

Actually I had in mind this thread:

phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4539&highlight=

However, we were juggling three issues in that thread and I never heard any more about the main one. Anyway, my little "I know you are but what am I" comment was also admittedly off-topic.


So back on topic:

I learned a helluva lot from reading Dissent's linked articles. Since most of us don't have time to read these things, I'll post some highlights:

But last year Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors stated a bald truth: "As frank as I can be," he said, "we're opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don't tend to vote Republican."

Looks like Democrats aren't the only ones viewing this issue from a self-serving perspective.

Just last year, Connecticut Republican Gov. John G. Rowland signed a bill that will allow convicted felons on probation to vote beginning this year.

OK, so at least one Republican appears to overcome partisanship in his thinking on this topic. A reminder not to stereotype and generalize.

Does this sound like a prescription for more crime? It certainly undermines a basic tenet of our system of justice: that the weight of punishment is tempered with the hope of rehabilitation.

We tend to forget that our penal system isn't just about punishment, but also rehabilitation. Or do we truly believe in the rehabilitation part?

Manza and Uggen also estimate that Al Gore would have defeated George W. Bush by between 10,000 and 85,000 votes in Florida--unsurprising since Bush only earned six percent of the black vote in that state. The ironic result is that a man who ran partly on the theme of redemption, and turned his life around at age 40, may well be president because civil redemption wasn't offered to more than 500,000 ex-felons in the state his brother governs.

Ouch.

The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the world. Eighteen European democracies permit incarcerated prisoners to vote, as do Canada and Puerto Rico. In the U.S., only the states of Maine and Vermont do so. No democracy other than the United States bars parolees from voting.

I just threw that one in there because I know how much we give a rat's rectum about the rest of the world.

Most people know this is wrong. Eighty percent responding to a July 2002 Harris poll said ex-felons should have their rights restored automatically

Interesting, the vast majority of citizens are for restoring felons' voting rights. How is it then that it is so difficult to get legislation passed that will do so? The obvious answer is that our administrative and legislative government is not doing their job in representing the will of the people. Of course, we can't have the judicial branch try to do so, so I guess we're stuck.

After all, one can hardly compare a nonviolent drug offense for marijuana use, let's say, with a felony theft or murder conviction. Many conservatives with a libertarian streak have long made the distinction between violent crime and victimless crime, and properly so.

Fair enough, and easy to implement.

Instead of confronting the fact that a grossly disproportionate amount of crime is committed by black men, however, certain black leaders have turned it around and used it as yet another example of supposed institutionalized white racism, with some actually comparing the loss of voting rights for felons to poll taxes and Jim Crow voting restrictions in the old South.

I agree with that. I hate that this is being made into a racial issue by the liberals.

Advocates usually argue from moral grounds, beginning that voting is actually a privilege not a right. Next, they argue that people who have broken the laws shouldn't be involved in making them, and that ex-felons will vote in ways that harm society and influence criminal justice policy for the worse. But only the most rehabilitated felons are likely to choose to exercise their right and there is no evidence that they choose harmful policies, even in states that allow convicts to vote while in prison.

Yes, these are the arguments we've seen in posts to this thread.

in 2002, John Conyers wrote:Rep. John Conyers from Michigan. His bill, with the Orwellian title of "The Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act," would preempt state laws by mandating the restoration of voting rights to all felons once they've served their prison time.

So this new legilation by Senators Clinton and Kerry is actually a second go-around on this issue. It appears to be getting more press this time, however, since these are the Senators that we love to hate.

Should murderers, rapists, and thieves regain the right to vote once they've served their time? As hard as it is to believe, in 32 states they already do. Only 13 states now forbid convicted felons from voting, with just nine of these imposing lifetime bans. Two states, Vermont and Maine, even allow felons currently doing time to vote like any other citizen.

That quote was from a conservative source, complaining that too many felons and ex-felons are already given the right to vote.

Under various state laws, they are barred from voting because they have felony records. This includes not just prison inmates (48 states), parolees (33 states) and probationers (29 states)...

That quote was from a liberal source, complaining that not enough felons and ex-felons are presently given the right to vote.

The 14th Amendment permits states to deny the vote "for participation in rebellion, or other crime."

So this is currently a states issue and not a federal one. I hate to see the Federal government stamp out yet another state's right.

suffrage (suf-rij): The right to vote (see franchise). In the United States, the term is often associated with the women's movement to win voting rights. (See suffragist.)

Did anyone see the episode of the old "Man Show" in which they set up an activist booth outside a public building with the slogan "end women's suffrage"? It was quite funny, since about 9 in 10 women signed their petition.

So while we are going to allow felons to vote, we should also allow ex-cons the right to have a ccw license and give them high security type jobs (sarcasm). After all once they are done with their sentence, they are fully re-habilitated...right?

My personal feeling is that it should be compulsory to vote. Not just compulsory to be on the voting roll - but to actually vote.

It's a simple system really. If you have a social security number, you MUST vote. An instant $1000 personal tax fine is imposed automatically on any person failing to have their vote registered.

oh boy, here it comes .... *runs for cover*

this is a typical topic for the dbb's circle jerk... an implied possibility that will never happen.

what percent of the population are felons? what percent of "felons" think the system will benefit them? of that percent how many will vote for the democrats. oh shut up already.

i will pay the 10 bux for one of the dbb's right wing members(american that is... not the same as being really right wing) to debate in something awful's debate and discussion.

who wants it? for real? but you have to stick it out. i think lothar would fly... but woodchip would just quit.

(i'd still like to drink whiskey with woodchip; but he wouldn't have me.)

Mobius wrote:My personal feeling is that it should be compulsory to vote. Not just compulsory to be on the voting roll - but to actually vote.

It's a simple system really. If you have a social security number, you MUST vote. An instant $1000 personal tax fine is imposed automatically on any person failing to have their vote registered.

The problem with that is that you lose your right to protest voting. So much for personal freedoms.

EDIT: Webhost went down temporarily...so in the mean time...

STFU MOBIUS!

Tyranny wrote:stfu, mobius

Give it a rest. Don't you have a toilet in your house?

Mobius wrote:My personal feeling is that it should be compulsory to vote. Not just compulsory to be on the voting roll - but to actually vote.

Didn't Saddam apply this very plan in Iraq? Really worked well (more sarcasm).

Oh and Copsey...careful what you wish for. As for "Wanting" you, that is just so....gay.

Genghis wrote:

suffrage (suf-rij): The right to vote (see franchise). In the United States, the term is often associated with the women's movement to win voting rights. (See suffragist.)

Did anyone see the episode of the old "Man Show" in which they set up an activist booth outside a public building with the slogan "end women's suffrage"? It was quite funny, since about 9 in 10 women signed their petition.

lordy, Genghis, this is funny. I didn't watch the Man Show; seemed adolescent. But this would have been good.

So here's the dilemma: Felons are denied the vote (and the right to bear arms) because they have violated the social contract to such a large extent that even after they have served their time, they are placed in a special class of restricted-rights citizens. This is known as a "deterrent", and is based upon the premise that anyone who would willingly risk one of the very cornerstones of their American citizenship, rejects the very fabric of our society and instead secretly (until conviction of course) insists on living outside of the rules and laws that govern us.

I happen to agree with the above concept. But I also believe in the possibility of rehabilitation, especially for convicts of 'victimless', nonviolent crimes.

The answer? How about a probationary period of 5 to 10 years with a clean record (not even a speeding ticket) and no parole/probation violations whatsoever. Given that, I'd say that it is just and fair to allow felons to regain their right to vote.

I still don't like the idea, however.

In my opinion, white-collar criminals (most notably robbers) shouldn't even be in jail. Yes, they should pay for their crimes--but do that by making them repay twice (or greater than, depending on the case) what they stole in the first place. That would be quite an effective deterrent to a criminal--stealing a $5 watch isn't big enough to warrant going to jail, but paying $25 for that $5 watch is guaranteed to make a prospective criminal think twice.

Stryker wrote:In my opinion, white-collar criminals (most notably robbers) shouldn't even be in jail. Yes, they should pay for their crimes--but do that by making them repay twice (or greater than, depending on the case) what they stole in the first place. That would be quite an effective deterrent to a criminal--stealing a $5 watch isn't big enough to warrant going to jail, but paying $25 for that $5 watch is guaranteed to make a prospective criminal think twice.

Yeah, thats nice in theory, but isn't very practical. They'd just go out and steal something else to cash in to pay the fine

Thieves are notorious multiple offenders. Most people in jail for stealing items didn't go there for stealing petty items and a higher percentage of those will steal again when they're out of jail. Which means that since the majority will repeat their offense the minority will have to suffer the consequence. Lopping off a few fingers might change their perspective

Genghis wrote:Give it a rest. Don't you have a toilet in your house?

Yeah, but big floaters like Mobius don't tend to flush very easily

Lets get real here. Everyone that think 90% or more of ex-cons actually vote, raise your hand...thought so.