NationStates Jolt Archive

should we?

a 70 yr old who did his time when he was 18, still cannot vote.

is that fair?

I do feel for these people. I do.

But considering the only felon that I know personally is a sick twisted !@#$%^....I guess i don't have much hopes for his decision-making skills.

Perhaps there is a way to compromise this issue...maybe while they are serving their time, along with the other classes they have to take, they could take some sort of class that if they successfully pass, will give certain rights restored. Of course, all crimes are different case to case...

I don't know the details of the case you're referring to so no comment on that.

In general though, it depends on how severe the crime is. If the man is a murder-rapist, I don't give a damn if he did it when he was 18 and is now 70, he shouldn't be allowed to vote. Actually he should have been executed, but that's another argument.

For serious crimes, you should never be able to vote again (such as murder or rape)
For "light" crimes, your right to vote should not be affected (like small civil things... can't think of an example right now)
For the in-betweens, your right to vote could be reinstated after a certain amount of time.

felons will tend to vote democrat in the us, so the answer may well relate to your political leanings.

It's up to the State. In Texas, a convicted felon can vote after, I believe, 2 years after the completion of his/her sentence. I'll have to check to be sure, though, however I do know that a 70 year old man who was convicted at 18 and served his time probably is now an eligable voter in TX.

I would draw a dinstinction between felons of violent crimes, and those who have served their time for things like drug posession.
I think reform of our current laws regarding nonviolent criminals needs to be reformed before a general repeal would be a good idea.
I don't want a murderer to vote, period.
But a guy who's been busted for weed should be able to.

I think that if they have repaid their debt to society and served their time, they do deserve the right to vote. They are paying taxes after all.

should we?

a 70 yr old who did his time when he was 18, still cannot vote.

is that fair?
They should not be discriminated against. They are citizens.

I would draw a dinstinction between felons of violent crimes, and those who have served their time for things \0\0
??AK\0\0\0\0?t0\0?n.
I think reform of our current laws regarding nonviolent criminals needs to be reformed before a general repeal would be a good idea.
I don't want a murderer to vote, period.
But a guy who's been busted for weed should be able to.

Yeah we want MORE people with few brain cells voting! *sarcasm* No actually, I support giving felons their voting rights. I mean the've been punished, isn't that the point of sending them to jail? Just curious to thosse of you who say no big crime eople should be allowed the vote, Howzabout manslaughter? I's often a DUI thing where you hit and kill someone.

In California, as long as you aren't in prison or on parole for a felony, you can vote. I suppose it would be worth looking into whether parole ever ends for the brutal crimes, maybe account for that, but other than that, it seems all right.

Maybe we should let those murderers and rapists vote. I bet they'd make a great decision.

While they're incarcerated, then no, they should not be permitted to vote. But if they've served their time, then yes. It seems ridiculous that someone would be denied the right to vote because of past problems if they're a fully functioning and able member of society.

well, it all depends on whether you consider jail punishment or rehabilitation.

I've heard the argument that when you commit a heinous crime, you have violated anothers rights, so therefore some of your rights should be taken from you as well.

However, I say if we give them guns, why not give them votes?

They have CHOSEN to remove themselves from control of society by not following its important rules.

They are given back some of their freedoms when they have served their time … but by no means all. Firearm restrictions … voting … access to children … working in nursing homes

That sort of things

Thoes that break the law chose not to work to change it …

Thoes that break the law chose not to work to change it …


Good point.

I believe, as stated by a few before me, that it depends on the crime. Those that are a menace to society at any point in there life do not deserve to be in the populance and therefor do not deserve to vote. Murderers and rapists, for the most part, should be executed in my mind. They should NEVER be allowed to vote. A person that decides to kill or rape someone should not be able to decide on issues that will effect many people.

That depends on whether you think voting should be a right or a priviledge.

Thoes that break the law chose not to work to change it …
Sometimes it is necessary to break the law in order to change it (i.e. civil disobedience.)

I have to agree with most people: Seriousness depends entirely on wether or not the right to vote should be infringed.

I'm not sure what the situation is in the UK. I know that prisoners aren't allowed to vote, but I think restrictions end when somebody is released. I think that voting should depend on the crime myself. If somebody's been done for posession of drugs or stealing and they've served their time then I think they should be allowed to vote. But if somebody's a murderer, rapist ect then I think we could happily do without these people voting.

Prison is the system of punishment. I have no problem with people in prison not being able to vote, but once you're out and free of parole and things, you've payed your debt. You should definately get the vote back then.

If someone has served their sentence then they should have their rights returned. (People on the sex offenders register and similar are still serving a sentence.)

Some of the arguments that have gone before suggest that it's OK to let a murderer walk the streets, but not allow them to vote?

Sometimes it is necessary to break the law in order to change it (i.e. civil disobedience.)

Civil Disobedience is our way of bitch slapping anyone who thinks there is a problem with our society, so in that case, they should be able to vote. Otherwise, if you cannot live under the law, you should not take part in changing the law.

should we?

a 70 yr old who did his time when he was 18, still cannot vote.

is that fair?

remember, to be a felon once is to be a felon for life. We have strict laws that change your status completely as a citizen if you commit a felony. Personally, one felony should result in life in prison regardless. Some laws would have to be changed of course so that things that are relatively minor aren't felonies, but still.

The arguement that you don't trust a murderer to choose right is stupid. I don't trust everyone else to choose 'right' (which is entirely subjective) and who are they gonna choose? They vote for the same people as everyone else, and if they didn't then their votes wouldn't make a difference anyhow.

Of course they should be given the vote, when they have completed their time. Unless you were punished for voter fraud.

Why do people always refer to the violent criminals? Personally i think that most white-collar crime is way more harmfull to society. A manager who fucked over shareholders and thousands of workers for his personal gain is the one who should not be eliglible for partaking in shaping future society anymore, because he already showed his disregard for society.

remember, to be a felon once is to be a felon for life. We have strict laws that change your status completely as a citizen if you commit a felony. Personally, one felony should result in life in prison regardless. Some laws would have to be changed of course so that things that are relatively minor aren't felonies, but still.

Considering that cruelty to animals is a felony in several states, which includes unlicensed slaughter of own livestock, no matter by which means, i find that lifetime is a bit harsh. Armed robbery, without assault/battery is another example,several years will usually suffice.

luckily i live in the UK where any conviction is spent after a number of years, and you can murder someone and still vote. three cheers for civilisation.

Why do people always refer to the violent criminals? Personally i think that most white-collar crime is way more harmfull to society. A manager who fucked over shareholders and thousands of workers for his personal gain is the one who should not be eliglible for partaking in shaping future society anymore, because he already showed his disregard for society.

And they are the ones who get the lighter sentances, go figure.

Why do people always refer to the violent criminals? Personally i think that most white-collar crime is way more harmfull to society. A manager who fucked over shareholders and thousands of workers for his personal gain is the one who should not be eliglible for partaking in shaping future society anymore, because he already showed his disregard for society.
Yeah they were who I was thinking of too ... and I agree

In the US, the individual states generally determine whether or not you lose your right to vote if convicted of a felony. In some, you never lose them and can even vote from jail. In some, Florida most notably, you have to apply for reinstatement of your right to vote, and it's basically up to the governor (let's just say that Jeb hasn't exactly been bipartisan while in office). In these cases, the rules of the state where you were convicted determine what your voting status is. If you're convicted of a federal felony, then you lose your right to vote, and you have to be pardoned by the President to get that right back.

Should felons lose their right to vote? I understand the points of view of the various positions--there are legitimate arguments to be made for all sides. Personally, I'm a believer in redemption--once you've done your time, you ought to be reintegrated into society, and part of that includes being able to vote. It just seems to me that if we're serious about rehabilitation, then that's got to be part of the deal.

I don't know the details of the case you're referring to so no comment on that.

In general though, it depends on how severe the crime is. If the man is a murder-rapist, I don't give a damn if he did it when he was 18 and is now 70, he shouldn't be allowed to vote. Actually he should have been executed, but that's another argument.

For serious crimes, you should never be able to vote again (such as murder or rape)
For "light" crimes, your right to vote should not be affected (like small civil things... can't think of an example right now)
For the in-betweens, your right to vote could be reinstated after a certain amount of time.

what does a rape have to do with your right to choose who you want to lead and represent you? After you "serve your time", your debt to society has been paid and you should be reinstated to the full priveledges of any ordinary gun toting, confused ballot casting citizen so that you can fully revel in your parties victory or fall into despair over your candidates defeat....just like the rest of us :-)

I agree with Upward Thrust when he/she says, "They have CHOSEN to remove themselves from control of society by not following its important rules.

They are given back some of their freedoms when they have served their time … but by no means all. Firearm restrictions … voting … access to children … working in nursing homes

That sort of things."

A felony is a serious crime. The felon chooses to break the law. Drunk drivers who receive felony manslaughter made a choice to drive drunk and endanger themselves and others. Murderers and rapists made a choice to commit murder or rape. Any felon makes a CHOICE. You can do anything you want to (at least in the US). There are very few provisions in place to prevent you from doing anything. But there are consequences. And if you do the crime, you have to pay the consequences. One of those is losing the right to vote--also not being able to own a firearm or work in a daycare center. No exceptions.

should we?

a 70 yr old who did his time when he was 18, still cannot vote.

is that fair?

yes, you should.

-

No, it's not.

yes, you should.

-

No, it's not.

very eloquent

I'd say a graded system. A scale that relates to the type of crime, and the time that has occured since that crime. Perhaps for permanent restriction a three strikes law for the lesser felonies of some sort might be in order.