NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an interesting topic for me. To me the role of the justice system is to uphold the law aswel as punish those who break the law with fines, prision sentances ect. But it is also the aim of the punishment is to deter the person from re-offending and intergrate them back into society.
If a full intergration into society is going to take place then shouldn't this person have the same right to elect a government?
This could especially help the American system with controversy about the electoral role.

As I'm feeling brave I might even tryand put a poll up

I dont see why being convicted of a crime should have anything to do with your right to vote. I even support criminals be allowed to vote from behind bars.

If you loose the right to vote the only way of having an influence on the government is by more direct illegal means. As the first dude said, the purpose of prision is not just punishment but also re-education and re-integration.

I dont see why being convicted of a crime should have anything to do with your right to vote. I even support criminals be allowed to vote from behind bars.

For localised elections it might be a problem though but for elections such as a presidential election i agree

yes, once theyre released they have 'paid their debt to society' and should resume full rights

if they commit another crime they spend a few years at Her Majestys pleasure, and then resume full rights again

thats the way it is, and thats the way it should be

Here even people in jail vote, not just those who have been released. Just because you have committed a crime does not mean you have given up all your rights. When a government can legislate which citizens can vote and which cannot it there is always the possibility that this will be misused, so I feel that they should be able to vote because I don't think the government should have that power to remove the voting rights of a citizen.

Here even people in jail vote, not just those who have been released. Just because you have committed a crime does not mean you have given up all your rights. When a government can legislate which citizens can vote and which cannot it there is always the possibility that this will be misused, so I feel that they should be able to vote because I don't think the government should have that power to remove the voting rights of a citizen.

totally agreed I mean the American elections are marred with problems. It seems that criminals are running the damn thing

If you have served out your sentence then you should have all the rights available to a normal citizen unless a judge recommends otherwise e.g. paedophiles being barred from around schools.

I don't see how a criminal could use teh vote to commit a crime though.

If you have served out your sentence then you should have all the rights available to a normal citizen unless a judge recommends otherwise e.g. paedophiles being barred from around schools.

I don't see how a criminal could use teh vote to commit a crime though.

Vote for Bush or Blair???


sorry bushies and Blaires could not resist. ¬_¬ :D :D can we still be friends? :fluffle:

Here even people in jail vote, not just those who have been released. Just because you have committed a crime does not mean you have given up all your rights. When a government can legislate which citizens can vote and which cannot it there is always the possibility that this will be misused, so I feel that they should be able to vote because I don't think the government should have that power to remove the voting rights of a citizen.

What about the insane and children. The government already legislates for children. They are citizens, why can they not vote?

On the main question. Whenever anyone has been convicted (proven?) of breaking the socially agreed rules, then that person should expect to forfeit the socially provided benefits. This includes voting, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech etc. This is one of the basic justifications of prison in the first place. If you allow convicted criminals to vote they are being given one of the benefits of the society the rules of which they have broken. When their period of exclusion from society is over, then they should have their rights fully restored, not partially. If they are not considered trustworthy enough to vote, then they should not be considered trustworthy enough to be released into society. In this case they should either receive a life (or death) penalty or be exiled.

Once they are out, then yes.

We don't let children vote, as they don't understand how to IMHO

What about the insane and children. The government already legislates for children. They are citizens, why can they not vote?

Children and the mentally handicapped do not have the capacity to make an informed choice. Many adults fail to make an informed choice, but they have the capacity to, in theory. I've seen some of those Jerry Springer shows... :p

When a person commits a crime, he or she gives up certain rights as a result of incarceration ; privacy for example.

However, once released, criminals are no longer bound to the system and retain the rights they once had. And that includes the right to vote.

So my answer is...YES.

I think in most cases, yes, former inmates should be given the right to vote. Special circumstances, such as mental illness could nullify this right.

But I don't think those still incarcerated should vote. while you are serving your time, you should lose that right. With all the problems in prison, I don't know of a way to guarantee that a person could make a free choice. And not all criminals have access to media, so how would they know what issues a candidate supports. Lastly, a candidiate could run on a platform of benefits for inmates (lessened sentences, more luxuries, etc.), and virtually guarantee all inmates would vote for them. The rest of the candidates would be split among non-inmates, making it more likely that the inmate-friendly candidate would win.

It would depend upon a case-by-case basis in my opinion.

Once someone has done his time, paid his debt, and is a free man again, he should be granted the right to participate in his government like any other citizen. He should be able to vote.

absolutely not. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. That being the case someone who has been a criminal is probably more likely to vote for leniency for criminals. When you commit a crime that is directly harmful to another human, I believe you should premenantly lose the priviledge to vote.

Please don't think that I hate all ex-cons as this is not the case. I shared office space with a bank robber for almost 2 years and liked the guy alot. I don't consider him a criminal threat at all anymore, but I still believe he gave up that right when he committed the crime.

When a person commits a crime, he or she gives up certain rights as a result of incarceration ; privacy for example.

However, once released, criminals are no longer bound to the system and retain the rights they once had. And that includes the right to vote.


In the US, it has NEVER (since the inception of the country) been that way.
You lose the right to vote, and the right to buy firearms (though you can petition to have those rights restored).

Let's look at the definition:

felony , any grave crime, in contrast to a misdemeanor, that is so declared in statute or was so considered in common law. In early English law a felony was a heinous act that canceled the perpetrator's feudal rights and forfeited his lands and goods to the king, thus depriving his prospective heirs of their inheritance. The accused might be tried by an appeal of felony, i.e., personal combat with his accuser, the losing party to be adjudged a felon (see ordeal). The appeal of felony was gradually replaced by rational modes of trial and was altogether abolished in England in 1819. In addition to the forfeiture of his property, the convicted felon usually suffered death, long imprisonment, or banishment. Death was an especially common English penalty in the 18th and the early 19th cent. To the list of common-law felonies—including murder, rape, theft, arson, and suicide—many others were added by statute. With the abolition of forfeitures in England in 1870 the felony acquired essentially its modern character. Felony is used in various senses in the United States. In federal law, any crime punishable by death or more than one year's imprisonment is a felony. This definition is followed in some states; in others the common-law definition is retained, or else statutes specifically label certain crimes as felonies. Other possible consequences of committing a felony are loss of the rights of citizenship, deportation if the felon is an alien, and liability to a more severe sentence for successive offenses. Felonies are usually tried by jury, and in some states the accused must first have been indicted by a grand jury.

So, as you can see, it comes from early English law.

So, as you can see, it comes from early English law.

Based on Les Miserables I'd say it's likely things were that way in France as well. Yes, I know it was a ficticious story, but I suspect it was based on a common understanding of French Law.

Once someone has done his time, paid his debt, and is a free man again, he should be granted the right to participate in his government like any other citizen. He should be able to vote.

that's the way I see it too.

All this business of felons permanently losing the right to vote is a bit draconian for my tastes, if they've served their time/paid their debt to society.

I'm not having a go at peeps from the USA here, just asking a question:

Am I right in thinking people can be given felony convictions for relatively small marijuana offenses in the US and thus permanently lose the right to vote? This to me doesn't seem right. Anybody care to comment?

Am I right in thinking people can be given felony convictions for relatively small marijuana offenses in the US and thus permanently lose the right to vote? This to me doesn't seem right. Anybody care to comment?

If it's a felony conviction, yes. You lose the right to vote, the right to bear arms (buy firearms), etc. It's all automatic.

It's nothing new. It has always been this way. That doesn't make it right, but felons don't have a big constituency (neat trick, that). So it's unlikely that anyone will vote to change that in a major way.

If it's a felony conviction, yes. You lose the right to vote, the right to bear arms (buy firearms), etc. It's all automatic.

It's nothing new. It has always been this way. That doesn't make it right, but felons don't have a big constituency (neat trick, that). So it's unlikely that anyone will vote to change that in a major way.
but i'm fairly sure you'd have to have at least an ounce on you to merit a felony. correct me if i'm wrong, but i think less than that is a misdemeanor.

if ex-convicts cant vote then it opens up a whole host of possibilities for the government to strip its citizens of the right to vote, so its wrong

like...if a psychotic party who believed in dictatorship got into power with enough control over the different areas of government, the government could pass a law saying "its a crime not to write your name on this bit of paper" (which would just be a bit of paper in the persons hand with his name and the names of people he wants to vote)

"oh look, weve done it, but you havent so youre a criminal - you cant vote anymore"

and then theyre guaranteed votes only for them, no matter how many parties there are

well, you get the idea anyway

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. . . . I don't consider him a criminal threat at all anymore, but I still believe he gave up that right when he committed the crime.

Funny . . . The "best predictor" turns out to be totally inaccurate in your experience.

Convicts should absolutely be allowed to vote, even from behind bars. Why? Because the average dude on the street has absolutely no idea about what issues prisoners are up against. Because convicts are still a part of the country. Because if they aren't able to vote, it's one more factor promoting the creation of an underclass in our country.

Think about this one for a second: The group that was most active in lobbying for California's "Three Strikes" law was the correctional workers' union. Why? Fucking job security. That's abuse of the vote, not for purposes of law and order or safety, but for a paycheck. Jail's a very big business, and if folks are going to use politics to commodify cons, cons should at least have a say in the matter.

If it's a felony conviction, yes. You lose the right to vote, the right to bear arms (buy firearms), etc. It's all automatic.

It's nothing new. It has always been this way. That doesn't make it right, but felons don't have a big constituency (neat trick, that). So it's unlikely that anyone will vote to change that in a major way.



It's the "neat trick" that you mention, which I'm interested in. I see that as a really good way of getting rid of a large amount of the voting poulation who might be open to new and different ideas and might be inclined to question a lot of regular government policies. I'm not talking about people who've committed violent crimes here, but people whose only real crime was to kick back and loosen up a bit.

but i'm fairly sure you'd have to have at least an ounce on you to merit a felony. correct me if i'm wrong, but i think less than that is a misdemeanor.

Yeah. You need a fair chunk of weed to rate a felony, but regarding the creation of an underclass line above, look into the previous sentencing guidelines for crack vs. cocaine. The guidelines have been rectified to various degrees, but previously, most states followed a guideline whereby they followed a 1-to-100 ratio when sentencing crack vs. coke.

Connecticut, for example, gives equal 5-year-to-life sentencing guidelines for either 0.5 gram of crack or one ounce of cocaine.

Children and the mentally handicapped do not have the capacity to make an informed choice. Many adults fail to make an informed choice, but they have the capacity to, in theory. I've seen some of those Jerry Springer shows... :p

Isn't someone who breaks the law someone that has shown that they do not have the capacity to make an informed choice. If you can justify the mentaly handicaped and children not being alowed to vote on this basis you can also justify felons losing the right to vote whilst serving time on this basis.

If it's a felony conviction, yes. You lose the right to vote, the right to bear arms (buy firearms), etc. It's all automatic.

It's nothing new. It has always been this way. That doesn't make it right, but felons don't have a big constituency (neat trick, that). So it's unlikely that anyone will vote to change that in a major way.

I think there are a fair numer of states that reenfranchise felons once they're out of jail. This was part of the HAVA beef in 2004, that ex-cons in several states were misled about their rights.

Yeah. You need a fair chunk of weed to rate a felony, but regarding the creation of an underclass line above, look into the previous sentencing guidelines for crack vs. cocaine. The guidelines have been rectified to various degrees, but previously, most states followed a guideline whereby they followed a 1-to-100 ratio when sentencing crack vs. coke.

Connecticut, for example, gives equal 5-year-to-life sentencing guidelines for either 0.5 gram of crack or one ounce of cocaine.
i'm going to get yelled at for saying this, but that's because cocaine is much more a white-collar drug. Crack very much is not.

It's the "neat trick" that you mention, which I'm interested in. I see that as a really good way of getting rid of a large amount of the voting poulation who might be open to new and different ideas and might be inclined to question a lot of regular government policies. I'm not talking about people who've committed violent crimes here, but people whose only real crime was to kick back and loosen up a bit.

Indeed.

I have a problem with the War on Drugs in any case. I feel it is a complete waste of time and money, and does three major harms:

1. It criminalizes a large portion of the population who otherwise would commit no crimes.
2. It is the number one cause of murder and violent crime.
3. It funds gangs and terror organizations.

Drugs should be legalized.

And if you're wondering how you're hearing this from a right-wing conservative, keep in mind that I'm all for personal freedom.

Carry a gun. Smoke what you like. Women's bodies belong to them.

Try and find a Democrat or Republican who is going to agree to all of those at the same time.

Once they've finished their term of incarceration, the Emperor of Terra Zetegenia sees no reason why they shouldn't be able to vote. While criminals may lose rights such as the right to bear arms and the right to go within certain distances of schools once they are released from prison, depending on their offenses, these are precautionary measures more than punishments. If a person has been proven to be irresponsible in how they handle firearms, or how they act around children, it stands to reason that they should not be given an easy chance to act poorly again until they have proven themselves trustworthy. On the other hand, if a person has been proven to be irresponsible in how they vote, they just keep on voting for the Democrats in future elections.

Criminals in prison, on the other hand, should not be allowed to vote. Why waste the time and energy allowing people who have yet to earn their place in society once more to help decide how society should behave - especially since they have a disproportionately strong incentive to vote for officials who, for example, want to ease up on how criminals are punished?

i'm going to get yelled at for saying this, but that's because cocaine is much more a white-collar drug. Crack very much is not.

I'm not going to do the yelling because that's exactly why. Though you can leave off the "-collar" part. It's racially targeted lawmaking.

I'm not going to do the yelling because that's exactly why. Though you can leave off the "-collar" part. It's racially targeted lawmaking.
yeah. this is a fact. of course, there are plenty of white crackheads. and yes it is. in about 4-5 years, i get to enforce that particular law. i'm sure you can imagine how thrilled i am about getting to do that. Thank god for my allowed discretion.

Yes, but not if they voted for Bush.

Why not? To say bluntly criminals shouldn't vote is such a friggin black and white outlook. "Goodguys" and "badguys" pthffft! Most people don't commit criminal activity just for the hell of it. (And those that do are either sad individuals with alot of hidden scars or just plain stupid..) alot of criminal activity is for personal gain. And wouldn't it be in a former convict's best interest to pick a good leader? Afterall, THEY are affected just as much as the next person.

You could say they'd help get some whackjob who'd legalise drugs and prostitution and they were former crack dealers or pimps, but remeber: it'd still be under the goverment's terms, so the former "badguys" still win nothing. Evil isn't that simple, I should know. I have never been to prison but I have alot of connections to that little term you never bother to think about deeply. That term you call "evil".

Sometimes I wish I didn't have these relations, I would like to live a normal life and not be under the influence of vodo. But because of my exposure I understand WHY evil exsists and why it NEEDS to exsist..

but i'm fairly sure you'd have to have at least an ounce on you to merit a felony. correct me if i'm wrong, but i think less than that is a misdemeanor.


All well and good, but I don't consider an ounce to be a huge and unreasonable amount to possess. In fact I'd go along with Bill Baileys description of what was needed regarding guidelines for possession, namely:

We need to be very clear as to what is permitted for possession, such as everything that you can fit in one hand or better still everything that you can fit in a hat. Preferrably big wizards hats, they'll fit loads. ;)

Yes - But only for people who have commited minor offences

What about the insane and children. The government already legislates for children. They are citizens, why can they not vote?

On the main question. Whenever anyone has been convicted (proven?) of breaking the socially agreed rules, then that person should expect to forfeit the socially provided benefits. This includes voting, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech etc. This is one of the basic justifications of prison in the first place. If you allow convicted criminals to vote they are being given one of the benefits of the society the rules of which they have broken. When their period of exclusion from society is over, then they should have their rights fully restored, not partially. If they are not considered trustworthy enough to vote, then they should not be considered trustworthy enough to be released into society. In this case they should either receive a life (or death) penalty or be exiled.
Wow. You put that much more eloquently than I was going to. But I agree. FORMER criminals, yeah, you can vote. But if one is incarcerated for violating the "law of the land" you cannot call upon the same to bestow upon you the right to vote. You obviously had no respect for the law. You don't get to participate. Over.
Once you pay for your crime, that's another story.

Why not? To say bluntly criminals shouldn't vote is such a friggin black and white outlook. "Goodguys" and "badguys" pthffft! Most people don't commit criminal activity just for the hell of it. (And those that do are either sad individuals with alot of hidden scars or just plain stupid..) alot of criminal activity is for personal gain. And wouldn't it be in a former convict's best interest to pick a good leader? Afterall, THEY are affected just as much as the next person.

You could say they'd help get some whackjob who'd legalise drugs and prostitution and they were former crack dealers or pimps, but remeber: it'd still be under the goverment's terms, so the former "badguys" still win nothing. Evil isn't that simple, I should know. I have never been to prison but I have alot of connections to that little term you never bother to think about deeply. That term you call "evil".

Sometimes I wish I didn't have these relations, I would like to live a normal life and not be under the influence of vodo. But because of my exposure I understand WHY evil exsists and why it NEEDS to exsist..

To be fair there would never be enough of a majority to acomplish what your talking about unless about 30% of the people have been to jail and agree on this highly dubious proposal, If this highly unlikely case were to occur then I'm affraid democracy shall rule through majority mandate.
But joking aside I find your genralisation of people who have served a prison sentence almost laughable."These people are clearly animals and sub Human" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Absolutely not.

Criminals tend to vote democrat because democrats favor light sentences and all sorts of councelling instead of hard time.

Absolutely not.

Criminals tend to vote democrat because democrats favor light sentences and all sorts of councelling instead of hard time.

Political affiliation is not a good reason, it is about rights as a citizen :rolleyes:

Absolutely not.

Criminals tend to vote democrat because democrats favor light sentences and all sorts of councelling instead of hard time.


Well then, we shouldn't allow members of the Military to vote, simply because they lean toward the Republican side!

Only for minor offenses. IMO, people who commit serious crimes (felonies, violent misdemeanors, multiple convictions, etc. ) have proven that they are incapable of acting w/i societies norms and should therefore not have a say in it. Prison, even w/ "rehabilitation" is only part of the punishment.

Once they have been released, I see no reason to deny them their right to vote. Lots of reasonable people get put in jail for trafic tickets and the such.

Voting while serveing your time, however, is another issue entirely. Prison is inherently a justified restriction of your right, and voteing rights should go right in with the right to move freely and seek happyness.

Just because they commited a crime doesn't mean they can't vote. Many they are sorry for what they did. You'd be taking away their freedom.

Just because they commited a crime doesn't mean they can't vote. Many they are sorry for what they did. You'd be taking away their freedom.

Which they have already proven that they are incapable of using responsibly. It's convienent for them to feel "sorry" after they've robbed/raped/beaten/killed someone.

Which they have already proven that they are incapable of using responsibly. It's convienent for them to feel "sorry" after they've robbed/raped/beaten/killed someone.
True. raping is wrong. They should just be castrated and thrown into prison, and still be able to vote.

Criminals are allowed to hold office, why shouldn't they vote?

Oh, you mean convicted criminals...

True. raping is wrong. They should just be castrated and thrown into prison, and still be able to vote.

So you support permanently physically maiming them but not permanently disenfranchising them?

I want to comment on several things that have been said, so I wont quote anyone in particular.

First of all, for those few of you who claimed that in the US, convicted felons cannot vote, that is incorrect. There is no federal law stating that felons cannot vote. This is handled on a state by state basis. I dont know the laws of all 50 states, 5 territories and the District of Columbia, but I do know that in at least one US territory governed by federal laws (Puerto Rico) felons do vote from behind bars.

Second of all, those of you claiming that felons should lose their voting rights because they have shown themselves incapable of following the rules of society are not taking into account a small but extremely important group of criminals. You are ignoring the civil disobedient, conscientous objectors, and other such criminals whose crimes are peaceful and politically motivated. People like Dr. Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, and thousands of protestors throughout the ages. There really are people in congress pushing to make certain types of peaceful protests a felony (currently, they are targeting those who protest at abortion clinics). If felons cannot vote, then it could easily become possible for protestors to be politically silenced, which would have a serious effect on the legitimacy of elections.

So you support permanently physically maiming them but not permanently disenfranchising them?
Uhhh...Yeah, ok

Criminals are allowed to hold office, why shouldn't they vote?

Oh, you mean convicted criminals...
lol Bush is in office.

lol Bush is in office.


Hah, that's true... Sadly true...

Second of all, those of you claiming that felons should lose their voting rights because they have shown themselves incapable of following the rules of society are not taking into account a small but extremely important group of criminals. You are ignoring the civil disobedient, conscientous objectors, and other such criminals whose crimes are peaceful and politically motivated. People like Dr. Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, and thousands of protestors throughout the ages. There really are people in congress pushing to make certain types of peaceful protests a felony (currently, they are targeting those who protest at abortion clinics). If felons cannot vote, then it could easily become possible for protestors to be politically silenced, which would have a serious effect on the legitimacy of elections.

List their names and your sources so I can vote against them.

A "peaceful"protestor (sit-ins, blocking doors) deserve nothing more than misdemeanors if that (blocking traffic). It's the violent, damaging, harassing protestors that should lose their rights.

Aren't we basically all criminals?

List their names and your sources so I can vote against them.

A "peaceful"protestor (sit-ins, blocking doors) deserve nothing more than misdemeanors if that (blocking traffic). It's the violent, damaging, harassing protestors that should lose their rights.

Charles E. Schumer, (NY) sponsored the bill. There are 128 cosponsors, so I am not going to list them all. Here is a link to part of the debate regarding this bill. Look up HR 796 formore information.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:21:./temp/~r103ZLvIk3::

Charles E. Schumer, (NY) sponsored the bill. There are 128 cosponsors, so I am not going to list them all. Here is a link to part of the debate regarding this bill. Look up HR 796 formore information.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:21:./temp/~r103ZLvIk3::

Are you sure it was HR796? When I queried it it gave me:

Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 2/14/2005) Cosponsors (None)

With a Bill on DHS funding.

However, I automatically distrust anything Shumer does. He is well known for trying to erode the rights of citizens.