Should convicted felons be allowed to vote?

[lowtech redneck]

Originally Posted by Spartacuss

I thought so.
Restating this...


If, a convict in prison loses, among other things, the right to bear arms, the right to free movement, and the right to vote, yet, having served his time regains the right to free movement (liberty), etc. what is the basis for continuing to deprive him of a vote? One deprivation is lifted, so what makes voting one of those deprivations that "should" not be lifted?

The right to free movement is NOT regained, the deprivation of free movement is merely lessoned. If a convicted felon violates his parole by engaging in actual free movement, then more onerous deprivation of his free movement is reinstated.

Edit: oops, I think I did it again. After re-reading what you posted, it seems like you are saying that after a sentence is served (a sentence is not limited to prison), a person regains the constitutional right to free movement, so why not regain all other constitutional rights as well? In other words, why take away the right to vote OR the right to bear arms if physical liberty is reinstated?

Good point. I have no explanation why, in practice, physical liberty is given greater protection than other constitutional rights. Still, my original point that there is no constitutional justification for giving the right to vote greater protection than other rights remains valid.

[Domino]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

Law is sketchy. When you impose one law which affects a variety of people, it's my opinion the entire group should be given the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to "harsh treatment across the board." Further, I think that if ex-cons are allowed to be considered normal (as long as they're deemed fit to leave prison), they're more likely to be normal.

If we had an omniscent arbiter to judge every man in every case, we wouldn't need Law at all.

Can you support this theory?

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by PinkPiranha

Can you support this theory?

Not with evidence; nor do I require you trust me: I'm not ENTP. I simply think it is most likely true, more often than not.

[kyuuei]

I do agree with Jack on the citizen-rights thing. If they have no rights anyways, what's the point in getting out of prison in the first place? I'd be more likely to committ crimes instead of working through all that hardship to try and get the simple things citizens can get.

If they're deemed fit to free, they're deemed fit enough to function in society. We can't judge every person that comes through the system, so I suppose a clear ruling is more comforting to me. It's like in my head with the whole illegal immigrant job thing.
In my opinion, if they do the work, they get the pay. Don't like that they have the job? Be stricter on the employers. If they HAVE to pay illegals the same wage, there's no incentive to hire them, now is there? If they're still willing to risk the law for the illegal, then the illegal has the right to get the money they earned in work.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by PinkPiranha

Are not some felonious acts - the most heinous imaginable - so horrible that the felon is rightly no longer considered a full citizen? Not all who violate and destroy remain in prison. That much is certain.

If the act was that bad, why are we releasing the felon back into society? And what's so dangerous about them voting? I think it would be more dangerous to keep them ostracized once they're out. It seems to me that the more they feel left out, the more dangerous they would be.

My opinion also applies to sex offender lists.

[Enyo]

Originally Posted by Spartacuss

Why should the two be tied? Are the rationales for each deprivation the same?

Yes, because if you don't have the right to bare arms in defense of our nation, then you don't have the right to cast a vote in decision of how it should be run. You can't legally defend the country, nor can you legally attempt to overthrow it. You have forfeited these powers due to criminal acts.

Originally Posted by lowtech redneck

The right to free movement is NOT regained, the deprivation of free movement is merely lessoned. If a convicted felon violates his parole by engaging in actual free movement, then more onerous deprivation of his free movement is reinstated.

Edit: oops, I think I did it again. After re-reading what you posted, it seems like you are saying that after a sentence is served (a sentence is not limited to prison), a person regains the constitutional right to free movement, so why not regain all other constitutional rights as well? In other words, why take away the right to vote OR the right to bear arms if physical liberty is reinstated?

Good point. I have no explanation why, in practice, physical liberty is given greater protection than other constitutional rights. Still, my original point that there is no constitutional justification for giving the right to vote greater protection than other rights remains valid.

But sometimes that freedom of movement is never regained, even after prison and parole are over. Megan's Law, anybody?

Originally Posted by Lateralus

If the act was that bad, why are we releasing the felon back into society? And what's so dangerous about them voting? I think it would be more dangerous to keep them ostracized once they're out. It seems to me that the more they feel left out, the more dangerous they would be.

My opinion also applies to sex offender lists.

Why? Do you feel that sex offender lists shouldn't exist, or do you feel that we should never let them out?

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by Enyo

Why? Do you feel that sex offender lists shouldn't exist, or do you feel that we should never let them out?

That's a whole other bag of mess. Legislation of that nature imo is entirely feel-good-please-elect-me in motive. Why a sex-offender registry and not an armed robbery or home invasion registry? It makes no sense whatsoever.

[kyuuei]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

That's a whole other bag of mess. Legislation of that nature imo is entirely feel-good-please-elect-me in motive. Why a sex-offender registry and not an armed robbery or home invasion registry? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Ah but I DO feel those should exist. I wanna know who's a klepto in my neighborhood just as much as I want to know who likes grubby little touches on little boys.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by kyuuei

Ah but I DO feel those should exist. I wanna know who's a klepto in my neighborhood just as much as I want to know who likes grubby little touches on little boys.

I feel the stress of a serious debate coming on. Oh, I do love it so.

That would mean, fundamentally, that there is a one-strike-you're-out policy in leading a sane, normal life. In that reality, people get drunk and fuck up, and they're ruined socially, economically, and therefore probably emotionally--This may make them more of a criminal. I say serve your sentence, and have another go (unless you're an obvious psychotic).

[Enyo]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

That's a whole other bag of mess. Legislation of that nature imo is entirely feel-good-please-elect-me in motive. Why a sex-offender registry and not an armed robbery or home invasion registry? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Sex offenders have a higher rate of recidivism than other violent criminals.