Don't think you've caught me up in some contradiction here. A person who has a compulsion to harm others should be monitored, and as I asked someone earlier, what harm is an ex-felon going to carry out with regards to voting? Beat someone to death with a voting booth? Removing the right to vote for any period of time after the completion of the sentence is arbitrary at best. After all, why remove voting? Why not remove, instead, driving privileges, or the right to marry, the right to deduct expenses for taxes? The right to free speech or freedom of religion?
Why voting?
The other things you mention are rights of the person. Voting is an exercise of civil authority which can rightfully be denied to felons.
First, we're talking about ex-felons, not those currently serving sentences. Second, your post doesn't explain the focus on voting as a secondary punishment in addition to the sentence.
Ok. My support for denial of felon voting rights is not based on punishment, but simply based on that felons are less likely to exercise governmental authority well.
So we shouldn't change the law on potted flowers, but fix the problem by giving back rights to all felons?
Don't think you've caught me up in some contradiction here. A person who has a compulsion to harm others should be monitored, and as I asked someone earlier, what harm is an ex-felon going to carry out with regards to voting? Beat someone to death with a voting booth? Removing the right to vote for any period of time after the completion of the sentence is arbitrary at best. After all, why remove voting? Why not remove, instead, driving privileges, or the right to marry, the right to deduct expenses for taxes? The right to free speech or freedom of religion?
Why voting?
A lot of elements within our criminal justice system stem from a desire by people to create a clear delineation between criminals and regular people. As if it were genetic differences or some other type of fundamental aspect to a person that makes them one or the other. It is a self-aggrandizing delusion that people tell themselves to invoke a false sense of moral superiority. That is why we rush to label someone convicted of a crime as a different class of person. That is why people yell about personal responsibility but ignore the malignancy of poverty and its effects on crime. It is an urge to create an other. Keep in mind, of course, that the vast majority of released felons without their right to vote are non-violent drug offenders. And are poor. And have dark skin. It's all about an other. Stripping people who have served their sentences of the right to fully engage in society just further keeps them as an other. That's all this is really about.
For example...
Please support that assertion with some kind of evidence. Otherwise, you're just proclaiming yourself an intellectual superior to people who have suffered a harsher life than you have. It's just self-aggrandizement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/o...ans-without-a-voice.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.
To be honest I have a lot more sympathy for the close to 60.000.000 innocent bab-
The only reason Holder is opening his corrupt mouth is because he thinks he can bring in Democrat votes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/o...ans-without-a-voice.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.
Because voting has the biggest implications. Who you vote is at a fundamental level, the right to determine laws. Someone who breaks serious laws shouldn't have the right to elect representatives to make the law.
Kentucky could be heading for a historic change this year as it moves closer to abolishing its law banning felons from voting, thanks to a bipartisan effort in the state Capitol and a big assist from Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul.
The state has long had among the most restrictive felon voting rules, thus disenfranchising a high percentage of its voting-age population. Black residents have been disproportionately affected — more than one in five of voting age cannot cast a ballot.
It has the the biggest voting implication...for ex felons. Of course, felons are still free to exercise their right to free speech, which can be argued to have just as much influence as voting itself (unless you want to argue that the $10,000,000,000 spent between 2002-2012 on campaigning by Republicans and Democrats combined was for nothing). And of course they're still free to donate to the party of their choice as well as to super PACS, and they're free to lobby their congressman (over half a billion spent by super PACS on the 2012 election alone, and over $25,000,000,000 by the top industries between 1998 and 2013) all of which can easily be said to be a lot more influential. Of course, in reality, most ex felons don't get a lot of air time, they're not particularly well known for their enormous campaign contributions, and most don't get a whole lot of face time with their congressman, but gee, whaddya know, they still have a vote. Unless you can take that away too.
Point is, we're not stupid. It's a transparent strategy to remove the one ability they have to tangibly exercise a voice in their community and remove a political undesirable.
How Much Much Are Super PACs Spending? - The Wall Street Journal
Lobbying Spending Database | OpenSecrets
Campaign Spending Habits: Democrats v. Republicans - OpenSecrets Blog
Way to ignore the part where ex felons in nearly every state eventually can regain their right to vote.
Rambling aside, you haven't made any good argument why those who break the law should be able to make the laws. I've given you a very good reason why they shouldn't,
they've broken their contract with society (john Locke) and need to show they can reintegrate with society before they gain back rights such as voting.
Now you may ask why only voting, and I'd respond that I'd favor taking away other rights too if they weren't unconstitutional.
However taking away voting rights for felons has been upheld as constitutional several times.
Wrongly, I believe (although you could probably guess that). It makes a mockery of the concept of no taxation without representation.
In that I've actually seen some (emphasis on some, by no means is "some" all or even "most") left wing types sincerely argue that currently serving military service members should not be allowed to vote, I find this thread a little funny. I suppose "don't commit a felony offense if you don't want to suffer the long term consequences of being a convicted felon" is not an obvious solution for some reason?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?