my thought is, yes while a person may be a hardened criminal and its not always easy for a parole board to tell the difference or anything like that. If we want people to not return to prison in as high a rate, then give them a normal shot at a normal life after prison. Besides, they did their crime, they paid the time. When I punish my kids, when its over, i never mention it again and resume normal relations. This allows people to learn from their mistakes.
So the Constitution is invalid if it doesn't agree with you?
You're still not getting it. There is no appending in the argument you're responding to. Losing the vote is part of the sentence.
Certainly you can see the problem with that considering certain crimes? Ever held a bonded position? Imagine how quickly a bonding company would go out of business if all ex-felons records came back clean. How about sex crimes, you willing to hire teachers that just finished a sentence for child rape?
my thought is, yes while a person may be a hardened criminal and its not always easy for a parole board to tell the difference or anything like that. If we want people to not return to prison in as high a rate, then give them a normal shot at a normal life after prison. Besides, they did their crime, they paid the time. When I punish my kids, when its over, i never mention it again and resume normal relations. This allows people to learn from their mistakes.
Child rape is a special case tending to have an associated disorder, so in that case no, but such a person should be in an institution anyway, most of the time.
bonding, I am on the fence.
Cpwill attempted to make the argument that voting was not a right, when the 15th amendment clearly states that neither the Federal nor State can prohibit it. Period.
SECTION 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
The question is, why append further punishments to the sentence? Is the sentence the sentence or not?
Are you a Constitutional scholar? Or just determined to say your opinion is incontrovertible? Whichever it is? You're wrong. The 14th Amendment clearly states that government has a right to abridge voting. And, of course, that's exactly what SCOTUS determined. Why you are denying reality is beyond me, Cardinal. I thought we were all here to teach when we're right and learn when we're wrong....?
The most important statistical factors in that vote were church attendance, age and political leaning. Race was actually one of those lowest statistically important factors in the prop 8 vote.
How about folks with multiple convictions for say, embezzlement and fraud, do you want them working at your bank or as your accountant?
And why are you determined to ignore the 15th amendment?
Someone in Wisconsin getting caught in possession of any amount of marijuana a second time becomes permanently ineligible to vote. That's after the 3.5 years in jail. First offense cultivation of four plants or more is also a felony. Do you think this is just?
Two can play that game. Does anyone think that conservatives aren't coming to the defense of voter disenfranchisement because of their belief that it ultimately helps the Republican party?
Or would you like to stick to the defensibility of the laws themselves?
I was actually talking about money and activism prior to the vote.
Mormons and black churches played a big role.
if its shown that they cannot live in adult society then they shouldnt be outside prison in the first place
Someone in Wisconsin getting caught in possession of any amount of marijuana a second time becomes permanently ineligible to vote. That's after the 3.5 years in jail. First offense cultivation of four plants or more is also a felony. Do you think this is just?
Perhaps, but it doesn't work like that at all. You serve your time and you get out. Fitness has nothing to do with the process, other than consideration for parole or early release.
So you're suggesting the liberal voters who dominate California are easily swayed by bright lights and slick messages?
I suppose that rather explains the current state of politics and the economy in California.
My reply was to the idea that black and latino felons would all vote Democrat.
Black and latino non felons voted to ban gay marriage.
I dont think being a felon changes fundamental ideologies.
And simple observation strongly suggests that about 23% of Americans of all stripes are totally swayed by bright lights and slick messages.
Republicans tend to also be tougher on crime, and more likely to argue that increasing democracy by spreading power to those most likely to be irresponsible with its exercise is harmful to good governance. However, yes, probably the realization that felons would likely overwhelmingly vote Democrat is part of the mix as well. So are you willing to admit that this is AG Holders' motivation, then? Do you think that having an Attorney General who seeks to use the power of his office to enhance the power of his political party - the idea that law enforcement should be partisan in nature - is a good thing, or a bad thing?
I'm fine with that. These laws are both well within the States' powers, and are examples of responsible governance, to boot.
Gotcha.
BTW, only 23%?. Must be a higher number.
I say 23% for the Illuminati Trilogy reference.
But every time a study comes out counting people who believe complete nonsense, any ideology, its somewhere between 20-25%.
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?