Bigfoot 88
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,027
- Reaction score
- 1,169
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Simple question: Should Nonviolent drug offenders get their voting rights back?
Using that logic then we should be able to ban people the right to freedom of religion, peaceful assembly, free speech, freedom of searches ans seizure without a warrant based on probably cause, the right to not incriminate oneself in a criminal trial and so on.There are many who believe people stupid enough to chose to commit a felony already decided they didn't care about all their constitutional rights.
Using that logic then we should be able to ban people the right to freedom of religion, peaceful assembly, free speech, freedom of searches ans seizure without a warrant based on probably cause, the right to not incriminate oneself in a criminal trial and so on.
Yes, because they shouldn't be felons to begin with.
I say yes. Should of never been taken away in the first place.
All people who have paid their debt to society should get voting rights returned.
All felons should have the full of their rights recognized by the State once again after the full of their punishment period has been completed.
Anyone whom the state has deemed safe enough to be released in the public should have all their constitutional rights reinstated.
In Canada, even those currently in prison are entitled to vote. In Canada, if you're over 18 and a Canadian citizen, you have a fundamental right to vote and you do not lose that franchise. As a result, I could not suggest that American citizens should be treated in a lesser manner.
I used to think the way you do. But I realized that if you actually care about the bill of rights then you would not support stripping the rights of any American who is not incarcerated.I guess if one is hobbled my massive projection, that could be true. While it may be true some crimes classified as felonies should be looked at, at the end of the day, a person makes a conscious decision to commit a crime. Complaining later that they don't like the repercussions proves they still don't get it. My conclusion? :violin
I used to think the way you do. But I realized that if you actually care about the bill of rights then you would not support stripping the rights of any American who is not incarcerated.
All felons should have their rights returned if it is deemed they should return to society.
Punishing people beyond their sentence is stupid and only increases the likelihood they return to crime. The goal should be to reintegrate people back into society.
Not necessarily. This book tackles this subject and does a good job of exposing this commonly held, and incorrect, belief...I guess if one is hobbled my massive projection, that could be true. While it may be true some crimes classified as felonies should be looked at, at the end of the day, a person makes a conscious decision to commit a crime. Complaining later that they don't like the repercussions proves they still don't get it. My conclusion? :violin
Emphasis in bold mine.From the above link:
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.
I used to think the way you do. But I realized that if you actually care about the bill of rights then you would not support stripping the rights of any American who is not incarcerated.
Not necessarily. This book tackles this subject and does a good job of exposing this commonly held, and incorrect, belief...
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent: Harvey Silverglate, Alan M. Dershowitz: 9781594035227: Amazon.com: Books
Emphasis in bold mine.
Simple question: Should Nonviolent drug offenders get their voting rights back?
It isn't a issue about being a bleeding heart.It is about actually adhering to the constitution. If a individual can not be trusted with his or her constitutional rights then that person should not be released from prison until such a time occurs. Because someone bent on doing evil will find a way of committing evil.I realize that to you the constitution is a "living" document but if you want these exceptions then you must go through the amendment process.Well, I suppose if you're running with the projection bit, it follows you would assume something about my feelings towards the Bill of Rights. Laws carry responsibilities. It's undeniable a decision has been made when one commits a felony. Suffering the repercussions from those decisions is the way it goes.
Deciding later it isn't fair that some Constitutional privileges have been sacrificed is just the noise from someone who hasn't accepted that they are the ones to blame for their situation, and not the law.
Bleeding hearts need to take a hike on this one. Enough with the stripping of responsibility for ones life decisions. We have created enough harm to society by allowing that mentality to carry any weight.
Not quite sure where you're going with the "projection" angle. You made the point that people knowingly and consciously break laws, with your conclusion being they deserved no consideration because their law breaking was purposeful and intended. You phrased it as an absolute blanket statement.I guess there are more people who want to join the projection parade. Yes, there are so many laws on the books it's impossible, even for law enforcement, to be fully aware of them. I think we have to push the envelope way outside the building and down the street to attach breaking obscure laws to felonies that result in a debt owed to the public that includes the loss of some Constitutional rights.
I don't subscribe to the thinking that once a convicted felon has served time in jail, paid fines, completed probations, etc., their debt to society has been paid. That's a false claim. That debt includes the loss of some rights. What proponents of a return of these rights are suggesting is that the debt be cut short, and be left with a balance due. This debt to society is part of the line a convicted felon crossed. Crying about it after the fact is like signing in the shower. Who cares.
I'm sure those on a sex offender registry would agree with you. Except the likelihood to return to crime is the reason for the registry.
If sex offenders are able to vote whatever will we do?
It isn't a issue about being a bleeding heart.It is about actually adhering to the constitution. If a individual can not be trusted with his or her constitutional rights then that person should not be released from prison until such a time occurs. Because someone bent on doing evil will find a way of committing evil.I realize that to you the constitution is a "living" document but if you want these exceptions then you must go through the amendment process.
Not quite sure where you're going with the "projection" angle. You made the point that people knowingly and consciously break laws, with your conclusion being they deserved no consideration because their law breaking was purposeful and intended. You phrased it as an absolute blanket statement.
I provided a legitimate and credible source that says, no, people don't always knowingly and purposely break laws. The source I cited documents many instances where people have been fined and/or jailed for unknowingly breaking laws. (I have read about half the book, but never finished it.)
That's not "projection", that's documented fact. Maybe I'm just missing what you mean by "projection". :shrug:
I'm sure those on a sex offender registry would agree with you. Except the likelihood to return to crime is the reason for the registry.
I don't know why felons can't vote in the first place. Nothing in the constitution about this. Felons can run for office, why can't they vote? We have a corporation that bilked medicare out of billions. Clearly a felony. They're still in business and their CEO, Rick Scott, became Governor of Florida.
Registry is there, in theory, for public safety. That's why they have to register with a local cop and inform the neighbors when they move. What does felon voting rights have to do with any of that?
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?