This guy Bill sounds like he got a lot of crazy ideas.

strangeguitar: This guy Bill sounds like he got a lot of crazy ideas.

Maybe if he would stop sitting on capitol hill, he could get something done

btw. which party do you think opposes this bill? do you think maybe its the one that wants to keep the poor from voting as much as they can?

*checks article*

yep.

So, once people have paid their debt to society, they can have their voting privileges back?
What about their right to own firearms, does that get infringed on?
What if they were convicted of a violent felony?
What if they had a lifelong record of violence?

Well, punk, are you for gun control or not?
/Let's heat this discussion right on up.

holiday_inn_in_cambodia: btw. which party do you think opposes this bill? do you think maybe its the one that wants to keep the poor from voting as much as they can?

*checks article*

yep.

I wonder if rich people get convicted of felonies as often as poor people, per capita?
If only there was a rich person, perhaps a celebrity, we could look in on...

I think we should get rid of the ban on felon voting for no other reason than it fails a cost-benefit analysis. Compiling a list of all convicted felons is simply impossible to do with acceptable accuracy. Innocent names get put on the list, and innocent people get turned away for having similar names. I simply don't see how turning away any number of qualified voters- and any felon ban will involve wrongfully turning away people who are allowed to vote- is justified by the non-existent gain to be had to society by stopping a group of people from voting who don't show up in large numbers anyway. We saw this in Florida 2000, where the compiled list of "felons" was an order of magnitude larger than the actual number of Florida felons.

Besides, we're all unconvicted felons in this country anyway. Make it so that 1% of the US adult population isn't in prison, and where it takes an actual serious crime against others to get labeled a "felon", and I might be more sympathetic to the idea that felons have had their chance and it's their fault they committed a crime.

I LOLed at headline.

NPR reported a chilling statistic during the 2008 primaries. One in seven males in the greater Atlanta area were ineligible to vote due to felony convictions. While I understand (though not necessarily condone) the concept of limited rights for felons, is it really in the best interests of the public if a large portion of the populace can so easily be disenfranchised?

Not only do I favor prohibiting felons from voting, but I also believe we should license voting, restricting it only to "citizens" who have passed a basic civics competency exam.

holiday_inn_in_cambodia: btw. which party do you think opposes this bill? do you think maybe its the one that wants to keep the poor from voting as much as they can?

*checks article*

yep.

Are you suggesting the democratic party needs more help in WA state?

Considering what an OBSCENE percentage of us are actually in prison or going to be in prison...

Perhaps they do deserve to be represented.

/higher percentage of our people in prison than Soviet Union at height of it's oppression. yada, yada...

UNC_Samurai: is it really in the best interests of the public if a large portion of the populace can so easily be disenfranchised?

Not to sound too redundant to my last post, but YES. Perhaps we can create an incentive against crime wherein VOTING is the reward, rather than allow the criminally-inclined the opportunity to participate anyway, because we feel sorry for them.

I'd say once you've done your time, you should be allowed to vote.

/And by done your time, I mean all parole period as well.

So you mean a felon could buy a vote?

Crown_of_Shoes: UNC_Samurai: is it really in the best interests of the public if a large portion of the populace can so easily be disenfranchised?

Not to sound too redundant to my last post, but YES. Perhaps we can create an incentive against crime wherein VOTING is the reward, rather than allow the criminally-inclined the opportunity to participate anyway, because we feel sorry for them.

Wow..that is just a *HUGE* reward. I'm sure that absolutely impacts crime rates.

/also, please keep in mind.. YOU are a criminal. So am I. All it would take is an aggressive prosecutor and some higher visibility into your life to prove it. You *are* a felon (at least according to overwhelming odds based upon our unbelievably enormous code of laws) Yah, there's a lot of truly bad people out there, but withholding representation just because of a label alone is stupid..especially when technically we all probably share that label.

At first I was enraged because this sounded like a liberal plot, but then I remembered that a lot of schemes to pursue fairness in the sphere of civil rights sound like liberal plots, so I was less concerned.

Hmmm, since the prohibitive factor is monetary, then a class issue is created. Why should a rich mobster that can pay their fine off, get their voting rights back before a petty thief?

smeegle: Hmmm, since the prohibitive factor is monetary, then a class issue is created. Why should a rich mobster that can pay their fine off, get their voting rights back before a petty thief?

You realist the restitution required by the courts are not equal between petty theft and racketeering right?

Criminals can vote in Canada; our Supreme Court found it unconstitutional that they weren't allowed to vote a few elections back. Nobody actually cares except for a few hardcore right-wingers. I don't see any reason why someone who has committed a crime should be stripped of voting rights - even if their crime was elections fraud! If they are citizens, they should vote, no excuses. That's a fundamental part of democracy. We can strip freedom of movement from people because they pose a danger to the public. There is no reason why their votes should not count.

I remember at least once instance of Conservatives chortling like crazy here in Canada when some of the prisons were polled in 2004 and the inmates were found to be Liberal supporters. This was, of course, during the aftermath of the sponsorship scandal, when the Conservatives were trying to paint all Liberals as crooks, and promote their more stringent law and order platform. Basically every time journalists go to a jail and interview voting inmates it's a good day for the Conservative campaign.

All citizens should be able to vote. Period. No Restrictions. Not Convictions. Not Age. Not location. Everyone. It's not that hard.

/Judges should not be elected. Period.

fritton: Crown_of_Shoes: UNC_Samurai: is it really in the best interests of the public if a large portion of the populace can so easily be disenfranchised?

Not to sound too redundant to my last post, but YES. Perhaps we can create an incentive against crime wherein VOTING is the reward, rather than allow the criminally-inclined the opportunity to participate anyway, because we feel sorry for them.

Wow..that is just a *HUGE* reward. I'm sure that absolutely impacts crime rates.

/also, please keep in mind.. YOU are a criminal. So am I. All it would take is an aggressive prosecutor and some higher visibility into your life to prove it. You *are* a felon (at least according to overwhelming odds based upon our unbelievably enormous code of laws) Yah, there's a lot of truly bad people out there, but withholding representation just because of a label alone is stupid..especially when technically we all probably share that label.

Your points:

1. Voting isn't that interesting or incentive-driven.

2. We are all potential convicts based on over-application of law.

Both of these points are valid problems with our society but are NOT being addressed by allowing felons the right to vote.

There are enough convicts to swing an election. There is no way in hell we should let them vote.

/Murder? Armed Robbery? Drug Possession? ALL LEGAL NOW, yay!!!

rohar: smeegle: Hmmm, since the prohibitive factor is monetary, then a class issue is created. Why should a rich mobster that can pay their fine off, get their voting rights back before a petty thief?

You realist the restitution required by the courts are not equal between petty theft and racketeering right?

I wasn't defining any particular crime or prison sentence.I was pointing out that economic fluidity is not a proper bench mark to determine one's right to vote. It become a special right for a special class of people over another special class of people.

rohar: smeegle: Hmmm, since the prohibitive factor is monetary, then a class issue is created. Why should a rich mobster that can pay their fine off, get their voting rights back before a petty thief?

You realist the restitution required by the courts are not equal between petty theft and racketeering right?

Damn, "realise" not "realist"

Also, petty theft is a misdemeanor here in WA, not sure what draconian state you're in. Nice strawman though.

rohar: rohar: smeegle: Hmmm, since the prohibitive factor is monetary, then a class issue is created. Why should a rich mobster that can pay their fine off, get their voting rights back before a petty thief?

You realist the restitution required by the courts are not equal between petty theft and racketeering right?

Damn, "realise" not "realist"

Also, petty theft is a misdemeanor here in WA, not sure what draconian state you're in. Nice strawman though.

Strawman? Jesus christ dude, I'm talking about someone with financial leverage having more rights then one with no money.

RandomExcess: /Murder?

Yes, them felons would get an amendment to the US Constitution passed allowing murder, I can see it now.

RandomExcess: Armed Robbery?

Sure, no problem. That should pass the majority vote, hell, the majority are Democrats now and we all know they love to steal our money.

RandomExcess: Drug Possession? ALL LEGAL NOW, yay!!!

Never should have been illegal in the first place.
Maybe we wouldn't have so many felons if it wasn't.

Sense, you make none.
And you disgrace the Random family name.

smeegle: rohar: rohar: smeegle: Hmmm, since the prohibitive factor is monetary, then a class issue is created. Why should a rich mobster that can pay their fine off, get their voting rights back before a petty thief?

You realist the restitution required by the courts are not equal between petty theft and racketeering right?

Damn, "realise" not "realist"

Also, petty theft is a misdemeanor here in WA, not sure what draconian state you're in. Nice strawman though.

Strawman? Jesus christ dude, I'm talking about someone with financial leverage having more rights then one with no money.

Gosh, maybe you should have said that then rather than use an impossible hypothetical. To deal with your hypothetical, the petty theft will have less problem than the rich gangster as you don't loose voting rights in WA for petty theft, you probably will for racketeering. Worse, when sentence is delivered, financial ability can be taken under consideration when assigning restitution.

Now that we're done with your strawman, could you cite an actual instance in WA that explains your fears?

RandomExcess: There are enough convicts to swing an election. There is no way in hell we should let them vote.

/Murder? Armed Robbery? Drug Possession? ALL LEGAL NOW, yay!!!

If the judicial system has determined they have paid their debt to society and are capable of re-entering the community, then why do we insist on removing their most basic right as a citizen? Taking away their right to gun possession makes sense in some cases, because they have abused that right, but unless their felony specifically has to do with voter fraud, what the hell does voting have to do with committing a felony?

Also, you do realize that your argument is the intellectual equivalent of "Black people can vote? Oh great! Now the Wu-Tang generals will be the Joint Chiefs of Staff!" don't you?

rohar: Now that we're done with your strawman, could you cite an actual instance in WA that explains your fears?

Beverly DuBois of Chattaroy, who was convicted on a marijuana charge in 2002. The $10 per month she has been paying since her release in 2003 doesn't cover the interest, and she said her $1,600 fine has increased to nearly $2,000.

Do you think it's okay for a situation to exist where money prevents a person from voting?

I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. If you paid your debt to society, you should have your voting rights reinstated. The vast majority of them aren't going to vote anyway and losing your right to vote is hardly a deterrent against committing crimes.

Crown_of_Shoes: fritton: Crown_of_Shoes: UNC_Samurai: is it really in the best interests of the public if a large portion of the populace can so easily be disenfranchised?

Not to sound too redundant to my last post, but YES. Perhaps we can create an incentive against crime wherein VOTING is the reward, rather than allow the criminally-inclined the opportunity to participate anyway, because we feel sorry for them.

Wow..that is just a *HUGE* reward. I'm sure that absolutely impacts crime rates.

/also, please keep in mind.. YOU are a criminal. So am I. All it would take is an aggressive prosecutor and some higher visibility into your life to prove it. You *are* a felon (at least according to overwhelming odds based upon our unbelievably enormous code of laws) Yah, there's a lot of truly bad people out there, but withholding representation just because of a label alone is stupid..especially when technically we all probably share that label.

Your points:

1. Voting isn't that interesting or incentive-driven.

2. We are all potential convicts based on over-application of law.

Both of these points are valid problems with our society but are NOT being addressed by allowing felons the right to vote.

You're absolutely right!! and by the way you have joined my favorites list for being one of the rare people on fark who can make a point without hyperbole.

I would counter however, by saying that regardless of whether or not those issues would be *fixed* by allowing felons to vote, they are either not pertinent reasons for continuing to BAN felons from voting..such as the voting as an incentive idea (which doesn't work in my opinion) and since we are all technically criminals anyhow, in one way or another, in some state or another, disallowing people to representation based upon that label is not a good enough reason.

I guess in summary: No, allowing felons to vote won't fix our problem with over criminalizing our populace, but it *will* fix a problem with the idea that we have an enormous percentage of our people that have no representation. Especially when the label we affix to them can be used on each of the rest of us in one way or the other.

smeegle: rohar: Now that we're done with your strawman, could you cite an actual instance in WA that explains your fears?

Beverly DuBois of Chattaroy, who was convicted on a marijuana charge in 2002. The $10 per month she has been paying since her release in 2003 doesn't cover the interest, and she said her $1,600 fine has increased to nearly $2,000.

Do you think it's okay for a situation to exist where money prevents a person from voting?

That's half of your original argument, now where's the equivelant of a racketeer that got off easy?

Umm, how about this simple little idea...

Once you have completed your jail sentence and probation time, your slate is wiped clean. You get your voting rights back, you don't have to check in with the state, and you don't have to tell your employer that you were arrested.

If your boss really wants to know if you're a former criminal, they can go do the background check.

If you really are such a threat to society that you need to let them know where you live and/or have living restrictions placed upon you, then you never should have been released from jail. You should have been deemed mentally unsafe and institutionalized.

If you committed a non-violent crime, you should still be able to purchase a gun.

The only exception I could see to that rule would be for people who used a firearm to commit a crime. Maybe a ten year restriction after release. But then, what about people who used a baseball bat to commit a crime? Should they be banned from owning or operating a bat for ten years? It is both a logical and illogical idea all at the same time.


/do the crime, pay the time
//once your debit is over, you should be free and clear

smeegle:
Do you think it's okay for a situation to exist where money prevents a person from voting?

This actually brings up a good point. How many of those felony charges would have been acquitted or dropped down to misdemeanor charges if they had the money for a good lawyer as opposed to what may have been a lesser skilled public defender?

Is it ok to restrict a person from voting forever because they didn't have enough money when they were charged with a crime?

Not Surprised.

They count prisons in the census when dealing with redrawing district lines for congressmen.


Meh.

rohar: smeegle: rohar: Now that we're done with your strawman, could you cite an actual instance in WA that explains your fears?

Beverly DuBois of Chattaroy, who was convicted on a marijuana charge in 2002. The $10 per month she has been paying since her release in 2003 doesn't cover the interest, and she said her $1,600 fine has increased to nearly $2,000.

Do you think it's okay for a situation to exist where money prevents a person from voting?

That's half of your original argument, now where's the equivelant of a racketeer that got off easy?

I never said anything about racketeering. You did. I could use another example. Two people commit the same crime. They do their time. One has the money available to pay their fine. That person gets to vote. The other person does not have the money to pay off the fine so, they don't get to vote.
Do you think the right to vote should be determined this way?

fritton: Is it ok to restrict a person from voting forever because they didn't have enough money when they were charged with a crime?

No I don't think it is. We live in somewhat of a class based society as it is. Why reinforce that with voting rights based on economics?

smeegle: rohar: smeegle: rohar: Now that we're done with your strawman, could you cite an actual instance in WA that explains your fears?

Beverly DuBois of Chattaroy, who was convicted on a marijuana charge in 2002. The $10 per month she has been paying since her release in 2003 doesn't cover the interest, and she said her $1,600 fine has increased to nearly $2,000.

Do you think it's okay for a situation to exist where money prevents a person from voting?

That's half of your original argument, now where's the equivelant of a racketeer that got off easy?

I never said anything about racketeering. You did. I could use another example. Two people commit the same crime. They do their time. One has the money available to pay their fine. That person gets to vote. The other person does not have the money to pay off the fine so, they don't get to vote.
Do you think the right to vote should be determined this way?

You brought up the idea of a rich mobster vs. a petty theif. What do you think mobsters get convicted of?

Yes, again, you bring up a hypothetical. Now you want to try and find an example?

rohar: You brought up the idea of a rich mobster vs. a petty theif. What do you think mobsters get convicted of?

Yes, again, you bring up a hypothetical. Now you want to try and find an example?

You made the assumption about the crime committed. I was talking about voting rights based on economics. I guess you are too stupid to comprehend the point or even answer my questions?

They should never be stripped of their right to vote. Once they've paid their "debt" to society, that should be it. America keeps it's criminals criminals by doing things like this. Hell, if you have to check a box that says "I've been convicted of a felony." Who the fark is gonna hire you other than some dirt cheap paying job who may get tax benefits for hiring ex-cons?

The End is Near

It's obvious he's enjoying being a dick rather than engaging about the real issue. Typical.

smeegle: rohar: You brought up the idea of a rich mobster vs. a petty theif. What do you think mobsters get convicted of?

Yes, again, you bring up a hypothetical. Now you want to try and find an example?

You made the assumption about the crime committed. I was talking about voting rights based on economics. I guess you are too stupid to comprehend the point or even answer my questions?

I've made no assumptions of any crimes as yet in this thread. I've just not engaged hypothetical crimes as that would require huge assumptions. So far, you've brought up one of my close neighbors, and I've not weighed in on her case as I was waiting for you to come up with an example of the other side of your strawman. If we'd like to leave that argument alone and discuss this single case in isolation, I'm up for that too.

rohar: smeegle: rohar: You brought up the idea of a rich mobster vs. a petty theif. What do you think mobsters get convicted of?

Yes, again, you bring up a hypothetical. Now you want to try and find an example?

You made the assumption about the crime committed. I was talking about voting rights based on economics. I guess you are too stupid to comprehend the point or even answer my questions?

I've made no assumptions of any crimes as yet in this thread. I've just not engaged hypothetical crimes as that would require huge assumptions. So far, you've brought up one of my close neighbors, and I've not weighed in on her case as I was waiting for you to come up with an example of the other side of your strawman. If we'd like to leave that argument alone and discuss this single case in isolation, I'm up for that too.

How about answering my questions.

The End is Near: When you are interested in the truth, you will find it.

rohar is only interested in chopping me to pieces with his debating prowess. As usual.

smeegle: rohar: smeegle: rohar: You brought up the idea of a rich mobster vs. a petty theif. What do you think mobsters get convicted of?

Yes, again, you bring up a hypothetical. Now you want to try and find an example?

You made the assumption about the crime committed. I was talking about voting rights based on economics. I guess you are too stupid to comprehend the point or even answer my questions?

I've made no assumptions of any crimes as yet in this thread. I've just not engaged hypothetical crimes as that would require huge assumptions. So far, you've brought up one of my close neighbors, and I've not weighed in on her case as I was waiting for you to come up with an example of the other side of your strawman. If we'd like to leave that argument alone and discuss this single case in isolation, I'm up for that too.

How about answering my questions.

Why should a rich mobster that can pay their fine off, get their voting rights back before a petty thief.
I've covered this, petty theft doesn't qualify for revoking voting in this state.

Strawman?
Yup, based on hypotheticals that I'm guessing cannot be equated to real cases in WA.

Do you think it's okay for a situation to exist where money prevents a person from voting?
Nope, but I'm ok that felonies keep people from voting. Not solidly behind the idea, but ok with it.

Do you think the right to vote should be determined this way?
I have yet to see any proof that this is occuring. Any point that I would make would be an assumption.

Did I miss any?

Can you find me an example of your strawman now?

Lost Thought 00: All citizens should be able to vote. Period. No Restrictions. Not Convictions. Not Age. Not location. Everyone. It's not that hard.

you really want, say, 5 year olds to vote in everything from dog-catcher to president or school bond measures to sin taxes?

monkeyrat: you really want, say, 5 year olds to vote in everything from dog-catcher to president or school bond measures to sin taxes?

Collectively the voting public makes a 5-year-old look like a rational, competent adult.

rohar

Can you find me an example of your strawman now?

It's perfectly acceptable to introduce a plausible hypothetical situation to present an idea. In addition, if her situation exists,then it is highly likely another person who committed a similar crime was able to pay off their fine faster. The likely hood of that supports the plausibility of the hypothetical situation. Therefore, I did not need to waste time on an the obvious.

smeegle: rohar

Can you find me an example of your strawman now?

It's perfectly acceptable to introduce a plausible hypothetical situation to present an idea. In addition, if her situation exists,then it is highly likely another person who committed a similar crime was able to pay off their fine faster. The likely hood of that supports the plausibility of the hypothetical situation. Therefore, I did not need to waste time on an the obvious.

By her, I'm assuming the case you brought up in Chatteroy. She wasn't a petty theif. 50-70 lbs of marijuana casues a lot of crime in our neighborhood. Last year, I managed to find almost $2500 worth of damage to my car because someone was steeling electronics. He was caught and responded to the police that he was selling stolen electronics to fund his drug adiction and that's just one instance. You'll excuse me if I don't get all teared up because she's not swimming in money like she was before she got caught.

She did the crime, was handed a just and constitutional sentence. Once she fulfills her sentence she should see no further issues.

Churchill2004: Collectively the voting public makes a 5-year-old look like a rational, competent adult.

i used a 5 year old because my girlfriend has a 5 year old.

you have NO idea how much you comment scares the monkeys in my pants. ;-)