If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   With all this talk about Voter ID laws and racism, it's easy to overlook a huge mass of forgotten voters: convicted felons   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 294
    More: Interesting, id law, voter ID, Ryan J. Reilly, disfranchisements, Jim Crow, elections in 2012  
•       •       •

2805 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



294 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-30 01:39:42 PM  
Forgot_my_password_again: I encourage you to buy it for me

Last time I checked, there are these places called "public libraries," where you can borrow and read a book for free.
 
2012-04-30 01:40:00 PM  
If I'm wrong, nothing happens! We'll enjoy it! But if I'm *right*, and we make this work... Lenny, you will have enrolled millions of registered Democrat voters.


www.anomalousmaterial.com


/nttawwt
 
2012-04-30 01:40:12 PM  
Might as well say it here, whoever put that picture of Sophia Vergara as the #1 pic in the sidebar... bless you.
 
2012-04-30 01:40:14 PM  

deadcrickets: Nice to know that you feel, in your very unChristian way, that we should be exactly like them.


I think you'll find that both of us agree with you that voter disenfranchisement is bad.
 
2012-04-30 01:42:02 PM  
Bill Maher put it best. To paraphrase: people didn't lock their doors in the 1950s because we didn't disenfranchise so those who, today, are breaking into your house in order to survive.
 
2012-04-30 01:43:01 PM  
No tears for convicts is what I say.

My bike was stolen once, so I really wouldn't care if convicts were boiled alive en masse. Losing the right to vote is penny-ante bullshiat IMHO. Criminals should all be executed.
 
2012-04-30 01:45:26 PM  

Primum: No tears for convicts is what I say.

My bike was stolen once, so I really wouldn't care if convicts were boiled alive en masse. Losing the right to vote is penny-ante bullshiat IMHO. Criminals should all be executed.


2/10
 
2012-04-30 01:45:45 PM  
Frankly, convicts are the only people that actually know how the justice system works. They're especially aware of weather or not the D.A. is crooked or not.

Let them vote.

Keep them in jail, of course, but let them vote.
 
2012-04-30 01:45:57 PM  

Primum: No tears for convicts is what I say.

My bike was stolen once, so I really wouldn't care if convicts were boiled alive en masse. Losing the right to vote is penny-ante bullshiat IMHO. Criminals should all be executed.


1/10
 
2012-04-30 01:46:51 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: bobbette: Weapon ownership and the risk of a person committing a violent crime is entirely different from political participation. One is directly related to the commission of the original crime and the heightened risk of re-offending that results from incarceration. Abrogating that right therefore has a justification because of a compelling public interest.

There is no reasonable rationale for stripping somebody's right to vote simply because they've been convicted of a felony. You wouldn't strip their right to free speech or freedom of religion in these cases, either, for example.

Everything you said makes 100% sense and I agree with it.

The "problem" is, not letting former felons have guns violates the 2nd Amendment. I was referring the fact that the 2nd Amendment is right there, clear as day and that gets violated so I can see how it's possible that (and clearly don't agree with) felons not having their right to vote reinstated, automatically.


There is no Second Amendment Bar to restricting convicted felons gun ownership.

That liberty has been removed from them with due process of law. The fact that the restriction is not of the same duration as their incarceration is irrelevant. Essentially when they are convicted they are being sentences to being incarcerated for "X" number of years and to lose the liberty to carry a gun (or vote) for life.

Now. I'm not saying that a life ban on voting or carrying a gun is a wise form of sentencing. It is, however, Constitutional.
 
2012-04-30 01:46:59 PM  

James!: Karac: James!: I think voter disenfranchisement made more sense when the voter pool was limited to just white land owning males. If you have a community with on 20 or so eligible voter pulling one or two out due to criminal history could make a real difference. Now that any citizen over 18 can vote I don't think bringing felons in is really going to change much.

A million votes lost to criminal history here, a million votes lost to voter ID laws there, and pretty soon you're talking about real elections.

Right, my point it that felon disenfranchisement doesn't really have a purpose any more.


It absolutely serves a purpose. Look at who stands to make money (prison industry, law enforcement, etc) by keeping people excluded from society and then you will understand why felons are disenfranchised. Doesn't mean it is right, but it is true.

Hell I think they should have the right to vote while in jail, especially when the laws being passed affect them. Like pols voting to privatize the prison industry.

If you ever needed something to be more disgusted at the private prison industry read this
 
2012-04-30 01:47:00 PM  

SuperTramp: Forgot_my_password_again: I encourage you to buy it for me

Last time I checked, there are these places called "public libraries," where you can borrow and read a book for free.


Socialism! Your stealing our IP!!
 
2012-04-30 01:47:22 PM  
Primum
No tears for convicts is what I say.

My bike was stolen once, so I really wouldn't care if convicts were boiled alive en masse. Losing the right to vote is penny-ante bullshiat IMHO. Criminals should all be executed.


fraction/10
 
2012-04-30 01:49:31 PM  

deadcrickets: Karac: James!: I think voter disenfranchisement made more sense when the voter pool was limited to just white land owning males. If you have a community with on 20 or so eligible voter pulling one or two out due to criminal history could make a real difference. Now that any citizen over 18 can vote I don't think bringing felons in is really going to change much.

A million votes lost to criminal history here, a million votes lost to voter ID laws there, and pretty soon you're talking about real elections.

There are a lot of countries that have corruption and slanted elections. Many countries over time that have attempted to keep whole groups of people from participating in politics that we have fought. Nice to know that you feel, in your very unChristian way, that we should be exactly like them.


Hey - I completely disagree with locking people out of the voting booth because they don't have the appropriate ID or because they were a stupid kid twenty years ago. I was just pointing out to James! why some politicians are never going to change the laws because felony disenfranchisement serves their purposes.
 
2012-04-30 01:50:23 PM  
I can't wait for j walking to become a felony. You gain some prison labour and lose a nuisance boter. Go disenfranchisement!
 
2012-04-30 01:50:24 PM  

SuperTramp: Last time I checked, there are these places called "public libraries," where you can borrow and read a book for free.


gas money.
 
2012-04-30 01:55:59 PM  
Felons deserve more than what they got. Losing the right to vote is the least they should shut their stupid pie-holes about.

They're out of prison and should be thankful for that for the rest of their lives.
 
2012-04-30 01:57:05 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: I can't wait for j walking to become a felony. You gain some prison labour and lose a nuisance boter. Go disenfranchisement!


1) gerrymandering
2) disenfranchisement
3) unlimited Superpacs

Ya, you guys are pretty much farked.
 
2012-04-30 02:02:56 PM  

VRaptor117: Someone who breaks the law and getting convicted proves that they have extraordinarily poor judgement. Why should we let them sort out and pick government representatives? The collective intelligence of the voting pool doesn't need to be dragged down any further.


I agree. Your voting card, please.
 
2012-04-30 02:04:10 PM  

Mugato: There's no legitimate reason in the world why felons who did their time shouldn't be allowed to vote.


Bbbbbbut, they're ex-convicts. They might vote for someone that supports reducing prison sentences and focusing on rehabilitation instead of re-incarceration.

Oogaa booga!
 
2012-04-30 02:05:31 PM  

Teresaol31: Unfortunately, our punitive society will never, ever choose to forgive and forget like this, and petty felons will continue to be treated like they can not be rehabilitated, because we have no intention of rehabilitating them.


Is it a matter of forgive/forget, or the matter that there's a profit to be made by farking someone else?

Still, 100% agreed on the unwillingness to rehabilitate.
 
2012-04-30 02:09:02 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: VRaptor117: Someone who breaks the law and getting convicted proves that they have extraordinarily poor judgement. Why should we let them sort out and pick government representatives? The collective intelligence of the voting pool doesn't need to be dragged down any further.

I agree. Your voting card, please.


Don't be a grammar vote-disenfranchiser!
 
2012-04-30 02:11:01 PM  

bobbette: Guidette Frankentits: But I do have to play devils advocate here. The 2nd amendment is a fundamental right to our country, yet we don't let those who have served their time have guns.

Weapon ownership and the risk of a person committing a violent crime is entirely different from political participation. One is directly related to the commission of the original crime and the heightened risk of re-offending that results from incarceration. Abrogating that right therefore has a justification because of a compelling public interest.


Problem is, the category of 'felon' is different than the category of 'violent criminal who used a firearm'. And if we equally apply this basis - that irresponsible use of a freedom allows the government to restrict that freedom - then, say, people responsible for speech-related offenses (incitement to riot, for example) could be restricted in their freedom of speech. People responsible for property crime could have their right to own property restricted, people responsible for perjury could have their right to not self-incriminate taken away, etc.

It's silly to say that pre-crime persecution is justified in the name of the public interest.
 
2012-04-30 02:11:44 PM  

Primum: No tears for convicts is what I say.

My bike was stolen once, so I really wouldn't care if convicts were boiled alive en masse. Losing the right to vote is penny-ante bullshiat IMHO. Criminals should all be executed.


0.003/10 I almost favorited you out of pity for that one.
 
2012-04-30 02:16:32 PM  

jagabaya: James!: It's not like it's much of a deterrent anyway.

There are no deterrents, there is no rehabilitation. The US does not work that way. There is only vengeance and punishment.


Exactly this. People were all for extra harsh sentencing like the 3 strikes law here in California because of "deterrence." If criminals knew they were going to get caught and knew they were going to get extra years, they wouldn't do those crimes. But guess what? Criminals don't think they're going to get caught, and are obviously only thinking about the current situation over long term planning.

Deterrence is only useful if you have a situation where you can't catch everyone, due to monitoring costs, but are insured to catch those that you do monitor. The punishment must be punitive and severe, and highly publicized.

An excellent example is tax returns. The IRS can't audit every single return, so they use fear and well known soul crushing audits to insure people stay in line. Most people pay parking meters, even for short times, because "it's not worth it for a ticket." Carpool lane violations also operate under these principles.


I think we completely underestimate how punitive our sentencing is, especially with drug crime. I'm all for high sentencing for dangerous individuals, that's the one place where prisons make sense, but there's a large subsection of prisoners that are nothing more than inglorified rule breakers.
 
2012-04-30 02:19:16 PM  
War on voters. Haaaa. TPM is too funny sometimes.
 
2012-04-30 02:20:09 PM  

Esc7: I think we completely underestimate how punitive our sentencing is, especially with drug crime.


One of the many, many problems with the war on drugs.
 
2012-04-30 02:27:34 PM  

Esc7: Deterrence is only useful if you have a situation where you can't catch everyone, due to monitoring costs, but are insured to catch those that you do monitor. The punishment must be punitive and severe, and highly publicized.


What I remember from a semester as a Crim major is that deterrence haz 2 flavors:
-general deterrent, which is what you were talking about, and
-specific deterrent.

"Specific deterrent" refers to the idea that punishing someone makes them less likely to commit a crime - it deters THEM from committing ANOTHER crime, as opposed to the general, where fear of the punishment is supposed to motivate good behavior generally.

The death penalty, for example, is 100% effective as a specific deterrent. Less so as a general deterrent - which feeds some hard science that crime spikes after an execution.
 
2012-04-30 02:29:38 PM  

sprawl15: And if we equally apply this basis - that irresponsible use of a freedom allows the government to restrict that freedom - then, say, people responsible for speech-related offenses (incitement to riot, for example) could be restricted in their freedom of speech


Facepalm. That's nonsensical. Why would we "equally apply this basis"? We're talking about entirely different types of rights and potential harms.

Debates on limits to the right to free speech are conducted on very different grounds.
 
2012-04-30 02:30:00 PM  

Codenamechaz: There probably should be a process that would allow them to vote again, like they have in Florida (At least I think they still have it. Could have sworn Gov Luthor changed something with it). But in doing so it would have to show they're ready to be a normal part of society again.


No. They pay their fine, go to jail, or perform whatever court ordered punishment is due, and they are free again.


Nobody needs to live up to your standard. If they follow the rule of law, and there are no outstanding debts to society, you are free to vote.


Totalitarian opinions such as your can go fark themselves.
 
2012-04-30 02:35:39 PM  

downstairs: Sheeeesh. Time served is time served. The end. You've paid your debt to society, you're a completely free person now.

I can see *incarcerated* people not being allowed to vote. Most of your freedoms have been taken away for that time period. That's the point of prison. But once you're out- you're free. The end.


You're never, ever, ever free. Never. Convicted felon? You better open your own business because your other options are, well, not good. In fact, let me assure you, just having been charged means the nearly same thing. Pre-trial intervention? Not convicted? Drug court? You might as well have plead guilty. Restraining order thrown out? Never mind, it was filed.
 
2012-04-30 02:37:42 PM  

bobbette: Facepalm. That's nonsensical. Why would we "equally apply this basis"? We're talking about entirely different types of rights and potential harms.


No, we're talking about basis for justification of abrogating rights. If you are a felon based on a non-violent crime - or even a a violent crime with no relation to firearms - under what basis is your right to own a firearm taken away?

bobbette: Debates on limits to the right to free speech are conducted on very different grounds.


Kind of hard to say this when the 'grounds' used are nonsensical.
 
2012-04-30 02:40:17 PM  
You libtards are slipping. You are supposed to log onto your moby alt and tell us how you are a life long Republican and you think felons should be allowed to vote and you'll never vote for another Republican again if felons aren't allowed to vote.

Dumb ass
 
2012-04-30 02:40:48 PM  

fickenchucker: Felons deserve more than what they got. Losing the right to vote is the least they should shut their stupid pie-holes about.

They're out of prison and should be thankful for that for the rest of their lives.


awww, how cute a baby troll acount. Why it doesn't even have it's widdle troll horns yet.
 
2012-04-30 02:41:05 PM  

Lumpmoose: Mugato: There's no legitimate reason in the world why felons who did their time shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"Did their time" is getting more and more meaningless. Look at the ever-expanding sex offenders registry that ruins people for life.

....


Not that sexual assault doesn't ruin people for life, of course...
 
2012-04-30 02:41:40 PM  

Mugato: There's no legitimate reason in the world why felons who did their time shouldn't be allowed to vote.


Then why do liberals want people who were not born in this country and are here illegally to vote?
 
2012-04-30 02:42:34 PM  

ChaffedTitty: Codenamechaz: There probably should be a process that would allow them to vote again, like they have in Florida (At least I think they still have it. Could have sworn Gov Luthor changed something with it). But in doing so it would have to show they're ready to be a normal part of society again.

No. They pay their fine, go to jail, or perform whatever court ordered punishment is due, and they are free again.


Nobody needs to live up to your standard. If they follow the rule of law, and there are no outstanding debts to society, you are free to vote.


Totalitarian opinions such as your can go fark themselves.


Maybe I missed it, but why is it that their right to vote should be restored, but not their right to bear arms? What about sex offenders and their right to live near schools, parks, etc.?

In all honesty I'm still undecided re: criminal franchise (perhaps because I'm a prosecutor and see both sides of that coin), but it's hard for me to figure out why the one right is actually any different from the other, especially given how integral the right to arms was in creating our freedoms.

Moreover, why is it totalitarian to say that someone who commits a crime gives up their right to vote? If totalitarian is defined as "a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state" (to borrow from Google), I fail to see how that word applies. In what sense is disenfranchisement here either centralized or dictatorial (given that it's state-controlled, not just federal). Moreover, where is the requirement of "complete subservience to the state" any more than any other law?
 
2012-04-30 02:42:59 PM  
I are a life long Republican and I think felons should be allowed to vote and I'll never vote for another Republican again if felons aren't allowed to vote.
 
2012-04-30 02:44:14 PM  

sprawl15: If you are a felon based on a non-violent crime - or even a a violent crime with no relation to firearms - under what basis is your right to own a firearm taken away?


Show me where I said it should be taken away for all felons. I specifically referred to consideration of the original crime and the existence of a compelling public interest.

sprawl15: Kind of hard to say this when the 'grounds' used are nonsensical.


Now I don't even know what you're referring to.
 
2012-04-30 02:44:35 PM  

Codenamechaz: There needs to be a re-integration process.


Here in Washington, the legislature adopted a "determinate sentencing" system in 1984. When one is convicted of a felony, the sentence is determined by means of a grid on which one axis represents the severity of the offense and the other axis represents the defendant's criminal history. On the day that one enters the prison, he knows the date of his release, and except for the affect of "good time" (which most convicts receive as a matter of course), there is nothing one can do that will make that date come any sooner or later. Convicts therefore have no real incentive to make positive change while incarcerated.

Felons convicted prior to 1984, however, are still held under the old system in which they are sentenced to the maximum allowable time but then have an opportunity to earn their release by making specific, positive steps toward rehabilitation. I represented such a convict once before the parole board, and was amazed by the hoops he had to jump through - he had to demonstrate that he had taken advantage of all the rehabilitative programs available to him in prison, he had to demonstrate that he had a job, a place to live, and an AA sponsor lined up, and he had to go through a long re-entry process (remember, this guy had never even seen a Starbucks before - he said that the field trips to the mall were perhaps the most disorienting part of the process).

Now, I ask you - which ex-convict has the better chance of success on the outside? Whenever some tough-on-crime, law-and-order type tells you that determinate sentences are a good idea, think about that.
 
2012-04-30 02:49:32 PM  

mattharvest: In all honesty I'm still undecided re: criminal franchise (perhaps because I'm a prosecutor and see both sides of that coin), but it's hard for me to figure out why the one right is actually any different from the other, especially given how integral the right to arms was in creating our freedoms.


The ideal (admittedly unrealistic) solution is to overhaul the prison system so it's rehabilitative in nature and people are released when they have their shiat straight. If someone's a violent asshole, they shouldn't be released based on the same timeline as someone who honestly regrets their crime and has tried to atone/make amends.

mattharvest: Moreover, why is it totalitarian to say that someone who commits a crime gives up their right to vote? If totalitarian is defined as "a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state" (to borrow from Google), I fail to see how that word applies.


It's 'totalitarian' in the sense that it takes the form of your rights having been granted by the state, to be revoked at will rather than your rights being innate as a human being. Under a system where your rights are what the state says they are, no matter how practically free one is, it's totalitarian. It's like 'dictatorship' in that it does not need to have a negative form, despite its negative connotations; a very good dictator running a totalitarian state can have a flourishing, free society...but that idea runs contrary to the principles the nation was founded upon.
 
2012-04-30 02:51:06 PM  

mrshowrules: mrshowrules: Mugato: There's no legitimate reason in the world why felons who did their time shouldn't be allowed to vote.

This. What societal benefit do you have in disenfranchising these people further?


Rush Limbaugh would say slur (like a drug-fueled moron) that removing likely Democratic Party voters from the registration pool would be a societal benefit.
 
2012-04-30 02:51:53 PM  

SuperTramp: I encourage you to read "The New Jim Crow."


My name is Crow. James Crow.

popculture4fun.com
 
2012-04-30 02:52:18 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Dumb ass


We know.
 
2012-04-30 02:53:54 PM  

BMulligan: except for the affect effect of "good time"


Goddammitsomuch.
 
2012-04-30 02:54:11 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: You libtards are slipping. You are supposed to log onto your moby alt and tell us how you are a life long Republican and you think felons should be allowed to vote and you'll never vote for another Republican again if felons aren't allowed to vote.

Dumb ass


Good job, Chimpy, way to deflect with some projection about what us libtards should be doing. I'll be in fervent anticipation of your actual defense of denying voters the right until you accidentally kill yourself with a staple gun sometime in the near future.
 
2012-04-30 02:55:05 PM  

bobbette: sprawl15: If you are a felon based on a non-violent crime - or even a a violent crime with no relation to firearms - under what basis is your right to own a firearm taken away?

Show me where I said it should be taken away for all felons. I specifically referred to consideration of the original crime and the existence of a compelling public interest.


Which is exactly what I was talking about:

sprawl15: ...if we equally apply this basis - that irresponsible use of a freedom allows the government to restrict that freedom - then, say, people responsible for speech-related offenses (incitement to riot, for example) could be restricted in their freedom of speech. People responsible for property crime could have their right to own property restricted, people responsible for perjury could have their right to not self-incriminate taken away, etc.


You consider the original crime (say, incitement to riot) and the existence of a compelling public interest (the interest of not having riots). Based on this, you take away this criminal's freedom of assembly. What's the functional difference between this and taking away gun rights from a person who committed a violent crime with a gun?
 
2012-04-30 02:57:44 PM  

sprawl15: It's 'totalitarian' in the sense that it takes the form of your rights having been granted by the state, to be revoked at will rather than your rights being innate as a human being. Under a system where your rights are what the state says they are, no matter how practically free one is, it's totalitarian. It's like 'dictatorship' in that it does not need to have a negative form, despite its negative connotations; a very good dictator running a totalitarian state can have a flourishing, free society...but that idea runs contrary to the principles the nation was founded upon.



The right to vote is what the State says it is by it's very nature.

You are voting for positions in the State, as defined by the State, at a timing determined by the State.

My right to vote does not give me the right to vote for the Secretary of Defense tomorrow at midnight. I can vote for the President on Tuesday , November 6, 2012, during the hours that the Government determines that voting will take place. That is all determined by the State.
 
2012-04-30 02:57:49 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Esc7: Deterrence is only useful if you have a situation where you can't catch everyone, due to monitoring costs, but are insured to catch those that you do monitor. The punishment must be punitive and severe, and highly publicized.

What I remember from a semester as a Crim major is that deterrence haz 2 flavors:
-general deterrent, which is what you were talking about, and
-specific deterrent.

"Specific deterrent" refers to the idea that punishing someone makes them less likely to commit a crime - it deters THEM from committing ANOTHER crime, as opposed to the general, where fear of the punishment is supposed to motivate good behavior generally.

The death penalty, for example, is 100% effective as a specific deterrent. Less so as a general deterrent - which feeds some hard science that crime spikes after an execution.


how absolutely fascinating. I suppose you could infer specific deterrent efficacy based on recidivism rates, but those are affected by a whole host of factors.

I truly think that for what we instinctively think of as felony level crime (rape, murder, grand theft) general deterrence via harsh sentencing is negligible.
 
2012-04-30 02:57:50 PM  

coeyagi: mrshowrules: mrshowrules: Mugato: There's no legitimate reason in the world why felons who did their time shouldn't be allowed to vote.

This. What societal benefit do you have in disenfranchising these people further?

Rush Limbaugh would say slur (like a drug-fueled moron) that removing likely Democratic Party voters from the registration pool would be a societal benefit.


I send imaginary dittos to your imaginary Rush. I like him better than the real Rush.
 
Displayed 50 of 294 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report