Skyrmion: Headso: Skyrmion: Headso: If your party needs as few people to vote as possible to move your agenda your ideology might suck a cock.

Or one could say, "If your party needs to have the felon vote to move your agenda, your ideology might suck a cock."

Neither party cares about the number of people who vote, only about the demographic breakdown of those who do.

gotta disagree on that, one party is trying to add people to voter rolls and the other is trying to limit them.

To the extent that the above is true, it's because a higher percentage of eligible voters in conservative-friendly demographics are already registered. Therefore, recruitment efforts disproportionately benefit Democrats, which is the only reason Democrats love these drives and the only reason Republicans don't. It's about demographics, no one cares about raw numbers.

Like I said, I disagree. One party's whole platform is about moving money and power into fewer and fewer hands, disenfranchising people is part of that agenda.

Carth: Philip Francis Queeg: Carth: mattharvest: sprawl15: Last I checked, thoughtcrime isn't a valid basis for criminal prosecution in this country

Probably ought to check again, under "attempt", "conspiracy", "threat", etc.

There are plenty of crimes that don't require you to do a thing other than discuss something to have committed a crime. But hey, since you've decided you want to keep moving the goalposts by discussing things outside the original question - why should or shouldn't we disenfranchise criminals - I'm not surprised.

simply talking about committing the crime isn't enough for conviction. Prosecution has to prove you took steps to carry it out.

Call 911 and tell them you are going to blow up a school bus full of children and see how that works out for you.

In most states making a false bomb threat is a felony in its own right. Why would they charge you with conspiracy?

Showing that the bolded above isn't true. Simply talking about committing a crime can be enough for conviction.

Lumpmoose: Voting rights should be unimpeachable. Even if someone is strapped to an electric chair at the time, they should be given an absentee ballot. Fark the government if they say otherwise.

This. Voting is a key part of the "right of petition", a concept so important, it's part of the very first point in your Bill of Rights. (First Amendment.)

Philip Francis Queeg: Carth: Philip Francis Queeg: Carth: mattharvest: sprawl15: Last I checked, thoughtcrime isn't a valid basis for criminal prosecution in this country

Probably ought to check again, under "attempt", "conspiracy", "threat", etc.

There are plenty of crimes that don't require you to do a thing other than discuss something to have committed a crime. But hey, since you've decided you want to keep moving the goalposts by discussing things outside the original question - why should or shouldn't we disenfranchise criminals - I'm not surprised.

simply talking about committing the crime isn't enough for conviction. Prosecution has to prove you took steps to carry it out.

Call 911 and tell them you are going to blow up a school bus full of children and see how that works out for you.

In most states making a false bomb threat is a felony in its own right. Why would they charge you with conspiracy?

Showing that the bolded above isn't true. Simply talking about committing a crime can be enough for conviction.

No, making the call and saying it is actually committing the crime. Saying you placed a bomb on a bus isn't a crime, you can say it to yourself all day and not be arrested. Calling the school or dispatch and saying it is a felony.

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

There needs to be some type of continuing punishment for choosing to not be a part of a law abiding society. Not being allowed to vote is the price they pay. If they want to vote, then don't get convicted of a felony. Just my 2-cents.

bobbette: I used the more generic term reference to authoritarianism to distinguish between societies that have protections for political rights and ones that do not.

And, perhaps more finely, to distinguish between societies that are based on rights being innate and the relationship being one of protectionism as opposed to ones where rights are granted by the grace of government/monarch/dictator/etc. and the relationship being one of subservience.

Philip Francis Queeg: Simply talking about committing a crime can be enough for conviction.

I'd ask if you realize the distinction between discussion of committing a crime and assertion that one will commit a crime, but I already know the answer.

Carth: Saying you placed a bomb on a bus isn't a crime, you can say it to yourself all day and not be arrested.

Or, more pertinently, thinking that it would be great to place a bomb on a bus is absolutely not a crime.

Tumunga: There needs to be some type of continuing punishment for choosing to not be a part of a law abiding society. Not being allowed to vote is the price they pay. If they want to vote, then don't get convicted of a felony. Just my 2-cents.

Why don't we just flense their skin while we're at it.

pxsteel: Here is where my typically left leaning moderate arse turns all conservative. We all learned in civics class that if you commit a felony you give up your right to vote. Yes it's a bit of social engineering, but it is there to try and deter you from becoming a criminal. Dude, you are an ex-con that can't vote, I'm sorry that sucks, but you knew there was a cost before you did the crime.

It's real farking simple

Want to keep your vote, don't be a felon.

I think it's more of a question as to whether the punishment fits the crime. Especially if deterrence is the motivation for applying the punishment. Not to reduce it to absurdity, but chopping the hands off of thieves would be a powerful deterrent, but it's not a punishment befitting of the crime.

sprawl15: There is no such clear justification presented for the removal of voting (or firearm) rights from felons.

I don't understand why you're still comparing these two totally unrelated things. There is a clear justification from removing firearms rights from felons, particularly if they committed gun crimes: the interest of the general public to not get shot or held up at gunpoint. There is no potentially life-threatening safety issue from people voting. The right to gun ownership isn't unrestricted from what I know of U.S. gun laws anyways; I think most states require a permit and some kind of a background check that you can fail if you're a criminal or a crazy person, for good reason, because a lot of criminals and crazy people use weapons in ways that harm the general public (or themselves.) Joe Six-Suicide Attempts could be restricted from buying a gun, and so is Dave Assault With a Violent Weapon. How is this even controversial to you or equivalent to taking away the right to vote?

Corvus: Carth: Philip Francis Queeg: Carth: Philip Francis Queeg: Carth: mattharvest: sprawl15: Last I checked, thoughtcrime isn't a valid basis for criminal prosecution in this country

Probably ought to check again, under "attempt", "conspiracy", "threat", etc.

There are plenty of crimes that don't require you to do a thing other than discuss something to have committed a crime. But hey, since you've decided you want to keep moving the goalposts by discussing things outside the original question - why should or shouldn't we disenfranchise criminals - I'm not surprised.

simply talking about committing the crime isn't enough for conviction. Prosecution has to prove you took steps to carry it out.

Call 911 and tell them you are going to blow up a school bus full of children and see how that works out for you.

In most states making a false bomb threat is a felony in its own right. Why would they charge you with conspiracy?

Showing that the bolded above isn't true. Simply talking about committing a crime can be enough for conviction.

No, making the call and saying it is actually committing the crime. Saying you placed a bomb on a bus isn't a crime, you can say it to yourself all day and not be arrested. Calling the school or dispatch and saying it is a felony.

[confusedDog.png]

SO then TALKING about the crime CAN get you arrested, even if you don't do it?

Most states require an overt act. Making a phone call, recruiting co-conspirators etc. If someone says they are going to kill the president the Secret Service will likely show up on their door to talk but not necessarily arrest you. If they actually prepared to do it then they might be charged.

QU!RK1019: pxsteel: Here is where my typically left leaning moderate arse turns all conservative. We all learned in civics class that if you commit a felony you give up your right to vote. Yes it's a bit of social engineering, but it is there to try and deter you from becoming a criminal. Dude, you are an ex-con that can't vote, I'm sorry that sucks, but you knew there was a cost before you did the crime.

It's real farking simple

Want to keep your vote, don't be a felon.

I think it's more of a question as to whether the punishment fits the crime. Especially if deterrence is the motivation for applying the punishment. Not to reduce it to absurdity, but chopping the hands off of thieves would be a powerful deterrent, but it's not a punishment befitting of the crime.

Castration may be an effective deterrent for people convicted of rape.

Haven't read the whole thread, but the level of derp here is chin-high and rising.

"They've served their time!" That's nice. Losing your right to vote was part of the sentence, and separate from the time served. So having served their time is not relevant to whether they've, say, paid their fines, completed probation, made restitution, and so forth.

If someone commits securities fraud, they may be barred from that industry for life. "But they've served their time!" See how that works?

And we have plenty of other precedents for penalties apart from and lasting longer than sentencing: sex offender registries, as many have noted. Sure, some of those are not implemented well, that doesn't invalidate the concept (which, I think, is a good one).

There is a social contract. A felon broke it, in a serious way. Taking away a benefit of the social contract is not unreasonable. This is a penalty that extracts no financial price, does not make it harder to find a job or a home, does not publicly brand the person as a sex offender registry does. It is a fairly mild punishment.

We absolutely should be doing more to reintegrate releaed felons in to civic life - both for moral and fiscal reasons. Giving them the right to vote doesn't do a whole lot to further that goal. When people who have served their time can get a job and rent an apartment, I'll spare a moment to worry about whether they should vote.

Giving them the right to vote doesn't further a reintegration into civic life? I think it is the Poster Child of reintegration activities.

Carth: Philip Francis Queeg: Carth: Philip Francis Queeg: Carth: mattharvest: sprawl15: Last I checked, thoughtcrime isn't a valid basis for criminal prosecution in this country

Probably ought to check again, under "attempt", "conspiracy", "threat", etc.

There are plenty of crimes that don't require you to do a thing other than discuss something to have committed a crime. But hey, since you've decided you want to keep moving the goalposts by discussing things outside the original question - why should or shouldn't we disenfranchise criminals - I'm not surprised.

simply talking about committing the crime isn't enough for conviction. Prosecution has to prove you took steps to carry it out.

Call 911 and tell them you are going to blow up a school bus full of children and see how that works out for you.

In most states making a false bomb threat is a felony in its own right. Why would they charge you with conspiracy?

Showing that the bolded above isn't true. Simply talking about committing a crime can be enough for conviction.

No, making the call and saying it is actually committing the crime. Saying you placed a bomb on a bus isn't a crime, you can say it to yourself all day and not be arrested. Calling the school or dispatch and saying it is a felony.

You claimed they had to prove that you actually took steps to do it. That was incorrect. The speech has been made illegal under certain circumstances.

mattharvest: fsbilly: I hear what you guys are saying, but the recidivism rate isn't really that bad

Really?

"During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration. This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.">

Aren't all parolees at risk of re-incarceration? I mean, isn't that the point of parole?

Also, that recidivism rate is lower than I thought. It's definitely lower than, say, the DUI recidivism rate of 22.6%... And like I said, part of the problem is the fact that we incarcerate the mentally ill now...

bobbette: I don't understand why you're still comparing these two totally unrelated things. There is a clear justification from removing firearms rights from felons, particularly if they committed gun crimes: the interest of the general public to not get shot or held up at gunpoint.

The bolded portion being absolutely wrong is why. There is no justification whatsoever to expect any and all felons to be more violent than the general population. One who commits, for example, perjury, is no more likely to go out and shoot people than the average citizen. A blanket removal is fundamentally wrong under this kind of justification.

But you're taking the latter (violent felons are violent) and applying it to a much broader class (thus all felons are violent). It's fallacious at its core. If you use different justifications, there may be a case specifically for violent felons, but that's a vastly different argument and it ties back to the earlier examples I used about incitement to riot/freedom of assembly...the same examples you claimed were irrelevant because they didn't match your fallacious assumptions.

bobbette: How is this even controversial to you or equivalent to taking away the right to vote?

As I said to mattharvest, the problem is systemic due to the punitive nature of the justice system. If it was focused on making violent people not violent - rather than just locking them in a cell for a while - we could shift to a more sensible approach to rights. As it stands, restriction of guns from violent felons is a poor bandaid on a self-inflicted wound; dumb in a vacuum, but not really the thing to focus on. But, as long as we're making shiat up that we'd ideally like to see changed, why not go hogwild?

Corvus: Tumunga: There needs to be some type of continuing punishment for choosing to not be a part of a law abiding society.

Can we do that for everyone who ever lies on their taxes then?

After the tax cheats are convicted, yes sir. Don't let them vote.

I thought the punishment for criminals was there jail time. Are you pretending they don't get jail time?

Yes, sometimes punishment for criminals is jail time. Sometimes, it's just a fine. Sometimes, it's jail time. Some crimes are misdemeanors, some are felonies. Convicted of a misdemeanor, you still get to vote. Convicted of a felony, no more voting for you.

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

If you remove the word "legitimate" I can give you an answer.

Generation_D: You know very well my convicted felons cannot vote. They are overwhelmingly brown or black skinned, or have been convicted of drug law violations. Those all look like Democrat voters to me, so it is in society's interest to keep them from voting by whatever means are necessary.

There's also no legitimate reason to have a voter ID law. But if you remove the word legitimate, I can explain that one to you as well. See above.

MisterRonbo: "They've served their time!" That's nice. Losing your right to vote was part of the sentence

I don't actually recall this being a specified part of their sentence. By all means, if you've got some examples where a judge actually ruled this I'll be very swayed by your argument.

MisterRonbo: If someone commits securities fraud, they may be barred from that industry for life. "But they've served their time!" See how that works?

By all means, if you can show an example where a judge gave them time served, never specified "barred from that industry" but it was just accepted, similar to what you argue for felons voting, I'll be quite swayed by this example. Meanwhile, Google only pops up examples where the brokers were explicitly told or agreed that they would be barred for life. Again, perhaps you have examples where a judge ruled "5 years in jail plus no voting forever."

I'm curious how many of the people here that are saying they're in favor of felons being/remaining disenfranchised are also in favor of HR 347, which makes attending some protests a felony.

qorkfiend: Castration may be an effective deterrent for people convicted of rape.

"Now, now. Let's not go turning this rape into a murder."

apoptotic: I'm curious how many of the people here that are saying they're in favor of felons being/remaining disenfranchised are also in favor of HR 347, which makes attending some protests a felony.

I guess someone got tired of having to talk to angry constituents face to face.

What exactly is a "former felon". My understanding is that being a "felon" is a permanent condition.

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.

Perhaps they could have some sort of set punishment, possibly handed down by some sort of elected/appointed official with approval by a group of his peers, possibly as many as 12 of them. Then they could complete that "sentence" and it could be considered to resolve the "crime" involved.

Perhaps there could even be some kind of panel that could periodically review when the offender seems ready to rejoin society, and they could be release early on some kind of "pro-role" system, let's call it, to improve their role in society. We could even have someone watch them for a period of time, and then sign off when the "pro-role" period is complete. We could then consider the person a normal member of society again.

Too bad such a system was never developed, especially not by british colonists in the 1700s, and was from there never passed into universally-adopted US law. It's a shame, because that would have been a really obvious thing to everyone that would make your post look incredibly ignorant of the US justice system.

//Not actually intending to be that much of a dick initially, but once the post got rolling I had to finish, sorry.

I've always had a problem with this because it creates an easy way to pervert the system.
Step 1, Invent a minor felony.
Step 2, Convict all opposition members of said felony in absentia.
Step 3, Win by a landslide when people who can't vote discover so on election day.
Step 4, Amend constitution and send opposition to FEMA reeducation camps!

Even if something that drastic could never happen, other common felonies can whittle away at the numbers of voters who might disagree with a particular law.

I say we let people keep their rights. If there is a controlling voter block in prison, you probably need a change of leadership and laws anyway.

/Its also probably why the bill of rights didn't divide "the people" into categories of good people and bad people.

otherginger

Giving them the right to vote doesn't further a reintegration into civic life? I think it is the Poster Child of reintegration activities.

Are you kidding me? A job. A home. A decent credit rating so you can finance a car. Being able to participate in voluntary associations ranging from homeowners' to PTA to the local softball league. Attending church.

All of these are much more important milestones in reintegrating in to the community. All are public, for one thing. Reintegration requires first the ability to make a living and find a place to live. And second, to overcome the stigma.

Do you know if your neighbors vote? Or your co-workers? I don't. I do know if they're homeless. If I associate with them in my community - whether at church or the pub or a softball game - at some point I may find out about their record. Whether that person is welcomed back or shunned is a big deal, and has nothing to do with whether they can vote.

Heck, even second amendment rights are a bigger deal. If someone can't go hunting with family or friends, that's something that socially excludes. Voting does not.

And keep in mind that this does not preclude an interest in and involvement in the political process. You can still volunteer for a campaign, donate money, urge people to vote for your preferred candidates, post on the Fark politics tab. You're not losing your rights to participate in political speech.

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

So we're playing the Rove maneuver today?

MisterRonbo: Are you kidding me? A job. A home. A decent credit rating so you can finance a car. Being able to participate in voluntary associations ranging from homeowners' to PTA to the local softball league. Attending church.

You don't expect the state to be able to provide all that, do you?

sammyk: I made one mistake in an otherwise law abiding life. I have paid my debt to society in full. I still get taxed just like you. Are you suggesting I should be treated as a lesser citizen for the rest of my life due to one lapse in judgement that I have taken full responsibility for and will never repeat again? If so, GFY.

Keep in mind that I only actually believe in crimes which have caused harm to others, but I can see the justification in removing the right to vote from someone who has shown the poor judgment in respecting the rights of others in the first place. Of course, I also don't think all people are inherently equal and I don't think everyone should be involved in the process so my opinion does not apply to american democracy.

I've talked to many ex-felons, surprisingly none of them ever said they couldn't wait to get out of prison so they could go vote again. I wonder if they reminisce a lot about it in the pen.

Corvus: Carth: Most states require an overt act. Making a phone call, recruiting co-conspirators etc. If someone says they are going to kill the president the Secret Service will likely show up on their door to talk but not necessarily arrest you. If they actually prepared to do it then they might be charged.

Isn't a phone call TALKING? Are you trying to say is that making the Phone call is what is illegal?

You're statement was wrong, now you are trying to argue on semantics. Just admit you original statement of you can't be arrested for talking about a crime is wrong.

Sometimes when you combine two legal things they become illegal. Just saying "I put a bomb on that bus" isn't illegal, hell you can write a book about the best way to put bombs on buses and it won't be illegal. Making a phone call isn't illegal either but if you combine the two it is. Like I said previously JUST talking about it isn't illegal you need to talk about it and do something else. And I think I said you couldn't be convicted, not arrested: if I failed to make that distinction I apologize since they are very different.

Corvus: It seems something unamericana to say your are a 2nd class citizen to other people in the US.

Yeah, but you CHOSE to be a 2nd Class citizen! Personal responsibility. Bootstraps. You're unamerican, unamerican.

Carth: "I put a bomb on that bus" isn't illegal, hell you can write a book about the best way to put bombs on buses and it won't be illegal.

Relevant:

sprawl15: Carth: "I put a bomb on that bus" isn't illegal, hell you can write a book about the best way to put bombs on buses and it won't be illegal.

Relevant:

[img51.imageshack.us image 200x302]

I was thinking specifically of:

Which the courts actually ruled wasn't even protected under the first amendment and they still never got a conviction.

QU!RK1019

MisterRonbo: Are you kidding me? A job. A home. A decent credit rating so you can finance a car. Being able to participate in voluntary associations ranging from homeowners' to PTA to the local softball league. Attending church.

You don't expect the state to be able to provide all that, do you?


Duh. Obviously not. Read my post. Somebody said voting was the poster child for reintegration in to the community. I said these other things ranked higher. Did you enjoy making that strawman?

Bonus points: Do you think there is nothing the state can do to make it easier or more likely for felons to be able to get a job? Avoid discrimination in housing? Do you think there is no public interest in doing these things, and thus making them less likely to commit another crime and return to prison?

Not allowing felons to vote made sense back when you had to kill someone to become a felon. Now that's it's the next step past a speeding ticket, not so much.

But it is a good way to create second class citizens.

Headso: One party's whole platform is about moving money and power into fewer and fewer hands

one party? lol