Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Felons waive that, because their crimes prevent another from being able to do much of anything. Now, if something isn't that serious, then we need to ask why it's considered a felony. There were provisions to deny firearm access to known violent criminals and to the "mentally feal." Opening the ballot box to felons means also not checking if they're citizens. And that's an open invitation to election theft.
@ObscuredBeyond Felons cannot possess weapons but that doesn't stop them from being caught possessing guns again and committing crime with them again. They should have no rights as they forfeited them in my opinion.
"A well-regulated Militia..."
@goaded : theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
@goaded : Giving a gun to a paranoid schizophrenic is irresponsible, plain and simple. Giving voting privileges to a murderer is insane. Read more here: felonvoting.procon.org/.../
@ObscuredBeyond I like that first one, but I can't see stopping criminals from voting (or allowing them to vote) making a massive difference in either direction, but it can help integrate them into society.
@goaded : Votes can be bought. And due to what's hanging over them, felons serving time can be bribed. The reason you used to have to be required to prove you could read and own land in order to vote, was so that you could prove that you could read the issues being voted on, and had a personal stake in the outcome. Removing those provisions eroded both requirements, meaning elections can be bought, and the ignorant can be manipulated. This was also the reasoning behind felon disenfranchisement.
@ObscuredBeyond I think both were more about stopping black people from voting.Yep. Literacy tests were designed so that illiterate whites could vote, but not illiterate blacks.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinn_v._United_States
I don't know stats but I'm ready to bet at least 10% of the people incarcerated were wrongly sentenced. Injustice and Social injustice is a big thing in prison, and the way prisons are managed in a country are based on the government people elect. So if govs want to be a minimum fair I think any citizen of that country with a capable mind (people who are capable of making a choice/decision of their own will) should be allowed to vote
@FrenchEnglishguy There is no way of knowing those stats and there is no way its that high. Prison reform is something that is needed like violent and non-violent criminals should not be put in the same prisons or be treated the same. and whatever else. But it doesn't change the fact that criminals who do something that requires incarceration knew something was illegal and did what they did anyway. This shows that they make bad decisions so should not be voting for things that matter.
@FrenchEnglishguy that's nonsense. no 10% of people in prison aren't there unfairlyi'd imagine 1 in 1000 is there unfairly. we have DNA testing and video cameras everywhere
I disagree. If there are enough people in prison to be able to significantly affect an election, there are too many people in prison - the system is broken. But stopping people from voting even when they've done their time, that's just messed up.
@goaded you say you disagree then repeated the sentiment of what i was saying... just to reitterate. people in prison have to me breached their social contract and so should have no vote until they have done their time when ofcourse they should be allowed to vote again... as for incarceration numbers, the same place that makes laws preventing ex cons from voting is the same country that has the worlds highest number per capita of people losing their liberty and thats a reflection of a fucked up system rather than an indicator of higher serious crime rates. thats why i always wonder if it really is the land of the free
I meant that I don't see anything wrong with prisoners voting, the rest I agree with.Part of the problem in the US is that prisons were a source of slave labour, after slavery was abolished.
@goaded ah ok, i just think they are in breech of contract when they break the law but i see a few others think like you too on that score... as for the rest i see that with those fires in cali a couple of years back 40 percent of the firefighters were actually prisoners risking it all for 1 dollar a day so im not sure that form of slavery ever ended but ofcourse the three stikes thing also upped the rates of people incarcerated... i heard a story of a woman inprison for 20 years after getting caught shop lifting three times as a poor single teen mum... she wasn't a bad person, just desperate when she had nothing
@ellie-vWell maybe if they can stay out of trouble for at least 2 years their voting rights could be restored. If what you say is true then these people would agree to this and there would never be any more problems. But if they are not as you say, they will be back in jail in short order so they should not have the right to vote. Voting is for those who care about society, not those who are against society and rules and regulations.
@Daniela1982 Nebraska, right?"Maine and Vermont are the only states with unrestricted voting rights for people who are felons. Both states allow the person to vote during incarceration, via absentee ballot and via in-person voting after completion of sentence. "en.wikipedia.org/.../Felony_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States
@goaded Why should people who don't care about laws and rules be allowed to vote regarding laws and rules? That is like giving the fox the keys to the hen house.
@Daniela1982 No it's not, unless you're locking up a large proportion of the population.
@goaded Would you want the man who murdered your family voting on capital punishment? Besides, you are in Germany where the population buried their heads in the sand as to what the Nazi's were doing to the Jews.
@Daniela1982 So what? It's not like an individual vote matters that much.My parents weren't even old enough to know what was going on. You might like to look at how 1930's Germany was like, and see if you can see it happening again...
@goaded Yes, I see that and it is bothering a lot of people. We are losing our rights while the lawless gain rights.
@Daniela1982 I think you're taking the wrong impression away from what's happening.Who's losing their rights?
Hahahaha good point 👏
I see that either the bleeding hearts liberals or the misogynists are down voting again. * rolls eyes*
Well, that is one way I hadn't thought about the question.Prisoners are still part of society, society is the one paying their bills, and they are big bills to pay. They were still given resources growing up that should be repaid to society. And society still decides on their well-being.Why should they be forced out of societies inner workings?
@BlueEyedBirdWatcher isn't breaking the laws of that society breech of contract?
I thought so @wankiam. I don't think they have a right to say what goes on outside prison walls when they are in them.We support them. I know they work to get treats sometimes it's cheap labour for businesses, but I don't see anything wrong with that its like community service built into their sentence.I'm sorry but anyone that is in prison is deemed a menace to society and the reason they are there is part of their reform/rehabilitation.If they utilise the time in there wisely they can leave with some prospects for a career. I understand things are tough when they leave and I do agree that more needs to be done to reintegrate them into society. But I also stand by the commit the crime you must do the time. Rights taken away.So all this xbox, PlayStation, mobiles and all the other things they get in prison especially here in the UK is a flipping joke. Why because prisons are too overcrowded and they have no respect for authority. Perhaps a discussion needs to be had with the British and American law enforcers. Because one's way too harsh the other way to relaxed. Somewhere in the middle but closer to punishment will do.
Even if you are a criminal, you still have a social contract (assuming you believe in a social contract) unless you have been exiled or executed. You are still there, you still interact with your society.
actually the way they treat American prisoners makes them more likely to reoffend so whilst im not a fan of the cushy bedsit prison cell i think our prison officers would learn far more from a trip to norway where unlike our prison officers having a three week induction, theirs have to have three years of training... they work almost one to one and do successfully rehabilitate inmates more than anywhere else in the west... that said im sure their inmates still aren't allowed to vote while incarcerated
@BlueEyedBirdWatcher sorry but i dont agree with that...
You disagree that prisoners interact with society?
@BlueEyedBirdWatcher i disagree that they have a right to vote while inturned... im not sure what you are getting at but like i said, i feel they relinquished their rights when they committed the crime against society... that said, they should have the right to vote given back to them the moment they are released
@wankiam I with you on this. I don't know much about Norway but now mentioned I will look into it. Yea I agree American prison is harsh but UK is soo laid back its like a community centre, a how to perfect your criminal skills.So I do believe that something needs to seriously be done.No voting until you're a free man/woman.I seriously don't understand why people have such a screwed up concept of what punishment actually is.They're probably the parents that end up creating entitled children that in society today oppress and eventually and up having to pay for their crimes
thats just it though... its not about giving the inmates an easy life in norway but about understanding them and helping them to understand themselves and that way they understand wha\t they did wrong and why it was wrong... so whilst you think the uk system is too soft so look at america and see the chain gang thing its easy to assume we mollycoddle but the figures dont add up... norway is like that community centre but one that invites in ex gang members to talk about the wrongness of carrying knives while helping to steer kids into a fulfilling life that doesn't rely on crime...44 percent of rleased prisoners in American return within one year. 39 percent in the uk with 75 percent reoffending within 9 years and in norway, that figure drops to 20 percent. ofcourse this relies on major investment in the penal system but it pays economic dividends when compared to the true cost of crime
As I said before I agree with you and will look it up for myself. As you see the UK has a high reoffending rate so they are definitely not getting it right.
I think reoffending rate isn't a great metric to use as it depends on factors such as how serious their new offences are, and how far through the rehabilitation process were they before release.For example, if the reoffending rates are minor parole infringements, missing a meeting, you will raise your reoffending rates massively. And if you release people early, that may be the most efficient way to reduce crime with a set amount of resources, but again you raise your reoffending rates.Also the style of jail effects the first offense, I'm not afraid of going to a Norwegian jail but I am in the US.I agree with the Norwegian system, I think the UK should continue moving towards that. But I would need more complex data to make and defend that point.
@BlueEyedBirdWatcher im not dragging this out because you are welcome to do what my friend plans to do and research it yourself but the basic figures i gave refered to getting themselves locked up again for committing crime rather than missing a an interview... anyway in the interests of not filling the op notification box i suggest we leave it there
Okay, I enjoyed this talk with the two of you.But I think we are reaching an agreement so I will see you both around.
@BlueEyedBirdWatcher you too ;)
Uh no, people around the world don’t get to be entitled to vote for a country that’s not theirs
@scarlett774 i think she is quoting joe biden... who literally said citizens of the world should vote in U. S elections
@007kingifrit.. Better still, even if your dead, you can still vote for uncle Joe. We laugh but it will happen..
more than a little hyperbolic with an equally ridiculous conclusion...
@007kingifrit lolSure, because nothing like that has ever happened before in the world. Everyone is completely fair and just, right?Fucking moron.
it happening somewhere in the world does not in any way imply not letting criminals vote means it will happen hereyou're illogical
@007kingifrit By here you mean the united states?Even though the united states is in no way specified in the question and the question asker is in Canada..You really are a seriously fucking dumb cunt.
@007kingifrit You are getting blocked soon by the way, thats what is happening next, so whatever retarded shit you want to say make it count.
the internet is america centric, we presume we are always talking about america unless proven otherwise. besides i don't value or respect other culturesyou need to get your emotions under control young man
@007kingifrit No, you are America centric because you are an American and like many Americans you can't even percieve that there are other places in the world.This is a purely theoretical question, the point of which is to explore the pros and cons of criminals having a vote or not.Its obvious to me that criminals should have a vote, because otherwise what you get are situations where for example homosexuality is illegal and as a result all the gay people are in prison, they can't give their support to pro gay rights political movements because they have been denied a voice.Now you may well be a fucking homophobic cunt, so let me put it into terms more appropriate for you.Same thing except now its people who haven't yet evolved opposable thumbs who are in prison and you dont get a say because you are behind bars.
@007kingifrit You are in my face giving me shit and you dont even understand the fucking question.Jesus fucking Christ, put a fucking helmet on before you hurt yourself.
there are no other places in the world, only america and the inferior peoples who have not yet been embraced by the mighty reach of the iron eagle. all things are americaand if the question is entirely theoretical that's not relevant to the discussion because your answer is evil and a threat to civilization no matter where it is considered. and your reasoning was ridiculous
It affects their love ones and community though.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy They've already affected their loved ones in a bigger way.
Most vote never actually affects the day to day life of the person?
Every Constitutional right has limitations and this is of the exceptions.
Explain the limitations as outlined by the Constitution
the limitations do not have to be outlined directly in the constitution, we decide them collectivelycriminals are not capable of good choices
@Dansnlawlipop The Fourteenth Amendment specifically allows the states to deny the right to vote to males for participation in rebellion, or other crime. I am unaware of any state that does not revoke the right to vote upon conviction for a felony offense. Of course, when the Nineteenth Amendment granted women the right to vote, the same restriction applied to them, also.
@007kingifrit yes, it should if it is indeed the law of the land. "Criminal" is a code word for working class people who commit crimes. We don't deny the vote of the rich who steal and swindle in the same manner...@OlderAndWiser which flies in the face of the pursuit of life and liberty, does it not? Suppose the larger discussion is the [numerous] contradictions of these laws. But, still, I am of the opinion that if you must follow the law, you should be able to participate in the process that helps decide these laws.
uuuuuh no your communist welching about the rich is not an excuse to let criminals vote
@Dansnlawlipop The pursuit of life and liberty does not give you the freedom to commit crime and not lose your freedom. There is no contradiction in guaranteeing people rights and having established procedures by which rights can be forfeited."But, still, I am of the opinion that if you must follow the law, you should be able to participate in the process that helps decide these laws." And criminals are the ones who do NOT follow the laws. That is why we classify them as criminals.
@007kingifrit lol I guess now I know your type... I'm not a communist but I do understand if that is some sort of boogeyman for you. by the way, we DO let criminals vote, again, just not the poor ones.@OlderAndWiser I am not and have not argued that pursuit of happiness means you can commit crimes without punishment. I'm arguing the pursuit of happiness does not stop once you commit a crime. I believe IMPRISONMENT is the punishment for committing crimes... I can understand how that may not be enough for some.And let's not also pretend the 14th amendment was not created to criminalize newly freed enslaved people... poor people.
How much do you understand about constitutional law?
@OlderAndWiser Enough. What about you?
Your vague, evasive answer will be interpreted as you didn't study constitutional law, unless you care to provide for specifics.I studied constitutional law for a year when I was in law school, and I did quite well in that class.
@OlderAndWiser It should be interpreted as "this was an irrelevant question to ask someone" unless that person was tying to prove a point than have a discussion. A continued conversation with someone reveals more than a snide question or remark ever will. Then again, snide remarks reveal true intent as well...
@OlderAndWiser Can you explain the living tree doctrine of interpreting the constitution? I know it is unrelated, but my friend complains about it constantly, and I don't even know if there is a valid defense of it. What I know of it : the constitution evolves as society evolves, and so it must be reinterpreted every so often to be consistent with the beliefs and values of society.Criticisms: 1) it lets judges become legislators, and; 2) even if constitutional changes were needed there are mechanisms in which it can be amended.Defense: ? I don't know what the defense is, which makes me think I really don't get the argument for it. Maybe you can help. Thanks if you choose to.
yyea yea yea you would call yourself a "socialist" but socialism and communism are the same thing, just at different speeds
@007kingifrit Not that either?Why does your type always strawman instead of arguing your position or simply disagreeing with the other perspective? Just argue lol If you're wrong, you're wrong... if you're right, you're right. If you disagree its just that. Your type gets so bent out of shape about dissenting opinions, no matter if y'all are on the right or left. Just relax... let's get back to an actual discussion, maybe?
honey, you demonized the rich with generic attacks and implied you wanted to redistribute wealth... you're a communist. this is not strawmanning, its accurately labeling
Do you have ANY education in the history, intent, and meaning of the Constitution?
@Twinrova The Living Tree Doctrine is a matter of Canadian law, not US law with which I am familiar. However, I understand it is a set of principles for interpretation of the Canadian Constitution.A Constitution should, by its very nature and purpose, not be too specific, particularly when establishing individual rights. For example, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It could have easily been written to say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear muskets, shall not be infringed." If it said muskets, Americans would have a right to own black powder rifles but not necessarily pistols or rifles having any modern features. Most Americans who enjoy their firearms are glad that the Second Amendment was not written very specifically, but the competing concern is that a more broad and general document requires interpretation, and that interpretation is always supplied by the courts. That does give judicial officers some legislative responsibilities, but it is a necessary corollary to the promulgation of a document which requires interpretation.Great volumes could be written on this subject but the preceding paragraph contains the essence of the argument.
@OlderAndWiser Thank you:)
Sorry, I've just realized my answer is full of missing words. This is what I meant:I'm not sure if they have access to the news. If not then I think they shouldn't be allowed to vote.