So some criminals can't vote

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Why do you need protection from convicted felons?

Obviously you really don't know any...

because they commit the most violent crimes in our society

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

because they commit the most violent crimes in our society

Again...
The law says that they are no longer a threat to society. Wouldn't you agree it's a little incongruent to say, "Oh, they've been corrected," and then say, "Well, they can't do such and such because they're still a threat to society"?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Again...
The law says that they are no longer a threat to society. Wouldn't you agree it's a little incongruent to say, "Oh, they've been corrected," and then say, "Well, they can't do such and such because they're still a threat to society"?

I believe that they are still a threat to society which is why they cannot be full citizens again

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I believe that they are still a threat to society which is why they cannot be full citizens again

On what grounds are you basing that belief? Is that based on the ever-so-many convicted felons that you know?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I prefer not to say, but probably more than anyone else on this board

That's right...you're in the military. (kidding)


It's nice to see everyone arguing about this, but really, what % of criminals vote to begin with? I am thinking a very small number.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

because they commit the most violent crimes in our society

Not really.. the scope of felony charges has increased over the years.. nowadays you can be branded felon by sending an email...hardly a 'violent' offense.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I care more about protecting myself and the rest of society from convicted felons then wondering why they continue to break the law.

Then you are a part of the problem. The more you marginalize them, the more likely it is they'll turn to crime again. This attitude doesn't help the situation. It makes it worse, both for you and for them.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

My rights > their rights

I fail to see how this is the case. Either the convict is fit to return to society or he's not. If he is, then he should be released and all his rights reinstated...and in order to actually exercise those rights, he can't be marginalized against for his incarceration. If he is NOT fit to return to society, then he should stay in prison longer, for life if necessary.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

because I would prefer that they don't. Convicted felons are at the bottom of society and I prefer they stay that way

I would hope that not too much of our law is based on rampant emotionalism such as this.

[PetriW]

A sentence should be given to punish someone for the act they've done, if the system doesn't use the time they're serving their sentence to teach them how to lead a righteous life, is it then the system or punishment which is wrong?

Imho, everyone should be entitled to vote, no matter if convicted of a crime or not, yes, they should even be allowed to vote while in jail. My reasoning is that everyone should be entitled to express their voice in a democracy, if a significant enough portion of the population are criminals to be able to sway election results something is wrong with the laws that made them criminals, not the criminals.
If you start taking away the right to vote from people, you're no longer a full democracy.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by PetriW

A sentence should be given to punish someone for the act they've done, if the system doesn't use the time they're serving their sentence to teach them how to lead a righteous life, is it then the system or punishment which is wrong?

Imho, everyone should be entitled to vote, no matter if convicted of a crime or not, yes, they should even be allowed to vote while in jail. My reasoning is that everyone should be entitled to express their voice in a democracy, if a significant enough portion of the population are criminals to be able to sway election results something is wrong with the laws that made them criminals, not the criminals.
If you start taking away the right to vote from people, you're no longer a full democracy.

America isn't a full democracy...

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I don't want decisions to be made in my country by convicted felons

Are you implying theat felons are incapable of ever making a good decision, or changing the way they view world?

I don't want decisions made by incapable people, but that does not mean it is a good idea to selectively block ceratin people from voting

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I care more about protecting myself and the rest of society from convicted felons then wondering why they continue to break the law.

if you don't know why, then how are you going to "protect" yourself and society from them.

How is them voting going to cause a problem to you?

As for firearms,gun control is pretty much ineffective, if a criminal wants a gun, I'm sure they can easily get one. What si the big deal with letting someone who commited a crime 10 years ago have a gun legally?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

On what grounds are you basing that belief? Is that based on the ever-so-many convicted felons that you know?

Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Not really.. the scope of felony charges has increased over the years.. nowadays you can be branded felon by sending an email...hardly a 'violent' offense.

I agree that the scope of felonies has expanded.

Then you are a part of the problem. The more you marginalize them, the more likely it is they'll turn to crime again. This attitude doesn't help the situation. It makes it worse, both for you and for them.

Voting or owning a gun will not help them assimilate into society any better

I fail to see how this is the case. Either the convict is fit to return to society or he's not. If he is, then he should be released and all his rights reinstated...and in order to actually exercise those rights, he can't be marginalized against for his incarceration. If he is NOT fit to return to society, then he should stay in prison longer, for life if necessary.

they gave up their rights when they committed their crime, and we can't ensure that every person that leaves prison is fit to return to society.

I would hope that not too much of our law is based on rampant emotionalism such as this.

they are at the bottom of society and should be thankful that we have allowed them to reenter society

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I agree that the scope of felonies has expanded.

right. ..and that waters down the seriousness of felony charges while keeping the punishments harsh. Both of which are net negatives for society. To use my example, I fail to see how a nastygram email should ever result in someone losing their right to vote or any chance of moving out of a minimum wage career.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Voting or owning a gun will not help them assimilate into society any better

maybe, maybe not, but having to check off 'convicted of felony' on all job applications certainly does.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they gave up their rights when they committed their crime, and we can't ensure that every person that leaves prison is fit to return to society.

no, we can't. But you cant have both a free society and one that can revoke rights of criminals after they pay their dues. If you're going to do this, you might as well just keep them in prison for life. 'Limbo' will just help convince them that crime is the only thing that pays.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they are at the bottom of society and should be thankful that we have allowed them to reenter society

that's a value judgement I suppose, but I don't see them having much to be thankful for if they are allowed out of prison but not back into life.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by R-Type

right. ..and that waters down the seriousness of felony charges while keeping the punishments harsh. Both of which are net negatives for society. To use my example, I fail to see how a nastygram email should ever result in someone losing their right to vote or any chance of moving out of a minimum wage career.

what state has a felony harassment law? Usually that is a misdemeanor

maybe, maybe not, but having to check off 'convicted of felony' on all job applications certainly does.

they should have thought of that before they committed their crime

no, we can't. But you cant have both a free society and one that can revoke rights of criminals after they pay their dues. If you're going to do this, you might as well just keep them in prison for life. 'Limbo' will just help convince them that crime is the only thing that pays.

sure you can, the state has to have powers to restrict the rights of it citizens otherwise you would have anarchy. Supervised release programs, and other conditions they agree to are part of losing your natural rights because they broke the law in a major way

that's a value judgement I suppose, but I don't see them having much to be thankful for if they are allowed out of prison but not back into life.

they are allowed back into life with a few small restrictions

[kinggovernor]

Many states also require convicted felons to submit a DNA sample to their bank:
Bureau of Forensic Services (BFS) - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

because they commit the most violent crimes in our society

Felony and violence are not correllated.

Some Felons are violent. Not all felony convictions are because of violence. There are many felons who committed non-violent crimes. The two aren't exclusive.

[Kytro]

I don't think anyone has presented a good argument (how one 'feels' does not count as an argument) as to why felons should be denied the right to vote (or firearms for that matter).

There is some argument that could be made that those that commit fire-arm offences or other violent crime, espically repeat offenders should have not be able to have a firearm for a period of time, or perhaps ever, but it should be part of sentancing, not a default

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what state has a felony harassment law? Usually that is a misdemeanor

I know that connecticut does. Most states do, especially in cases of physical harassment, which if extreme enough makes sense. However, the 'electronic' extensions of these laws are extremely harsh. Does it make sense to punish someone 5 years in prison followed by a lifelong 'sentence' of discrimination for the electronic equivalent of flipping someone off?

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they should have thought of that before they committed their crime

..and if they were not properly 'corrected' via the system, then why did that system see fit to release them? If society is going to set them up so they always lose, then it has only itself to blame when these people go back to crime. Since freedom without rights and opportunity is completely worthless, the not-really-excons have nothing to lose.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

sure you can, the state has to have powers to restrict the rights of it citizens otherwise you would have anarchy. Supervised release programs, and other conditions they agree to are part of losing your natural rights because they broke the law in a major way

supervised release for a time, especially for repeat offenders is fine. It's the lifelong branding I have issues with.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they are allowed back into life with a few small restrictions

I don't know why you're purposely ignoring the counterproductive damage that this 'branding' causes, but it's shortsighted to say the least.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I don't think anyone has presented a good argument (how one 'feels' does not count as an argument) as to why felons should be denied the right to vote (or firearms for that matter).

There is some argument that could be made that those that commit fire-arm offences or other violent crime, espically repeat offenders should have not be able to have a firearm for a period of time, or perhaps ever, but it should be part of sentancing, not a default

People's opinions are all that we have to go by. That is the foundation of laws and the crux of government.

The fact that we can vote in the first place is because people "feel" we should be able to. It worked its way into our laws and remained there.

The fact that some people feel felons shouldn't be able to vote is why in some places they can't.