Prisoners and the right to vote

[Grathea]

Many countries restrict or limit the rights of those serving prison sentences to vote in elections. Convicted prisoners are automatically banned from voting in multiple countries (Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Romania, Russia, the UK, for instance) and only two US states recognize prisoners' right to vote(Maine and Vermont).

In the United States, in several states people who have been in prison are banned from voting for the duration of the rest of their lives, even after they have served their sentences.
On one side, some argue that prisoners remain human beings and deserve the same human rights and liberties assumed by the rest of the public, and that denying prisoners the right to vote poses no threat to others.

However, others claim that prisoners being banned from voting is one part of a larger system that restricts them from normal society, the most apparent examples of which are restrictions on movement, employment and communication, and that although by itself a ban on voting may have little or no effect, taken with the larger package of other measures, it helps to provide a signal of society's shunning of those who commit crime, thereby attempting to help prevent or reduce lawbreaking.

My question is this: Should prisoners be allowed the right to vote? Why or why not?

 

[SephirothSpawn]

Funny, my little bro just had a debate over something very similar.

Should they be allowed to vote? I personally think it depends on the crimes. There are several ways people can become felons and some are more deserving than others.

For example, most drugs to have in possession can get you a felony. I personally don't think don't think you should even get in trouble for something like weed, but in some states, being busted with less than 30 grams of it can result in a class D felony (most upon the second conviction). Personally, I don't think someone caught smoking weed should lose their right to vote. If anything, hopefully those people can make the change to make it legal, or less shunned by so many. No when you are convicted of a more serious felony like murder, then no, I think you shouldn't get the right to vote.

I do believe most people deserve a second chance. Then again, I forget the exact number but somewhere along the lines of 1 in 3 convicted felons are repeat offenders. I believe if your not smart enough to stop something after getting busted for it, then I don't want you voting for our leaders. Chances are, they are going to vote for the candidate that is just going to support the lowest punishment for crimes, and I think with lawyers and all the civil rights laws, enough criminals slip through the cracks.

That was probably full of contradictory statements, but I'm tired and figured I'd help get this topic going.

 

[Glitchfinder]

As SephirothSpawn stated, it should be based on the crime committed. In an ideal society, it probably would be. (That is, if there was such a thing as crime in an ideal society) In the real world, there is a difference. The paper trails are bad enough without adding the extra cost and time required to make sure that only people committed of specific crimes cannot vote. Not only that, but the fact that many people convicted not only of felonies but of minor crimes are repeat offenders leads me to assume that the system either will not or cannot correct the problems with these individuals, and, until the person is able to remain untarnished, they should have no say on how our nation is run. I really don't want a bunch of people getting together and having the government legalize many of the drugs that became illegal for legitimate reasons. I don't want child abusers to vote in this country, nor do I want someone who has committed multiple acts of something as simple as road rage to vote. When people repeatedly show that they don't have enough good judgments or common sense to keep themselves in line, how can they be expected to help decide the future of our nation?

BTW, did you know that it is a felony to vote twice? (In the same election, of course) I certainly wouldn't want someone who tried this to vote in the forseeable future.

 

[Ellie]

Prisoners are only prisoners because the people in charge deem them as prisoners by their laws. Those laws are, presumably, defined by whoever is in government. So by voting someone else in, potentially, those prisoners could become no longer prisoners. They should have the right to decide on that, purely because they only did "wrong" by the views of the people in charge when they went under.

It's all well and good to say "shoplifters can vote" but "child molesters can't vote", but if the voting system is really to get the views of the whole population then the whole population should be included.

Otherwise, what's to stop the government arresting anybody who might vote against them, therefore losing their right to vote?

 

[Venetia]

They either have the right or they don't. There shouldn't be exclusions.

Sure, some think that selling reefer is no big. Other people think it's absolutely horrid. I don't think it's a big deal, but it's obvious that I'm not making the laws. I wouldn't want someone else to use their "moral" discretion on MY inalienable rights, either. Morality is a construct of the individual. It's up to a majority vote of the people (as a whole) to say what is deemed "immoral" in the eyes of society.

Personally, I believe that suffrage is an inalienable right and should not be taken away. A person doesn't stop being a CITIZEN when they're a felon, so why are they restricted the one true right of the democratic citizen?

So what if a felon votes? If they happen to change the election process, isn't that saying that we have a strangely large number of felons? And that maybe the laws should be looked at if there are *that* many felons? (i.e. we're incarcerating too many people for frivolous things?)

 

[coyotecraft]

If they don't want to play by the rules then they shouldn't be allowed to help make them.

 

[Glitchfinder]

Prisoners are only prisoners because the people in charge deem them as prisoners by their laws. Those laws are, presumably, defined by whoever is in government. So by voting someone else in, potentially, those prisoners could become no longer prisoners. They should have the right to decide on that, purely because they only did "wrong" by the views of the people in charge when they went under.

It's all well and good to say "shoplifters can vote" but "child molesters can't vote", but if the voting system is really to get the views of the whole population then the whole population should be included.

Otherwise, what's to stop the government arresting anybody who might vote against them, therefore losing their right to vote?

Actually, a if a law that put someone in prison was changed or removed, the person would still have to serve their sentence. That's because they broke the law while it was a law. That's also true in reverse. No one can be charged for a crime that wasn't a crime when they committed it. Still, the real reason prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote is because they can't respect the law, which is an extension (in most cases) of the collective morality of the nation. If you are a child molester, I don't want to to have the right to violate the law and then go ahead and act as though you were a normal, peaceful, contributing member of society. That's also another important issue. Prisoners do not contribute to society, but are actually a drain on public resources. If taxpayers have to pay to keep prisoners healthy, why should they also tolerate prisoners having the same rights as they are, even though they no longer support themselves, pay taxes, or contribute to society. If you aren't a part of normal society, then you might as well not have the rights a normal citizen has. (And no, I don't extend this to the homeless or anything like that, so don't ask)

 

[Feldschlacht IV]

I don't know man, once someone has served a prison sentence and they're no longer imprisoned, haven't they already served their debt to society?

 

[moog]

If they don't want to play by the rules then they shouldn't be allowed to help make them.

This. Nothing else makes any sense to me, honestly.

 

[Dissonance]

If they don't want to play by the rules then they shouldn't be allowed to help make them.

This. Nothing else makes any sense to me, honestly.

This actually makes no sense at all.

"Hey, ya'll are niggers. YER SKIN IS BLACK. That means, according to the law of the confederate states o' am-eer-ee-kaa, you should be slaves! Oh wait, you don't wanna be slaves? You want rights, like voting and land ownership? Well you don't get any of that - you don't wanna play by the rules that say you're a slave, you don't get to help make 'em."

"Hey look it's feminists fighting for women's suffrage! Guess what, the current laws state that women can't vote - women voting is illegal. But you're fighting for it... If you don't wanna play by the rules that say you're a second class citizen, you don't get to vote!"

If people who opposed the law were completely stripped of all power then we would never have any change in society - The greatest changes came about when people were willing to do something that was illegal in the laws of the nation in order to forward a moral cause that is far beyond petty scraps of paper written by old white men in order to control those around them.

Here, let me put this in a contemporary context.

Right now, this very day, anal sex is illegal in Florida. It's in Florida's written laws. In practice, nobody charges heterosexual couples who do it in the ass, only homosexual males (because all homosexual males have anal sex of course.) They were convicted on charges of buggery - that is illegal, it IS against the law down there. Will you revoke their voting rights too?

 

[Venetia]

And the very idea--
Hey, you broke a law set by some old fat white guy you don't know. Let's say you don't agree with that law. But you do your time. Now you're out. And you can't vote and shift what those old fat white guys do. What?

Someone who has served their time is alright enough to be released back into society, in the eyes of the court. Why would their opinions suddenly disappear.

 

[coyotecraft]

Fighting for rights isn't illegal, I don't think there's a law against fighting for them. But we're talking about people who had rights and then lost the right to vote.
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. Plus, you have to do something really bad in the first place to make you a felon.
I think our system is stable enough to serve justice. When you break a law, you are sent to court to determine your sentence.
I doubt you'll be sent to prison for sodomy charges; you'll probably be labeled a sex offender but you'll still have the right to vote.

You might want change but you're going to need others who want it just as bad. What good is the right to vote if no one else will vote with you.

 

[coyotecraft]

I've been thinking about this all day so I'm going to add a little more.

Justifying actions on something like "I didn't agree to the rules so I'm not going to live by them" is a poor excuse.
I can't disagree with what Diss said, but he's thinking on another level.

A better argument would be say:

You're in a car accident, someone dies. You're at fault and are charged with manslaughter. You do your time in prison but should you lose the right to vote? An accident is an accident.

I'm not 100% you'd lose your right to vote. I think it depends on the circumstances.

 

[Dissonance]

Fighting for rights isn't illegal,

what, YES IT IS when the law specifically states YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.

I think our system is stable enough to serve justice.

ahahahahaha

I doubt you'll be sent to prison for sodomy charges

ahahahahahahahahaha

Alright um, no offense, but you don't seem to know how our current legal system works, and how many loopholes and immoral things are in it to make sure that people in power get what they want done rather than justice actually being served.

 

[Wolfgang]

I am of the belief that certian crimes should be immedately punishible by death after it has been proven that the crime was commited by said person. Crimes such as murder, attempted murder, rape (harder to prove, I know... but violent rape atleast), child molestation, and drunk driving. (I equate drunk driving to attempted murder) Dead people can't vote, so if we kill them it doesn't matter much. Crimes that are less severe then these shouldn't be death punished, but you shouldn't allow people who are in prision to vote. After they get out, sure why not? They've done their time and now they are allowed to walk amoung the rest of us, so they should be allowed to vote again.

 

[Dissonance]

I am of the belief that certian crimes should be immedately punishible by death after it has been proven that the crime was commited by said person. Crimes such as murder, attempted murder, rape (harder to prove, I know... but violent rape atleast), child molestation, and drunk driving. (I equate drunk driving to attempted murder) Dead people can't vote, so if we kill them it doesn't matter much. Crimes that are less severe then these shouldn't be death punished, but you shouldn't allow people who are in prision to vote. After they get out, sure why not? They've done their time and now they are allowed to walk amoung the rest of us, so they should be allowed to vote again.

considering we're STILL looking over old death penalty cases from the 70s and letting people go because new forensic technology has proved them innocent despite them being convicted back then, your idea is pure hell. It stems from the belief that our current way of collecting evidence is infallible and under your system that kind of arrogance would get everybody killed.

It's great to talk about a theoretical world where you can prove a person did something immediately without a doubt and then kill them right there in the courtroom but things don't work like that in reality.

 

[coyotecraft]

You don't think things have changed or gotten better since then?

This explains Felons and voting rights. You have to commit a crime punishable by death in the state penitentiary or imprisonment in a state correctional facility. Felons CAN regain their right to vote after their sentence it served.

But should people who are still in prison have the right to vote? Lets say did and they managed to change the law that put them in jail. They still have to serve time.
Besides, do you want someone who can't make the right decisions in life to play a part in yours?

 

[Wolfgang]

Yeah Diss I know the world doesn't work like that. I was just saying that if we could prove things with such certainty, then alot more people should be killed (put down like a dog) for the things they have done. The things these people have done are unforgivable and seen as the worst of all crimes by most everyone. Most of the people who don't care if rapists or murderers run free are people who are or are likely to become rapists and murderers. In an ideal world, they would be killed. We're not in an ideal world. Probably because we don't want to accidently put good people behind bars or sentence them to death when they didn't commit any crimes. I rather kill a few innocents then let alot of guilty people walk away. I guess my views, in this respect, are opposite of the general public. And yes, before you ask, I would freaking the hell out if I was innocent and killed by this perfect world justice system, but atleast most all of the evil people would be taken care of.

On topic... I agree with coyotecraft. If they have made bad decisions and are doing thier time, they shouldn't have the right to help make decisions that will change the way my world is. After they get out of prision... maybe? Depending on the severity of their crimes.

 

[Dissonance]

Besides, do you want someone who can't make the right decisions in life to play a part in yours?

I don't see breaking a law as being unable to "make the right descisions in life".

When I am deciding to do an action, there's a simple list of criteria I go through. The first thing I ask is, is it something necessary for survival? Then, I ask wether or not it is moral. Then, I ask if it is legal. If I need to do something to keep myself alive but it's not legal, I do it anyway. If I'm confronted with a choice of doing something that's moral but illegal, I do it anyway. And neither of those choices would be qualified as not making "the right descisions in life".

I was just saying that if we could prove things with such certainty,

I stopped reading here because this 'if' is something that will not happen within our lifetimes so the resulting tangent doesn't really mean anything.

 

[Zalcanthrias]

I was just saying that if we could prove things with such certainty,

I stopped reading here because this 'if' is something that will not happen within our lifetimes so the resulting tangent doesn't really mean anything.

That's right Wolfgang, possibility means nothing to some people. Some of us want the whole truth and nuthin' but the truth despite that fact that they would be perfectly fine lying to you and others.

*sigh* OK, this is an easy one ...
I've heard over and over again that the consequence of the crime must constitute the resulting participation in the voting process. I totally agree that should you give up part of your humanity (if I can even say that) in order to commit a crime, then certain rights would be forfeit PERIOD; there's no beating around the bush; no 'and's', 'if's', 'but's', 'why's', or 'because's'. Rules and law are established to regulate order. If we allow exceptions to those rules, then what's the fucking point of having rules in the first place, hmmm?