Prisoners and the right to vote

[Dissonance]

If we allow exceptions to those rules, then what's the fucking point of having rules in the first place, hmmm?

There are times when the rules don't (or shouldn't) apply. That's why there's a difference in popular nomenclature between the "letter" and the "spirit" of the law.

We had rules stating that it was a requirement for native americans to have their culture destroyed and replaced with european culture. We had rules stating that black people are 3/5ths human and that interracial marriages were illegal. We have laws stating that homosexuals are second class citizens and that a woman's greatest asset to society is her reproductive ability regardless of how she feels on the subject.

Where the fuck would we be if nobody broke these rules?

Your ideas of "the law is the law so we should follow it" only works when the laws aren't immoral and aren't supporting a corrupt system that feeds off the subjugation of people not considered normal.

 

[coyotecraft]

There are plenty of screwy laws out there. Like in some states, if a person under 21 takes out the trash with even one beer can they can get an MIP. Or in California a server can be convicted if s/he sells alcohol to a minor that's using a fake ID (that's like getting arrested after someone robs you).

Regardless, these are laws set in place by society. You are removed from society while you're in prison. Therefor you can't be a part of society while you're in prison.

 

[Dissonance]

Regardless, these are laws set in place by society. You are removed from society while you're in prison. Therefor you can't be a part of society while you're in prison.

Considering that the maintenance of a prison, and by extension YOU, is paid for by society and uses manpower from society, you're not at all removed from it. In fact, in many ways you're more embedded in it.

 

[Sooth]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

It seems fair to maintain that the input of the people is necessary in order for a democracy to function as intended, in principle. Failure to include part of the populace seems to represent a failure of democracy at living up to its promise.

Though there are people whose crimes I may vastly disapprove of, whose habits or values strike me as so reprehensible I would feel uncomfortable allowing to vote... I still wouldn't want to take that right from them, *out* of principle, knowing that... in the grand scheme of things, there's really nothing that separates me from the same moral condemnation by another. With society's ever shifting maelstrom of values, every person on this forum has the potential to be a pariah: a criminal.

I'm not arguing moral relativism, merely the assumptions that seem inherent in the *idea* of a government *by* its citizens. In theory, such an idea, while far from perfect, exists to protect people from tyranny by small groups in power imposing their will upon everyone. The implications of this are undesirable even to people who *strongly* feel that certain criminals *shouldn't* vote. And so, as one person in the system, I would be willing to take the chance of a person who I consider morally bankrupt... playing a role in deciding policies for myself and others, in an infinitesimal effort to maintain this idea.

 

[Wolfgang]

We had rules stating that it was a requirement for native americans to have their culture destroyed and replaced with european culture. We had rules stating that black people are 3/5ths human and that interracial marriages were illegal. We have laws stating that homosexuals are second class citizens and that a woman's greatest asset to society is her reproductive ability regardless of how she feels on the subject.

Where the fuck would we be if nobody broke these rules?

Dissonance, you have a certain skill for bringing up crap that is close enough to supporting your point that most everyone assumes you know what you're talking about.

Yeah, our country (and most every other county) as had some really stupid laws and some laws that were morally just wrong. We can pretty much assume that some laws are meant to be broken and whatnot. Morality of humanity will prevail over the unjust laws and the racism/sexism against the blacks/women/gays will be won over with the just hearts of those who believe in justice. I get that.

But that has next to nothing to do with this discussion on whether or not prisoners have a right to vote. If someone breaks just and fair laws (or as close as we can come to such things) then they do not deserve to choose the laws or leaders of the country they betrayed with such acts of crime. Can anyone honestly say they want someone who committed a violent murder voting on gun laws or who the next president should be?

 

[nikki]

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

When a person is sent to prison, they lose many rights. No, they should not set up voting booths in prison. After a person has served their time, they should be allowed to vote though.

 

[Gray]

If a person is imprisoned, during the period of that imprisonment, I don't think they should be allowed to vote. It's harsher on crinimals, and I presonaly don't want somebody that'd commit crimes to be able to have a hand in who runs a country.