Should Prisoners Be Allowed to Vote?

[Adam's Apple]

Where should this matter be decided--at state or federal level?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7102435/site/newsweek/page/2/

 

[fuzzykitten99]

NO! They broke the law, so what makes them think they can have a say in helping change it? Don't like it? too bad---should have thought of that before committing the crime

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I say no.

 

[Avatar4321]

Prisoners deffinately shouldnt be allowed to vote. They lost their rights by committing the crimes. (except of course for due process rights).

However, I think after the sentence is over and they have paid their dues to society they should get the opportunity to vote back if they show themselves truly reformed. thats just my opinion though. we can open that one up for debate. but we deffinately shouldnt let prisoners vote.

 

[Trigg]

Prisoners deffinately shouldnt be allowed to vote. They lost their rights by committing the crimes. (except of course for due process rights).

However, I think after the sentence is over and they have paid their dues to society they should get the opportunity to vote back if they show themselves truly reformed. thats just my opinion though. we can open that one up for debate. but we deffinately shouldnt let prisoners vote.

I agree, once they're out I think they should be able to vote. But not while they're in jail.

 

[Working Man]

If you get busted for smoking some weed, then I say sure. You can still vote.

If you think Martha Stewert was framed for something like what you did,, No,,, your voting days are over.

If you were indicted and convicted after you hacked your parents into bite size pieces and then finished dinner with a Chianti,,, then no,,,, I don't think you should be able to vote..

If you think that Hillary Clinton is the right woman for President,,, then not only don't you get to vote, but you have to dine with the parent hacker....Bon Appatite.

 

[Annie]

I agree, once they're out I think they should be able to vote. But not while they're in jail.

I disagree. Once convicted of a serious crime, you have given up the privilege of enfranchisment. IMO

 

[Yurt]

No right to vote in prison/jail. Many reasons.

You have given up many other free rights as well, like the fundamental right to travel, etc... So voting should also not be allowed. There is less reliability in a prisoner voting. Captive audience, threats from other prisoners (much more viable than outside of prison)... List goes on, but those are the first issues that come to mind

 

[Trigg]

I disagree. Once convicted of a serious crime, you have given up the privilege of enfranchisment. IMO

Serious crimes like murder, I can probably agree with you.

 

[no1tovote4]

Serious crimes like murder, I can probably agree with you.

After they have served their time, if they want to vote they are allowed to. In this state at least. However, franchising those who are still paying for their crimes is simply wrong. There is nothing to suggest that those who are serving time for breaking laws should be allowed to vote on those very laws, or even on the people that may or may not change the laws. Think of the whole new dynamic of Candidates campaigning for votes at Prisons. Not only that but Candidates could use their incarceration to buy votes, granting such things as Pardons, etc in exchange for their votes. Too easy to corrupt the system with this particular idea. Keep the ones in Prison or still no Parole from voting. It is clearly in society's best interest.

 

[-Cp]

No right to vote in prison/jail. Many reasons.

You have given up many other free rights as well, like the fundamental right to travel, etc... So voting should also not be allowed. There is less reliability in a prisoner voting. Captive audience, threats from other prisoners (much more viable than outside of prison)... List goes on, but those are the first issues that come to mind

Actually, if you read the bill of rights, there's no such a thing as a "fundamental right to travel"....

Travelling is a privledge...

 

[freeandfun1]

Leave the system as it is..... Let the states decide. It is their choice, after all.

 

[Yurt]

Actually, if you read the bill of rights, there's no such a thing as a "fundamental right to travel"....

Travelling is a privledge...

Actually, it has been interpreted to be a fundamental right via the 14th Amendment P&I clause.

From an outline:

“Strict” Scrutiny and the Right to Travel
Saenz (reviving the priv. & imm clause of the 14th Amend.)
A newly arrived citizen of a state has the same privileges and immunities enjoyed byother citizens of the same state.

When is Restriction Not a Violation of Right of Travel?
1. Sosna -- divorce
2. Starns -- in state for tuition
3. Jones -- enhanced criminal penalty when defendant leaves state
4. Martinez -- when residency requirement limits tuition- free admission to students
who are in school district for reasons other than the purpose of attending free
public school

Additionally:

Although the word "travel" does not appear in the Constitution, the right to travel from state to state is embedded in Supreme Court caselaw. As the Court recently clarified in its 1999 decision, Saenz v Roe, the "right to travel" embraces three different components: (1) the right of a citizen of one state to enter and leave another state, (2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor and not an unfriendly alien while temporarily present in a second state, and (3) for those travelers who elect to become residents of another state, the right to be treated like other citizens of that state. The first of these rights, depending upon which Supreme Court justices you ask, has its source either in the commerce clause or the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The second has its source in the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2. The third right, the one considered in the cases on this page, is based, the Court says in Saenz in the Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Link

 

[Adam's Apple]

You had better let your representatives in Congress know how you feel about this issue, or the legislation proposed by Hillary, Barbara Boxer and old Lurch (JFK) could slip through. Those Dems are looking for votes wherever they can find them, just like they searched for illegal money during the 1996 campaign.

 

[Shattered]

No. No. No. HELL NO.

If you fuck up enough to find yourself behind bars, you don't deserve any input on how this country is run.

 

[Mr. P]

I say no...
All citizen rights are forfeited at the prison door. Else one wouldn't be there, would they?

 

[manu1959]

Where should this matter be decided--at state or federal level?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7102435/site/newsweek/page/2/

no.....they lost their rights to be a part of society when the chose to commit a crime

 

[Annie]

Should be decided by each state, but I think some common sense is in order. Felons should not get the vote back, IMHO:

http://techcentralstation.com/030905H.html

In the world where the enfranchisement of felons seems like a good idea, no crime is ever really that bad. No sin can ever disqualify a man from full civic participation. A little time in the hoosegow squares all accounts. Felons are decent people just like you and me; they made mistakes, they paid for their mistakes, and they're ready to resume their lives. Only a churl or a prudish killjoy would deprive these poor souls of their rights, merely on account of their prior actions.

This is Misdemeanor Nation.



A misdemeanor is a less serious kind of crime. It can entail some consequences -- a fine, community service, jail time -- but nothing life-changing; nothing that signifies a permanent rupture between a citizen and the state. There are no permanent ruptures in Misdemeanor Nation. In fact, there is no permanent anything in Misdemeanor Nation.



In Misdemeanor Nation, criminals need to vote in order to be rehabilitated. To deprive them of that right would be cruel and unusual punishment, and thus unconstitutional. Admittedly, the proof for that contention is wanting, but if we leave Anthony Kennedy alone with the Uruguayan Constitution and the annotated case law of Sierra Leone, he'll come up with a rationalization.



In Misdemeanor Nation, the vote is an inalienable right. You don't need virtue to vote. You don't need to obey the rules of society to vote. If you have a pulse and an eighteenth birthday, you get to vote.



I come from Felony Nation. I come from a place where the right to vote is a presumption that intolerable behavior can rebut.



In Felony Nation, we have these crazy things called "felonies." Here, felonies are crimes that are so severe that they irreversibly corrode the social fabric. Felonies create harm so profound that no jail or prison term can compensate for it.



You can tell that you're in Misdemeanor Nation when you hear glib talk about felons having "paid their debt to society." How does one account for that debt? What is the price of children seeing violence in their home? What is the interest rate on decent people being afraid to walk the streets at night? How does anyone pay back the cost of small business in troubled neighborhoods shutting down because the theft of expensive merchandise has become unbearable?



In Felony Nation, prison sentences don't bear the slightest resemblance to the "debt" that any criminal owes society. In Felony Nation, sentences are a trade-off between the protection that society wants and the cost that society is willing to bear in order to enjoy that protection. If felons truly had to pay back what they took from society, they'd never be released.



Felonies don't create debts. They create wounds. And some wounds don't heal.



In Misdemeanor Nation, we are told that criminals should not be held accountable indefinitely for their youthful indiscretions and one-time-only lapses in judgment. In Felony Nation, men are the sum of their actions, "youthful" or otherwise, and those who inflict permanent harm must be prepared to accept permanent sanctions. Adults sometimes make irreversible choices, for good or ill; when society refuses to acknowledge the rights of men to act in unchangeable ways, it diminishes their freedom, rather than enhancing it. In Felony Nation, when your actions announce that you reject a just social order, the law takes you seriously enough to accept your rejection.



In Misdemeanor Nation, the universal franchise is based on the belief that all people are basically good and fit for participation in a free society. The basic decency of citizens qua citizens entitles them to voting privileges irrespective of their prior actions.



Conversely, in Felony Nation, the universal franchise is a legal fiction, albeit a useful one. Citizens who grow up in a free society are presumed to have acquired the habits of virtue and self-control that make freedom possible. Society assumes that intermediary institutions -- families, schools, and local associations -- impart the lessons and qualities that permit an open, lightly regulated society. And society makes this assumption for all citizens, regardless of background or ability.



This assumption is largely a lie. A society with a universal franchise is a society that extends the vote to innumerable idiots, scoundrels, fools, jellyfish, and nincompoops. But we accept the Voting Bloc of the Damned for two reasons: first, we don't trust the government (or any other entity) to fairly and justly distinguish between capable and incapable voters; second, we believe that the very importance of voting compels borderline idiots to take their duties as citizens more seriously. Put another way: we'd rather suffer foolish voters than a foolish government, and we hope that knuckleheads will grow into the role of responsible citizens if we let them wear the mask of respectable citizenship long enough.



But in Felony Nation, felons corrupt the fictions upon which the universal franchise is premised. How can anyone impute virtue to a citizen who has been found beyond a reasonable doubt to have failed in meeting the most rudimentary demands of responsible life?



In both nations, felons can't carry guns. Those in Misdemeanor Nation claim that the vote is different than gun ownership. We in Felony Nation agree. The vote is more dangerous than a gun. A vote in a United States election is a share of the most powerful military and economy in the history of the world. Should such power be entrusted to people who can't even be entrusted to control themselves?



Voting is the basic right of a citizen. But obedience to the law is the basic duty. Those who grossly breach the duty have no claim to the right.



In Misdemeanor Nation, voting helps restore and rehabilitate criminals. No evidence or logic is presented to support this belief, but somehow it must be true. In Felony Nation, voting is a tool for public deliberation and governmental accountability -- not a group therapy session.



It's fair to point out that Felony Nation may have gone too far in declaring certain crimes to be felonies. The argument for the enfranchisement of felons often seems to be a proxy fight against mandatory felony sentencing for low-level drug users. It's political poison to suggest that possession of a smidgen of cocaine ought not to be a felony; the enfranchisement of felons is much more palatable. If we're creating too many felons through the drug laws, let's re-examine the drug laws, instead of demeaning the importance of felonies themselves.



It's fair, too, to argue that some felons may be able to earn back their right to vote through penitence and public service. Who can dispute that Chuck Colson has given more to society than he ever took? But the road back to enfranchisement should be an arduous one, open only to the truly motivated. To allow felons to earn the vote is to reinforce the bond between voting and virtue; to give the vote to felons is to deny that bond altogether.



It's freedom math. Voting = virtue. Voting - virtue = zero freedom. Ergo: lack of virtue = lack of vote. This is the logic of Felony Nation. Would you care to join me there?

 

[Annie]

Resurrecting this thread, with this new article:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.kane18mar18,0,6689201.column?coll=bal-home-columnists

maryland news
Do we really want to see felons voting from prison?

Originally published Mar 18, 2006
Gregory Kane

You knew they'd be back, didn't you?

I knew it. I knew it before they knew it.

"They" are the folks for whom restoring voting rights to felons has become not only a passion, not just a mission, but darn near a mania. Three years ago, they persuaded like-minded state legislators to pass a bill that would restore voting rights to felons three years after leaving prison. But that wasn't good enough.

So they're back again this year, proposing another bill that would restore voting rights to felons as soon as they leave prison. Why don't these folks - members and nonmembers of the legislature - just cut to the chase?

Propose a bill now that seeks what they really want: for felons to be allowed to vote while they're still in prison. Then they can move on to their ultimate goal: a bill that would end incarceration as a punishment.

Can I prove that? No. Maybe I'm just a little testy because those of us who are leery of restoring voting rights to felons are always having our judgment questioned.

When this issue arose in 2002, I had one man ask me if I really believed that felons shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"I really believe it's not my problem," I answered. But you get the gist of his question, don't you? By daring to believe that the system the state of Maryland had in place before 2002 was correct, I was suggesting there was something wrong with me.

Hey, how about questioning the judgment of the folks who've committed two felonies for a change?

Before 2002, that's just how you became disenfranchised in Maryland: by committing two felonies. There was also a process whereby felons could restore their voting rights on a case-by-case basis, by petitioning the governor and asking for a pardon.

There was a certain logic to this process that those advocating unrestricted felon voting rights clearly have no use for: It distinguished the felon who was truly rehabilitated, reformed and prepared to be a responsible member of society again from the one who was prepared only to resume a criminal lifestyle. It wasn't - and shouldn't have been - a one-size-fits-all solution.

The proposed felon voting rights legislation is a one-size-fits-all solution for a situation that is anything but one size. Do we really want, for example, the guys who were in the Stop Snitching DVD to leave prison and vote in a tight race for Baltimore state's attorney that pits a candidate who wants to keep witness intimidation a felony against one who wants to make it a misdemeanor?

I sure don't. Those who favor unlimited voting rights for felons need to explain why they do.

And they need better arguments than the ones they've managed to dredge up. The most laughable is that denying the vote to felons isn't democratic. There's a reason for that: The United States isn't a democracy.

This country is a republic. That's why Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution says the federal government must guarantee to every state a republican form of government, not a democratic one.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the "it's not democratic" argument would mean we'd have to discard much of our Constitution and federal institutions. The purest form of democracy at the federal level is the House of Representatives. Members are elected by popular vote. States with the largest populations have the most representatives.

But the U.S. Senate isn't "democratic." States with low populations have the same number of Senate votes as states with large populations.

The Electoral College clearly isn't "democratic," which is why some have called for its abolition. But why not get rid of that undemocratic U.S. Senate as well? While we're at it, we can chuck Amendments 11 through 27. All were passed after being ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the members of that undemocratic Senate.

In fact, the first 10 amendments of the Constitution - our revered Bill of Rights - aren't really democratic either. They came to us from a republican government. So let's deep-six our Bill of Rights as well. Call a new constitutional convention where the voting rights of felons are explicitly enumerated. (As it now stands, the 14th Amendment clearly says states have the right to disenfranchise felons.)

When they're not beating us over our heads with the "it's undemocratic" argument, advocates of unrestricted voting rights for felons hit us with another one: Felons pay taxes, so they should vote. But it's not the taxes felons pay that should concern us.

It's the taxes law-abiding citizens pay for the police who arrested them that matter. And the taxes we pay if they need a public defender. And the taxes for prosecutors and other court costs. And the taxes for their room, board and health care while they are incarcerated. And the taxes we pay for the corrections officers who keep them in line, and all other prison personnel.

Let's tally all those taxes and have felons pay us back. Then we can talk about giving them unrestricted voting rights.

 

[Emmett]

Why don't we use a system like stockholders in a corporation. In my opinion a person who contributes more of their money should indeed get more ability to contribute to the decision making process.

For every 1,000 dollars you pay in taxes, you get one vote. Therefore if you happen to be in prison, well you probably are not paying any taxes so you don't get to contribute your vote.

Now of course the lefties won't think much of my idea but it actually would be the fairest way to decide contribution by voters. Why should some guy who lives in a housing project, sells crack for his main job while sidelining at 7-11 making no more than what will allow him to take a bigger chunk of MY tax payment and give it to him in Earned Income Credit because he has managed to father more children than anyone in the hood, get an equal say so to me.

Democrats get their votes from evryone except ( in General ) hard working, money earning, Godfearing Americans. Just a flat tax system would cut their base in half.