The Reprehensible Right: Judge rules against Florida on felons paying fines to vote

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they have done their time and are no longer on probation I have no problem with it.

Florida's bill was attempting to redefine "doing their time" to stretch it to include payment of all fines and fees.

They will just start keeping them in jail or supervised probation for not paying their fines and fees.

Which disproportionately effects poor people and puts people in jail who do not need to be there.

If you cannot pay your fees and fines, you should stay on supervised probation, meaning you don't get right to vote back! It doesn't matter if you owe $5 or $5 million.

Nope. I disagree. If they serve the time, they have served the time.

In that case you are a fool. If someone owes a $5000 fine in addition to their crime, why let them off the hook for this? They should have just made the sentence longer.

 

[Coyote]

Jim Crow’s Lasting Legacy At The Ballot Box

Denying voting rights to people with felony convictions has roots in racist laws.

www.themarshallproject.org

In 1901, delegates drafting a new constitution for Alabama knew their mission. “Within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution,” convention president John B. Knox explained, the delegates aimed “to establish white supremacy in this state. If we should have white supremacy, we must establish it by law — not by force or fraud.”

Unable to explicitly ban black voters without violating federal law, the resulting state constitution declared persons “convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude” could not vote without having their rights restored.

A pretty good history of these laws and felony disenfranchisement can be found here: Disenfranchisement_History.pdf

 

[Coyote]

If they have done their time and are no longer on probation I have no problem with it.

Florida's bill was attempting to redefine "doing their time" to stretch it to include payment of all fines and fees.

They will just start keeping them in jail or supervised probation for not paying their fines and fees.

Which disproportionately effects poor people and puts people in jail who do not need to be there.

If you cannot pay your fees and fines, you should stay on supervised probation, meaning you don't get right to vote back! It doesn't matter if you owe $5 or $5 million.

Nope. I disagree. If they serve the time, they have served the time.

In that case you are a fool. If someone owes a $5000 fine in addition to their crime, why let them off the hook for this? They should have just made the sentence longer.

Because those fees and fines often disproportionately hurt poor people. It should not also affect their ability to vote.

Locking up the Poor One Municipal Fine at a Time

A new report outlines how municipal court fines disproportionately target low-income communities.

psmag.com

It was the United States Department of Justice's investigation into the Ferguson Police Department after an officer killed Michael Brown in 2014 that "awakened" the federal government and much of the general public to the burden of municipal fines and fees, issued for everything from traffic violations, to mismatched curtains, to court costs. When people can't afford to pay these fees, they end up with criminal warrants, drivers' license suspensions, and even end up in jail.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they have done their time and are no longer on probation I have no problem with it.

Florida's bill was attempting to redefine "doing their time" to stretch it to include payment of all fines and fees.

They will just start keeping them in jail or supervised probation for not paying their fines and fees.

Which disproportionately effects poor people and puts people in jail who do not need to be there.

If you cannot pay your fees and fines, you should stay on supervised probation, meaning you don't get right to vote back! It doesn't matter if you owe $5 or $5 million.

Nope. I disagree. If they serve the time, they have served the time.

In that case you are a fool. If someone owes a $5000 fine in addition to their crime, why let them off the hook for this? They should have just made the sentence longer.

Because those fees and fines often disproportionately hurt poor people. It should not also affect their ability to vote.

Locking up the Poor One Municipal Fine at a Time

A new report outlines how municipal court fines disproportionately target low-income communities.

psmag.com

It was the United States Department of Justice's investigation into the Ferguson Police Department after an officer killed Michael Brown in 2014 that "awakened" the federal government and much of the general public to the burden of municipal fines and fees, issued for everything from traffic violations, to mismatched curtains, to court costs. When people can't afford to pay these fees, they end up with criminal warrants, drivers' license suspensions, and even end up in jail.

That is one small jurisdiction.

If it hurts poor people, tough shit! They should not have committed the crime!

 

[Coyote]

If they have done their time and are no longer on probation I have no problem with it.

Florida's bill was attempting to redefine "doing their time" to stretch it to include payment of all fines and fees.

They will just start keeping them in jail or supervised probation for not paying their fines and fees.

Which disproportionately effects poor people and puts people in jail who do not need to be there.

If you cannot pay your fees and fines, you should stay on supervised probation, meaning you don't get right to vote back! It doesn't matter if you owe $5 or $5 million.

Nope. I disagree. If they serve the time, they have served the time.

In that case you are a fool. If someone owes a $5000 fine in addition to their crime, why let them off the hook for this? They should have just made the sentence longer.

Because those fees and fines often disproportionately hurt poor people. It should not also affect their ability to vote.

Locking up the Poor One Municipal Fine at a Time

A new report outlines how municipal court fines disproportionately target low-income communities.

psmag.com

It was the United States Department of Justice's investigation into the Ferguson Police Department after an officer killed Michael Brown in 2014 that "awakened" the federal government and much of the general public to the burden of municipal fines and fees, issued for everything from traffic violations, to mismatched curtains, to court costs. When people can't afford to pay these fees, they end up with criminal warrants, drivers' license suspensions, and even end up in jail.

That is one small jurisdiction.

If it hurts poor people, tough shit! They should not have committed the crime!

Then shouldn't ALL people who owe fine and fees be prevented from voting until they pay up?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they have done their time and are no longer on probation I have no problem with it.

Florida's bill was attempting to redefine "doing their time" to stretch it to include payment of all fines and fees.

They will just start keeping them in jail or supervised probation for not paying their fines and fees.

Which disproportionately effects poor people and puts people in jail who do not need to be there.

If you cannot pay your fees and fines, you should stay on supervised probation, meaning you don't get right to vote back! It doesn't matter if you owe $5 or $5 million.

Nope. I disagree. If they serve the time, they have served the time.

In that case you are a fool. If someone owes a $5000 fine in addition to their crime, why let them off the hook for this? They should have just made the sentence longer.

Because those fees and fines often disproportionately hurt poor people. It should not also affect their ability to vote.

Locking up the Poor One Municipal Fine at a Time

A new report outlines how municipal court fines disproportionately target low-income communities.

psmag.com

It was the United States Department of Justice's investigation into the Ferguson Police Department after an officer killed Michael Brown in 2014 that "awakened" the federal government and much of the general public to the burden of municipal fines and fees, issued for everything from traffic violations, to mismatched curtains, to court costs. When people can't afford to pay these fees, they end up with criminal warrants, drivers' license suspensions, and even end up in jail.

That is one small jurisdiction.

If it hurts poor people, tough shit! They should not have committed the crime!

Then shouldn't ALL people who owe fine and fees be prevented from voting until they pay up?

Absolutely!

Where did you get the idea that they shouldn't?

 

[Coyote]

If they have done their time and are no longer on probation I have no problem with it.

Florida's bill was attempting to redefine "doing their time" to stretch it to include payment of all fines and fees.

They will just start keeping them in jail or supervised probation for not paying their fines and fees.

Which disproportionately effects poor people and puts people in jail who do not need to be there.

If you cannot pay your fees and fines, you should stay on supervised probation, meaning you don't get right to vote back! It doesn't matter if you owe $5 or $5 million.

Nope. I disagree. If they serve the time, they have served the time.

In that case you are a fool. If someone owes a $5000 fine in addition to their crime, why let them off the hook for this? They should have just made the sentence longer.

Because those fees and fines often disproportionately hurt poor people. It should not also affect their ability to vote.

Locking up the Poor One Municipal Fine at a Time

A new report outlines how municipal court fines disproportionately target low-income communities.

psmag.com

It was the United States Department of Justice's investigation into the Ferguson Police Department after an officer killed Michael Brown in 2014 that "awakened" the federal government and much of the general public to the burden of municipal fines and fees, issued for everything from traffic violations, to mismatched curtains, to court costs. When people can't afford to pay these fees, they end up with criminal warrants, drivers' license suspensions, and even end up in jail.

That is one small jurisdiction.

If it hurts poor people, tough shit! They should not have committed the crime!

Then shouldn't ALL people who owe fine and fees be prevented from voting until they pay up?

Absolutely!

Where did you get the idea that they shouldn't?

They don't have to. They get to vote. There is no law preventing them from voting.

We can start here with unpaid fines.

Scofflaw Political Groups Are Ignoring FEC Fines

Wait long enough, many are finding, and the federal government usually gives up.

www.politico.com

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they have done their time and are no longer on probation I have no problem with it.

Florida's bill was attempting to redefine "doing their time" to stretch it to include payment of all fines and fees.

They will just start keeping them in jail or supervised probation for not paying their fines and fees.

Which disproportionately effects poor people and puts people in jail who do not need to be there.

If you cannot pay your fees and fines, you should stay on supervised probation, meaning you don't get right to vote back! It doesn't matter if you owe $5 or $5 million.

Nope. I disagree. If they serve the time, they have served the time.

In that case you are a fool. If someone owes a $5000 fine in addition to their crime, why let them off the hook for this? They should have just made the sentence longer.

Because those fees and fines often disproportionately hurt poor people. It should not also affect their ability to vote.

Locking up the Poor One Municipal Fine at a Time

A new report outlines how municipal court fines disproportionately target low-income communities.

psmag.com

It was the United States Department of Justice's investigation into the Ferguson Police Department after an officer killed Michael Brown in 2014 that "awakened" the federal government and much of the general public to the burden of municipal fines and fees, issued for everything from traffic violations, to mismatched curtains, to court costs. When people can't afford to pay these fees, they end up with criminal warrants, drivers' license suspensions, and even end up in jail.

That is one small jurisdiction.

If it hurts poor people, tough shit! They should not have committed the crime!

Then shouldn't ALL people who owe fine and fees be prevented from voting until they pay up?

Absolutely!

Where did you get the idea that they shouldn't?

They don't have to. They get to vote. There is no law preventing them from voting.

We can start here with unpaid fines.

Scofflaw Political Groups Are Ignoring FEC Fines

Wait long enough, many are finding, and the federal government usually gives up.

www.politico.com

Just like a retard, you didn't even read you own linked material.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What specifically is "racist bullshit"?

The entire premise that we ought to undermine our justice system in any way, because for whatever reason, certain races are more likely to commit crimes, and therefore more likely to be impacted by the consequences of their crimes. It's racist, to its very root, and ironic the way you racist LIbEral filth try to project your abject racism on those of us who believe that criminals, regardless of race, need to be held accountable for their crimes.

If you truly don't understand why it's bullshit, then that only goes to show how mentally-defective your kind truly are.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling.

I'm beginning to change my mind, not so much from the arguments of those who oppose the ruling in question, and think that criminals who still owe fines should be denied the right to vote until those fines are paid, as by the blatantly-racist left wrong-wing filth such as Coyote, who are arguing the position that it is “racist” to hold criminals accountable for their behavior. The case you are, in fact, succeeding in making is that the ruling itself is racist, and can only really be defended from a racist viewpoint.

 

[Coyote]

I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling.

I'm beginning to change my mind, not so much from the arguments of those who oppose the ruling in question, and think that criminals who still owe fines should be denied the right to vote until those fines are paid, as by the blatantly-racist left wrong-wing filth such as Coyote, who are arguing the position that it is “racist” to hold criminals accountable for their behavior. The case you are, in fact, succeeding in making is that the ruling itself is racist, and can only really be defended from a racist viewpoint.

Try and AT LEAST get my words correct. I'm pointing out that depriving felons of voting rights comes out of a racist legacy.

Q: Do you deny this? If so, support your denial with evidence.

Given that, two questions arise.

Why do we continue to do that? Well, I don't have a problem with no vote until you've served your time - which is generally accepted to mean time served.

Q: Do we agree on that point?

Now FLORIDA decides it's going to change that and include all fees and fines.

Q: How is this "time served" and is it good reason to remove voting rights? If it is then shouldn't ALL people who owe fines and fees be denied the vote?

 

[Coyote]

What specifically is "racist bullshit"?

The entire premise that we ought to undermine our justice system in any way, because for whatever reason, certain races are more likely to commit crimes, and therefore more likely to be impacted by the consequences of their crimes. It's racist, to its very root, and ironic the way you racist LIbEral filth try to project your abject racism on those of us who believe that criminals, regardless of race, need to be held accountable for their crimes.

If you truly don't understand why it's bullshit, then that only goes to show how mentally-defective your kind truly are.

Dude. I don't think you read the article I linked to. I really don't. Because NOTHING you are saying above relates to it.

 

[Coyote]

If they have done their time and are no longer on probation I have no problem with it.

Florida's bill was attempting to redefine "doing their time" to stretch it to include payment of all fines and fees.

They will just start keeping them in jail or supervised probation for not paying their fines and fees.

Which disproportionately effects poor people and puts people in jail who do not need to be there.

If you cannot pay your fees and fines, you should stay on supervised probation, meaning you don't get right to vote back! It doesn't matter if you owe $5 or $5 million.

Nope. I disagree. If they serve the time, they have served the time.

In that case you are a fool. If someone owes a $5000 fine in addition to their crime, why let them off the hook for this? They should have just made the sentence longer.

Because those fees and fines often disproportionately hurt poor people. It should not also affect their ability to vote.

Locking up the Poor One Municipal Fine at a Time

A new report outlines how municipal court fines disproportionately target low-income communities.

psmag.com

It was the United States Department of Justice's investigation into the Ferguson Police Department after an officer killed Michael Brown in 2014 that "awakened" the federal government and much of the general public to the burden of municipal fines and fees, issued for everything from traffic violations, to mismatched curtains, to court costs. When people can't afford to pay these fees, they end up with criminal warrants, drivers' license suspensions, and even end up in jail.

That is one small jurisdiction.

If it hurts poor people, tough shit! They should not have committed the crime!

Then shouldn't ALL people who owe fine and fees be prevented from voting until they pay up?

Absolutely!

Where did you get the idea that they shouldn't?

They don't have to. They get to vote. There is no law preventing them from voting.

We can start here with unpaid fines.

Scofflaw Political Groups Are Ignoring FEC Fines

Wait long enough, many are finding, and the federal government usually gives up.

www.politico.com

Just like a retard, you didn't even read you own linked material.

What part of unpaid fines do you not get?

 

[Asclepias]

If they have done their time and are no longer on probation I have no problem with it.

Florida's bill was attempting to redefine "doing their time" to stretch it to include payment of all fines and fees.

They will just start keeping them in jail or supervised probation for not paying their fines and fees.

Which disproportionately effects poor people and puts people in jail who do not need to be there.

If you cannot pay your fees and fines, you should stay on supervised probation, meaning you don't get right to vote back! It doesn't matter if you owe $5 or $5 million.

Nope. I disagree. If they serve the time, they have served the time.

In that case you are a fool. If someone owes a $5000 fine in addition to their crime, why let them off the hook for this? They should have just made the sentence longer.

Hey you fool. They are not being let off the hook. They still have to pay the fine.

 

[Asclepias]

I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling.

I'm beginning to change my mind, not so much from the arguments of those who oppose the ruling in question, and think that criminals who still owe fines should be denied the right to vote until those fines are paid, as by the blatantly-racist left wrong-wing filth such as Coyote, who are arguing the position that it is “racist” to hold criminals accountable for their behavior. The case you are, in fact, succeeding in making is that the ruling itself is racist, and can only really be defended from a racist viewpoint.

"I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling."

Nobody gives a shit what you are or are not in favor of. You dont make anything happen with your opinion. No one asked you for your permission. That ruling had nothing to do with your input.

 

[Asclepias]

I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling.

I'm beginning to change my mind, not so much from the arguments of those who oppose the ruling in question, and think that criminals who still owe fines should be denied the right to vote until those fines are paid, as by the blatantly-racist left wrong-wing filth such as Coyote, who are arguing the position that it is “racist” to hold criminals accountable for their behavior. The case you are, in fact, succeeding in making is that the ruling itself is racist, and can only really be defended from a racist viewpoint.

Try and AT LEAST get my words correct. I'm pointing out that depriving felons of voting rights comes out of a racist legacy.

Q: Do you deny this? If so, support your denial with evidence.

Given that, two questions arise.

Why do we continue to do that? Well, I don't have a problem with no vote until you've served your time - which is generally accepted to mean time served.

Q: Do we agree on that point?

Now FLORIDA decides it's going to change that and include all fees and fines.

Q: How is this "time served" and is it good reason to remove voting rights? If it is then shouldn't ALL people who owe fines and fees be denied the vote?

There would be a whole lot of people not voting if this applied to anyone that owed a late book fee from the library, back child support, etc etc.

 

[JoeMoma]

I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling.

I'm beginning to change my mind, not so much from the arguments of those who oppose the ruling in question, and think that criminals who still owe fines should be denied the right to vote until those fines are paid, as by the blatantly-racist left wrong-wing filth such as Coyote, who are arguing the position that it is “racist” to hold criminals accountable for their behavior. The case you are, in fact, succeeding in making is that the ruling itself is racist, and can only really be defended from a racist viewpoint.

"I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling."

Nobody gives a shit what you are or are not in favor of. You dont make anything happen with your opinion. No one asked you for your permission. That ruling had nothing to do with your input.

The same can be said for all the shit you post.

 

[Asclepias]

I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling.

I'm beginning to change my mind, not so much from the arguments of those who oppose the ruling in question, and think that criminals who still owe fines should be denied the right to vote until those fines are paid, as by the blatantly-racist left wrong-wing filth such as Coyote, who are arguing the position that it is “racist” to hold criminals accountable for their behavior. The case you are, in fact, succeeding in making is that the ruling itself is racist, and can only really be defended from a racist viewpoint.

"I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling."

Nobody gives a shit what you are or are not in favor of. You dont make anything happen with your opinion. No one asked you for your permission. That ruling had nothing to do with your input.

The same can be said for all the shit you post.

True but I dont make stupid proclamations like that. Nobody but people in my circle of influence give a shit what I say and the same goes for everyone else.

 

[JoeMoma]

I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling.

I'm beginning to change my mind, not so much from the arguments of those who oppose the ruling in question, and think that criminals who still owe fines should be denied the right to vote until those fines are paid, as by the blatantly-racist left wrong-wing filth such as Coyote, who are arguing the position that it is “racist” to hold criminals accountable for their behavior. The case you are, in fact, succeeding in making is that the ruling itself is racist, and can only really be defended from a racist viewpoint.

"I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling."

Nobody gives a shit what you are or are not in favor of. You dont make anything happen with your opinion. No one asked you for your permission. That ruling had nothing to do with your input.

The same can be said for all the shit you post.

True but I dont make stupid proclamations like that. Nobody but people in my circle of influence give a shit what I say and the same goes for everyone else.

If you don't give a shit about what people "say", reading and posting on a message board is pointless.

 

[Asclepias]

I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling.

I'm beginning to change my mind, not so much from the arguments of those who oppose the ruling in question, and think that criminals who still owe fines should be denied the right to vote until those fines are paid, as by the blatantly-racist left wrong-wing filth such as Coyote, who are arguing the position that it is “racist” to hold criminals accountable for their behavior. The case you are, in fact, succeeding in making is that the ruling itself is racist, and can only really be defended from a racist viewpoint.

"I started out, in this thread, being generally in favor of the ruling."

Nobody gives a shit what you are or are not in favor of. You dont make anything happen with your opinion. No one asked you for your permission. That ruling had nothing to do with your input.

The same can be said for all the shit you post.

True but I dont make stupid proclamations like that. Nobody but people in my circle of influence give a shit what I say and the same goes for everyone else.

If you don't give a shit about what people "say", reading and posting on a message board is pointless.

Wrong. Its very entertaining reading and posting on a message board. I didnt know this many fucked up in the head people actually existed until I saw it for myself here on this forum.