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

[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.

Wrong. Its very entertaining reading and posting on a message board. I didnt know this many fucked up in the head people actually existed.

Well, you fit right in then you fuckup.

 

[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.

Well, you fit right i then you fuckup.

That didnt make any sense. Dont get emotional. Take your time and use your words.

 

[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.

Wrong. Its very entertaining reading and posting on a message board. I didnt know this many fucked up in the head people actually existed.

Well, you fit right i then you fuckup.

That didnt make any sense. Dont get emotional. Take your time and use your words.

I fixed it. 1 letter makes a big difference sometimes.

 

[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.

Well, you fit right i then you fuckup.

That didnt make any sense. Dont get emotional. Take your time and use your words.

I fixed it. 1 letter makes a big difference sometimes.

Good for you Captain.

 

[Coyote]

,.l

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.

Indeed! (shoot...do I have any parking tickets....)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

It's racist bullshit, pure and simple.

You're the one making an absurd, racist claim; the burden is on you to prove it, which you know damn well you cannot, because it's pure bullshit.

If your argument had any basis in truth or logic, then it would be equally “racist” to impose any other punishment on criminals.

Your entire participation in this discussion has consisted of little more than you projecting your own filthy racism on others; while trying, from the depths of the deepest trench, to pretend that you're on higher ground than the rest of us.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

Nobody's talking about delinquent library patrons or deadbeat dads. This is about convicted felons, who still have not yet fully paid their debt to society.

 

[Coyote]

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.

It's racist bullshit, pure and simple.

You're the one making an absurd, racist claim; the burden is on you to prove it, which you know damn well you cannot, because it's pure bullshit.

If your argument had any basis in truth or logic, then it would be equally “racist” to impose any other punishment on criminals.

Your entire participation in this discussion has consisted of little more than you projecting your own filthy racism on others; while trying, from the depths of the deepest trench, to pretend that you're on higher ground than the rest of us.

You might want to wipe the spittle off your screen. Just a suggestion.

You seem utterly incapable of addressing a single point I made nor do you seem to comprehend the history of laws removing voting rights from felons. Instead you are acting like someone is calling YOU a racist. Get a grip man. Don't blame me. It's your own shortcoming.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I didnt [sic] know this many fucked up in the head people actually existed until I saw it for myself here on this forum.

Have you no mirrors in your cell?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Nobody's talking about delinquent library patrons or deadbeat dads. This is about convicted felons, who still have not yet fully paid their debt to society.

Oh? Really? It's about fines and fees. If you owe child support - you owe a debt. Sorry dude you can not vote.

Frankly - time served is sufficient. I don't believe for MOMENT you were going to agree with the ruling. Not with a statement like the above.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Nobody's talking about delinquent library patrons or deadbeat dads. This is about convicted felons, who still have not yet fully paid their debt to society.

Double jeopardy. You cant be punished twice for the same crime. You cant impose a punishment and then punish the person because they havent paid the fine yet. Thats fucking retarded.

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt [sic] know this many fucked up in the head people actually existed until I saw it for myself here on this forum.

Have you no mirrors in your cell?

I didnt know they let you have mirrors in a cell. How long you been in?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You seem utterly incapable of addressing a single point I made

You have yet to make any point worthy of being addressed. You just keep repeating the same racist bullshit over and over again, and pretending that it's not you who's the blatant racist.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Double jeopardy. You cant be punished twice for the same crime. You cant impose a punishment and then punish the person because they havent [sic] paid the fine yet. Thats [sic] f•••ing retarded.

That's not what double jeopardy is, nor how it works. Nothing about any accepted interpretation of double jeopardy says that a judge cannot impose more than one punishment for a crime of which one has been properly convicted, nor impose additional punishments for failing to complete those to which one has already been sentenced.

What double jeopardy means that if someone is tried for a crime, and acquitted, he cannot be tried again for that same crime.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh? Really? It's about fines and fees. If you owe child support - you owe a debt. Sorry dude you can not vote.

Again, this is about convicted •FELONS•, for whom fines were included as part of their sentence. Not about those whose offenses are misdemeanors, infractions, or civil torts.

Frankly - time served is sufficient.

If the judge thought that, then he'd have only sentenced the convicted felon to jail, and not also imposed fines.

 

[Asclepias]

Double jeopardy. You cant be punished twice for the same crime. You cant impose a punishment and then punish the person because they havent [sic] paid the fine yet. Thats [sic] f•••ing retarded.

That's not what double jeopardy is, nor how it works. Nothing about any accepted interpretation of double jeopardy says that a judge cannot impose more than one punishment for a crime of which one has been properly convicted, nor impose additional punishments for failing to complete those to which one has already been sentenced.

What double jeopardy means that if someone is tried for a crime, and acquitted, he cannot be tried again for that same crime.

Bullshit. They were already sentenced and fined. You cant come after the fact and punish them again.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Bullshit. They were already sentenced and fined. You cant come after the fact and punish them again.

We're talking about convicted felons whose sentence includes fines, that they have not paid. To demand that they pay what they already owe as part of their sentences is not punishing them again, it's demanding that they complete the punishment that was already imposed.

And really, should there be no consequences for refusing to pay those fines? What was the point of imposing those fines, if there are no consequences for refusing to pay them?

 

[Asclepias]

Bullshit. They were already sentenced and fined. You cant come after the fact and punish them again.

We're talking about convicted felons whose sentence includes fines, that they have not paid. To demand that they pay what they already owe as part of their sentences is not punishing them again, it's demanding that they complete the punishment that was already imposed.

And really, should there be no consequences for refusing to pay those fines? What was the point of imposing those fines, if there are no consequences for refusing to pay them?

Actually it is punishing them again. I dont see how you can call it anything else. The point of imposing those fines is to have them pay restitution, not keep them from voting.

 

[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.

What part of unpaid fines do you not get?

Your link is talking about organizations, not individuals, dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Nobody's talking about delinquent library patrons or deadbeat dads. This is about convicted felons, who still have not yet fully paid their debt to society.

Oh? Really? It's about fines and fees. If you owe child support - you owe a debt. Sorry dude you can not vote.

Frankly - time served is sufficient. I don't believe for MOMENT you were going to agree with the ruling. Not with a statement like the above.

Sounds good to me! I had to raise my grandsons for many years thank to their deadbeat Dad.