Felony Votes

[hart]

While serving time you should not be allowed to vote. Having fulfilled your sentence you are then free to vote. Not clear about being on probation.......hmmmmm, since technically you haven't completely served your sentence, i.e. debt to society........

As for the majority of those in prisons being liberals......Where the f*ck did you come up with that nonsense?!:24:

 

[Stone]

Here is my take...lets say it became a crime to be baptist ...ok so now the baptists are locked up.........................


To deny a felon the right to vote is a decision of morality...and would be no different that denying a vote based upon someone that is inter racially married{which at one time was a crime}..the morality is being a judgement of the people while the judged have no say...Sort of like slave days.

Here is my take...lets say it became a crime to be baptist ...ok so now the baptists are locked up.

Once that happens, it's pretty much game over as a democratic society and voting most likely becomes irrelevant.

To deny a felon the right to vote is a decision of morality....

Ignoring your analogy, how so?

no different that denying a vote based upon someone that is inter racially married{which at one time was a crime}

I don't see the similarity from a moral standpoint, Man.
I agree making inter racial marriage a crime, was a crime in and of itself and that law was immoral...( an infringement upon personal freedoms )...but in our criminal codes, crime usually concerns perpetrators of conduct of an anti-social nature.

 

[Stone]

..........................

As for the majority of those in prisons being liberals......Where the f*ck did you come up with that nonsense?!:24:

Conservatives get Country Clubs with high fences

 

[Kyle B]

If you're in jail, you shouldn't get to vote. Once you serve your time you should have suffrage reinstated.

 

[The Man]

Once that happens, it's pretty much game over as a democratic society and voting most likely becomes irrelevant.




Ignoring your analogy, how so?



I don't see the similarity from a moral standpoint, Man.
I agree making inter racial marriage a crime, was a crime in and of itself and that law was immoral...( an infringement upon personal freedoms )...but in our criminal codes, crime usually concerns perpetrators of conduct of an anti-social nature.

Ignoring your analogy, how so?

As we are denying them the right to vote based upon their conduct in society {moral decisions they have made prior}
However these decision they made may not actually been criminally immoral had everyone voted.
Morality is subjective from individual to individual...many laws are written are morality laws {such as theft and assault}

Lets say the color blue was illegal{as it signified communism} ....get caught with blue and you get locked up...the balance as to whether it should be illegal is now imbalanced as the people who like blue cant vote on the matter or vote for someone who represents their view.

Going back to pearl harbors days we had Japanese here in America {citizens locked up}..I dont know if they were allowed to vote but I suspect not.
IMO every citizen should be allowed to vote..How could they voices otherwise be heard regarding those Japanese detained..."I will free the Japanese"..they in effect wouldn't get to vote for the guy.

I don't see the similarity from a moral standpoint, Man.
I agree making inter racial marriage a crime, was a crime in and of itself and that law was immoral.

Agreed but shouldn't the morality{or immorality} of a law be determined by the people in whole.
Morality is subjective to the individual /crimes are subjective as well

but in our criminal codes, crime usually concerns perpetrators of conduct of an anti-social nature

And I agree...let me take OWS..some protestors actually got a felony for dragon sleeves {a crude arm lock device}
Now to deny them the ability to vote is also to deny them the very issues that may arise on ballots later.

If were to lock them all up then release them....we took away the voice at the booth {Not that I agree with their ideals but they do have the right to express or vote them}

 

[The Man]

If you're in jail, you shouldn't get to vote. Once you serve your time you should have suffrage reinstated.

Thats pretty much how it is...but why do you agree with it..In other words why should they be denied?

 

[Kyle B]

Thats pretty much how it is...but why do you agree with it..In other words why should they be denied?

Part of the punishment.

Why do prisoners lose their freedom when they commit crime? Isn't freedom a right?!?!?

 

[The Man]

Part of the punishment.

Why do prisoners lose their freedom when they commit crime? Isn't freedom a right?!?!?

So you see it as a punishment?
The ideal of punishment is to place a restrictions on freedoms.
Your argument{freedom being a right} would ask for the release of prisoners as they have had their rights violated.

 

[Kyle B]

Your argument{freedom being a right} would ask for the release of prisoners as they have had their rights violated.

That's why your analogy doesn't really work.

I do see prison as partly punishment, among other things.

 

[The Man]

That's why your analogy doesn't really work.

I do see prison as partly punishment, among other things.

Punishment and rehabilitation...it s still limited freedom{which I agree with}
The problem is there are no clear laws on voting and several classes of people have been denied in the past.
Ranging from skin color to literacy...They were eventually given the right.
So if we want to run with the punishment theme that you are using...why were people being punished in the past for skin color etc?

 

[The Man]

"Any one who has wore jeans this year{crime} wont be allowed to vote as to whether jeans are proper wear for school."
Its the same thing...Its essentially dictatorship

 

[Stone]

As we are denying them the right to vote based upon their conduct in society {moral decisions they have made prior}
However these decision they made may not actually been criminally immoral had everyone voted.
Morality is subjective from individual to individual...many laws are written are morality laws {such as theft and assault}

Lets say the color blue was illegal{as it signified communism} ....get caught with blue and you get locked up...the balance as to whether it should be illegal is now imbalanced as the people who like blue cant vote on the matter or vote for someone who represents their view.

Going back to pearl harbors days we had Japanese here in America {citizens locked up}..I dont know if they were allowed to vote but I suspect not.
IMO every citizen should be allowed to vote..How could they voices otherwise be heard regarding those Japanese detained..."I will free the Japanese"..they in effect wouldn't get to vote for the guy.



Agreed but shouldn't the morality{or immorality} of a law be determined by the people in whole.
Morality is subjective to the individual /crimes are subjective as well


And I agree...let me take OWS..some protestors actually got a felony for dragon sleeves {a crude arm lock device}
Now to deny them the ability to vote is also to deny them the very issues that may arise on ballots later.

If were to lock them all up then release them....we took away the voice at the booth {Not that I agree with their ideals but they do have the right to express or vote them}

As we are denying them the right to vote based upon their conduct in society {moral decisions they have made prior}

Yes.

However these decision they made may not actually been criminally immoral had everyone voted.

That's a pretty big 'IF' in a world that isn't perfect to start with.
The mere fact that a Judge/jury finds guilt is reason to consider something immoral occurred serious enough that created a conviction. Sure, that's not an absolute, but there is an appeals process that addresses judicial mistakes and a legislative process that corrects legal code.

Lets say the color blue was illegal{as it signified communism}

But that's not a rational analogy, Man. That's an arbitrary and subjective association.

get caught with blue and you get locked up...the balance as to whether it should be illegal is now imbalanced as the people who like blue cant vote on the matter or vote for someone who represents their view.

Again, poor analogy.
Substitute 'membership in a terrorist organization' for the color 'blue' , even though physical participation in violence didn't occur.
A crime has been committed.......the support of terrorism!
My analogy..... members of al Qaeda in the US found guilty of subversion, should they be allowed to vote?
Or drug pushers/dealers?
Their vote could sway elections to their favor. Not that 'blue' is dangerous....but drug dealers and terrorists are.

Going back to pearl harbors days we had Japanese here in America {citizens locked up}..I dont know if they were allowed to vote but I suspect not.

They weren't allowed.
And it was a travesty of justice. Most were US citizens and broke no legitimate laws.
It was irrational fear and racism that drove their suffering.
But the example is an exception in history and doesn't support the current argument.
It wasn't immoral to be Japanese.

IMO every citizen should be allowed to vote

Indeed.......until there's a logical reason to withhold that right.

Agreed but shouldn't the morality{or immorality} of a law be determined by the people in whole.

In a perverse way, criminals have aided in defining the law
The just keep finding new crimes to commit

Morality is subjective to the individual /crimes are subjective as well

A consensus of opinion is how a democratic society functions.
Being incarcerated essentially removes a criminal from the 'mailing list' .
It's not perfect, but it's better that allowing the inmates to run the asylum.

And I agree...let me take OWS..some protestors actually got a felony for dragon sleeves {a crude arm lock device}
Now to deny them the ability to vote is also to deny them the very issues that may arise on ballots later.

If were to lock them all up then release them....we took away the voice at the booth {Not that I agree with their ideals but they do have the right to express or vote them}

Do you think possible exceptions should become the absolutes we have to live by?

 

[Minor Axis]

Without thinking too much about it. When serving time you should not be able to vote. After you have served your time, then yes, vote.

 

[Stone]

Without thinking too much about it. When serving time you should not be able to vote. After you have served your time, then yes, vote.

We agree------->:eek


Maybe I ought to go back and review my posts

 

[The Man]

Yes.


That's a pretty big 'IF' in a world that isn't perfect to start with.
The mere fact that a Judge/jury finds guilt is reason to consider something immoral occurred serious enough that created a conviction. Sure, that's not an absolute, but there is an appeals process that addresses judicial mistakes and a legislative process that corrects legal code.



But that's not a rational analogy, Man. That's an arbitrary and subjective association.


Again, poor analogy.
Substitute 'membership in a terrorist organization' for the color 'blue' , even though physical participation in violence didn't occur.
A crime has been committed.......the support of terrorism!
My analogy..... members of al Qaeda in the US found guilty of subversion, should they be allowed to vote?
Or drug pushers/dealers?
Their vote could sway elections to their favor. Not that 'blue' is dangerous....but drug dealers and terrorists are.


They weren't allowed.
And it was a travesty of justice. Most were US citizens and broke no legitimate laws.
It was irrational fear and racism that drove their suffering.
But the example is an exception in history and doesn't support the current argument.
It wasn't immoral to be Japanese.


Indeed.......until there's a logical reason to withhold that right.



In a perverse way, criminals have aided in defining the law
The just keep finding new crimes to commit


A consensus of opinion is how a democratic society functions.
Being incarcerated essentially removes a criminal from the 'mailing list' .
It's not perfect, but it's better that allowing the inmates to run the asylum.




Do you think possible exceptions should become the absolutes we have to live by?

That's a pretty big 'IF' in a world that isn't perfect to start with.
The mere fact that a Judge/jury finds guilt is reason to consider something immoral occurred serious enough that created a conviction. Sure, that's not an absolute, but there is an appeals process that addresses judicial mistakes and a legislative process that corrects legal code.

But where does it stop..why is felony the line..in some states its a misdemeanor...could be a parking ticket next.

By eliminating people{citizens} the right to vote ..we are essentially filtering/ a form of voter denial whose views are silenced.

But that's not a rational analogy, Man. That's an arbitrary and subjective association.

It was merely used for the purpose to show how elimination of voters can change the outcome/why I picked a neutral topic such as a color.
The results will be the same no matter how we apply them in other areas.

Again, poor analogy.
Substitute 'membership in a terrorist organization' for the color 'blue' , even though physical participation in violence didn't occur.
A crime has been committed.......the support of terrorism!
My analogy..... members of al Qaeda in the US found guilty of subversion, should they be allowed to vote?
Or drug pushers/dealers?
Their vote could sway elections to their favor. Not that 'blue' is dangerous....but drug dealers and terrorists are.

That will be the best argument in the thread as it actually shows a reason rather than "they are criminals screw em"
As much as it pains me I would have to allow the drug users and pushers.
As far as members of AQ being citizens and voting that is a tough one...Ideally yes according to my own argument but I would have to have a clause related to national security for denial.
As their vote wouldn't represent those of America morality but rather an infiltration of security of the united states.
I would also have to deny those convicted of voter fraud as well. .

They weren't allowed.
And it was a travesty of justice. Most were US citizens and broke no legitimate laws.
It was irrational fear and racism that drove their suffering.
But the example is an exception in history and doesn't support the current argument.
It wasn't immoral to be Japanese.

It merely shows unfounded fears alter who can vote...and denial can happen for many reasons.

Indeed.......until there's a logical reason to withhold that right.

Which is subjective.
But to go even further...who gets to vote as to whether one should be able to vote or not?
As we can see its a door wide open thats needs to be closed before other restrictions apply.

In a perverse way, criminals have aided in defining the law
The just keep finding new crimes to commit

Yes reminds me of the OWS arm lockers....lets put on the dragon sleeve..I dont think the cops are upset enough yet..this should show em.

A consensus of opinion is how a democratic society functions.
Being incarcerated essentially removes a criminal from the 'mailing list' .
It's not perfect, but it's better that allowing the inmates to run the asylum.

Yes,
but aren't all laws supposed to be treated equally for all rather than a split mailing list.

Do you think possible exceptions should become the absolutes we have to live by?

Depends on the application...In the case of the OWS protesters we can see the ones that were charged with a felony are in effect silenced.
The same could hold true for people that show their beliefs at abortion clinics...those charged with felonies suffer the same fate as the OWS protestor.

While granted prison votes would be a small percentage of votes....at times it could be enough to change the outcome.
Also to consider....laws can be proposed to be voted on, based upon the selected base{non felons}..so in effect it not only filters voting but influences how propositions may be written as well.

I am not trying to be pro criminal here but rather allow all voices to be heard which is essentially what separates us from many lesser nations

 

[The Man]

Without thinking too much about it. When serving time you should not be able to vote. After you have served your time, then yes, vote.

Thats pretty much how it is...but why do you support that position...not very liberal of you

 

[Stone]

But where does it stop..why is felony the line..in some states its a misdemeanor...could be a parking ticket next.

By eliminating people{citizens} the right to vote ..we are essentially filtering/ a form of voter denial whose views are silenced.


It was merely used for the purpose to show how elimination of voters can change the outcome/why I picked a neutral topic such as a color.
The results will be the same no matter how we apply them in other areas.



That will be the best argument in the thread as it actually shows a reason rather than "they are criminals screw em"
As much as it pains me I would have to allow the drug users and pushers.
As far as members of AQ being citizens and voting that is a tough one...Ideally yes according to my own argument but I would have to have a clause related to national security for denial.
As their vote wouldn't represent those of America morality but rather an infiltration of security of the united states.
I would also have to deny those convicted of voter fraud as well. .



It merely shows unfounded fears alter who can vote...and denial can happen for many reasons.


Which is subjective.
But to go even further...who gets to vote as to whether one should be able to vote or not?
As we can see its a door wide open thats needs to be closed before other restrictions apply.



Yes reminds me or the OWS arm lockers....lets put on the dragon sleeve..I dont think the cops are upset enough yet..this should show em.


Yes,
but aren't all laws supposed to be treated equally for all rather than a split mailing list.

Depends on the application...In the case of the OWS protesters we can see the ones that were charged with a felony are in effect silenced.
The same could hold true for people that show their beliefs at abortion clinics...those charged with felonies suffer the same fate as the OWS protestor.

While granted prison votes would be a small percentage of votes....at times it could be enough to change the outcome.
Also to consider....laws can be proposed to be voted on based upon the selected base{non felons}..so in effect it not only filters voting but influences how propositions may be written as well.

I am not trying to be pro criminal here but rather allow all voices to be heard which is essentially what separates us from many nations in lesser nations

But where does it stop..why is felony the line..in some states its a misdemeanor...could be a parking ticket next.

Like I posted before......the point becomes moot when laws become that draconian....the concept of a democratic society is already lost and voting largely irrelevant.

By eliminating people{citizens} the right to vote ..we are essentially filtering/ a form of voter denial whose views are silenced.

Indeed. That's the point, Man.......filter out the incarcerated criminal influence.

It was merely used for the purpose to show how elimination of voters can change the outcome/why I picked a neutral topic such as a color.
The results will be the same no matter how we apply them in other areas.

But there is a difference as shown by the deed of the action ( terrorism versus color preference ) associated with the abstraction ( insurrection/violence versus the pleasure of specific electromagnetic waves).

As much as it pains me I would have to allow the drug users and pushers.

It doesn't pain me concerning pushers. I see it as society defending itself for it's own health.
As far as prosecuting users, I'm for knocking the charges down to misdemeanors which puts them out of risk
in most states.

It merely shows unfounded fears alter who can vote...and denial can happen for many reasons.

This is a problem 'we' will probably always face and I don't doubt mistakes will happen in the future. Laws can be devised with exceptions, they don't have to be absolutes. But exceptions taken to extremes cam become negative influences......the current war on drugs an example.
Hopefully, our leaders will make wiser decisions in the future.

Which is subjective.

That is often the case there is always the possibility of a scenario being too draconian, or too liberal ( in a non political sense ) Balance is what creates a successful environment.......( yeah.....I know, probably wishful thinking as reality seems to bounce from one extreme to the other )

who gets to vote as to whether one should be able to vote or not?
As we can see its a door wide open thats needs to be closed before other restrictions apply.

This is really rather easy, Man......those not incarcerated get to vote on all issues.

but aren't all laws supposed to be treated equally for all rather than a split mailing list.

In what way wouldn't the law treat all equally?
The law applies to all ( supposed to ) and with an 'If' clause, conviction treats violators the same under State Law.
Should an incarcerated murderer maintain the personal freedoms of a citizen?
Should any incarcerated felon maintain the personal freedoms of a citizen?
If you answer 'yes', by what right does the court system have to incarcerate them?
The court's right comes from law.

Depends on the application

You missed my point.......how can you justify addressing a major issue using a minor exception to derive an absolute?

I am not trying to be pro criminal ......

I realize that......

but rather allow all voices to be heard which is essentially what separates us from many lesser nations

Well.....put it to a vote and see how it turns out......I suspect a national vote would be similar to this thread's response, Man.
Give this thread a couple weeks to flesh out and then see what the consensus is here.
In a democratic society, we do generally go with the consensus.






Or we browbeat you till you agree

 

[Stone]

Thats pretty much how it is...but why do you support that position...not very liberal of you

Scared me too

 

[Accountable]

So rights are stripped before due process

It's the new American Way.

 

[Accountable]

voting is not an inalienable human basic right such as being treated in a medical emergency, or education, or the right not to be tortured. There is a big difference between human rights and rights granted to free citizens. If you are in jail, then you are no longer a free citizen and therefor not elligible for certain rights granted to the rest of us.

being treated in a medical emergency is not an inalienable right, nor is education. Both require the services of others.

Voting is just as much an inalienable right as speech.