Felony Votes

[The Man]

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.



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



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).


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.


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.



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 )



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



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.



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



I realize that......



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

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.

The concept of democracy itself allows for voting...we are one of 11 democracies that have restrictions in place. Laws can become draconian if nothing is put in place to stop it....Not that I am suggesting it will happen anytime soon...nor voting will be the cause..but every effort should remain to guard the American foundation.

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

Which may not be criminal if all had voted..its sort of a conflict so to say...like back when only white males with property could vote..I expect if that were true today/ property taxes may not exist for the white man

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).

True,but the point I was trying to make is the outcome will be different when filtering occurs.

Ideally the best way to prevent a terrorist from voting would be to tackle the problem before it reaches the booth....if not its sort of a bandaid rather than a cure.

Anyway I will skip up to my main point that voter denial to criminals or prior criminals is disenfranchisement by definition below

Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable requirements.



Criminals are a group of people that are singled out ...essentially just a mixture of what was filtered out in the past ..prisons have a high black ratio..blacks were at one time singled out...reading and writing skills are poor in prison..that use to be a filter mechanism..religion knowledge is low..that used to be a filter mechanism.

But the main point is felons are an identifiable group who are denied voting based upon being a felon.

Dont get me wrong I dont want them to vote either{personally} I am just posting in a fashion I feel are representative of voting rights

 

[The Man]

Here is a good read for all on the topic

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/us-rules-former-felons-voting-swing-elections

 

[Stone]

The concept of democracy itself allows for voting...we are one of 11 democracies that have restrictions in place. Laws can become draconian if nothing is put in place to stop it....Not that I am suggesting it will happen anytime soon...nor voting will be the cause..but every effort should remain to guard the American foundation.




Which may not be criminal if all had voted..its sort of a conflict so to say...like back when only white males with property could vote..I expect if that were true today/ property taxes may not exist for the white man


True,but the point I was trying to make is the outcome will be different when filtering occurs.

Ideally the best way to prevent a terrorist from voting would be to tackle the problem before it reaches the booth....if not its sort of a bandaid rather than a cure.

Anyway I will skip up to my main point that voter denial to criminals or prior criminals is disenfranchisement by definition below

Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable requirements.



Criminals are a group of people that are singled out ...essentially just a mixture of what was filtered out in the past ..prisons have a high black ratio..blacks were at one time singled out...reading and writing skills are poor in prison..that use to be a filter mechanism..religion knowledge is low..that used to be a filter mechanism.

But the main point is felons are an identifiable group who are denied voting based upon being a felon.

Dont get me wrong I dont want them to vote either{personally} I am just posting in a fashion I feel are representative of voting rights

Laws can become draconian if nothing is put in place to stop it

Indeed.....but the issue is.....what kind of influence is acceptable to a society?
Is a society allowed to remove decision making, the defining of peoples rights, privileges and responsibilities...... from those that violate the rights of others, that violate laws established for social order and it's health?
There is no perfect solution, only considerations that offer better results.

Which may not be criminal if all had voted

Indeed......
But it's a negative influence to the outcome......the real hazard.
It shows up deeply in the link you presented in your next post.
Liberals aren't going to like this comment, but the imagery is there, Liberals are seen as soft on crime and allowing incarcerated felons to vote would, according to the Guardian, have put Liberal leadership into office for the sake of appeasing that criminal element.

like back when only white males with property could vote..I expect if that were true today/ property taxes may not exist for the white man

It's never been a crime to not own property.

True,but the point I was trying to make is the outcome will be different when filtering occurs.

Of course......that's the intent. Incarcerated felons participating in a process designed to bring legal equality and justice is a contradiction of logic. Their intent is tilted toward self serving rather that the welfare of society. And that is destructive input.

Ideally the best way to prevent a terrorist from voting would be to tackle the problem before it reaches the booth....if not its sort of a bandaid rather than a cure.

Indeed.......In a perfect world that doesn't exist.
Reality is a different script to deal with.

Anyway I will skip up to my main point that voter denial to criminals or prior criminals is disenfranchisement by definition below

Yes.....so?
That doesn't show disenfranchisement of incarcerated felons is necessarily a negative concept.
It is what it is......disenfranchisement.

But the main point is felons are an identifiable group who are denied voting based upon being a felon.

Indeed.

I am just posting in a fashion I feel are representative of voting rights

I know.
I'm addressing the issue from a practical pov.
Is the welfare of a society better served with out the input (vote ) from incarcerated felons put in that position because of their destructiveness? I think so.

 

[Maulds]

I was gonna read the thread but jeepers look at the size of the posts :willy_nilly:

 

[The Man]

Indeed.....but the issue is.....what kind of influence is acceptable to a society?
Is a society allowed to remove decision making, the defining of peoples rights, privileges and responsibilities...... from those that violate the rights of others, that violate laws established for social order and it's health?
There is no perfect solution, only considerations that offer better results.




Indeed......
But it's a negative influence to the outcome......the real hazard.
It shows up deeply in the link you presented in your next post.
Liberals aren't going to like this comment, but the imagery is there, Liberals are seen as soft on crime and allowing incarcerated felons to vote would, according to the Guardian, have put Liberal leadership into office for the sake of appeasing that criminal element.



It's never been a crime to not own property.




Of course......that's the intent. Incarcerated felons participating in a process designed to bring legal equality and justice is a contradiction of logic. Their intent is tilted toward self serving rather that the welfare of society. And that is destructive input.


Indeed.......In a perfect world that doesn't exist.
Reality is a different script to deal with.



Yes.....so?
That doesn't show disenfranchisement of incarcerated felons is necessarily a negative concept.
It is what it is......disenfranchisement.




Indeed.



I know.
I'm addressing the issue from a practical pov.
Is the welfare of a society better served with out the input (vote ) from incarcerated felons put in that position because of their destructiveness? I think so.

You win ....my mind was polluted with liberal idealism for a short spell

 

[Dana]

Meh I don't care either way.

 

[Stone]

You win ....my mind was polluted with liberal idealism for a short spell

You had some good points......but....mankind are often son's a bitches to deal with and sometimes idealism just doesn't cut it.


Good discussion...:thumbup

 

[The Man]

You had some good points......but....mankind are often son's a bitches to deal with and sometimes idealism just doesn't cut it.


Good discussion...:thumbup

Thanks,
I can play the liberal but feel unclean and deceptive while doing such.

The truth is these criminals have no regard for current laws {therefore putting themselves first before society} and have no right voting in regard with subject that pertains to society.

 

[robdawg1]

I wondered why you were playing devils advocate....LOL, it didnt seem like you