votes for convicts

[Misodoctakleidist]

In most countries people with serious criminal convictions are not allowed to vote but i think they should be able to. Criminals aren't by definition evil, they have deviated from society's values so preventing them from voting can be seen as preventing the changing of values and preventing progress.

[Guest1]

yes, criminals should be allowed to vote, but only after they have served out their sentence.

[Hampton]

Yes they should...the fact that they don't is not stated in the Constitution and is some made up bullshit used to disenfranchise 2 million people, mostly black, and there's a reason for this but, I don't think I need to tell you why.

[Fidel Castro]

Interesting question, I don't know really, I don't see why they shouldn't vote if they are mentally sound.

[Son of Scargill]

Yes.
One person,one vote.Whether incarcerated or not.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

yeah I concur

[apathy maybe]

Even before they have served their time they should be able to vote.

[SonofRage]

I am against laws the strip voting rights from convicted felons. Once they have served their sentence and repayed their debt to society they should regain this important right. While they are in prison, while they retain basic human rights, I believe the should lose citizenship rights such as voting.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 05:01 AM
Interesting question, I don't know really, I don't see why they shouldn't vote if they are mentally sound.
I don't see why the 'mentaly ill' shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[gawkygeek]

in most areas, only people convicted of violent felonies are stripped of their right to vote, this is a reasonable act because the ppl commiting a crime with enough magnitude to be stripped of their voting rights have commited an act that has lessened the safety and security of society, one should have to participate in a benificial manner in order to vote, the men and woman in prison for a violent crime have shown no regard for the order of society and therefore should not have the right to participate in it's on going evolution and development

[Misodoctakleidist]

Who decides what crimes are violent enough to warrent being stripped of the vote? What if a protester was beaten up by police and then got arrested for fighting back? People should have to 'participate in a benificial manner' in order to vote because by doing so they are benifiting the prevailing social order, if this social order isn't a just one then preventing people who don't 'participate in a benificial manner' from voting is preventing social progression. Do you really think anyone who doesn't act in a benificial manner to society should be prevented from having any influence within it? I think you should consider who makes the laws and who they benifit.

[Le Libérer]

Having a pound of weed in your possession is enough reason to be convicted as a felon, therefore the right to vote is taken away from you in the state of Louisiana! I think its bullshit! (This senerio happened to someone close to me and yes they were a minority)

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Yes, prisioners should definately be allowed to vote.

[gawkygeek]

by benificial to society i meant to act in a non-violent way, as for the senario of the protester, there is a more powerful statement said by not retaliating, by saying that only ppl participating in a benificial manner have the right to vote, i meant ppl who question those in power as well as those who defend them, progression does not hurt the system only a violent action hurts. the government we have now allows for progress and change to come about in a peaceful manner, so any action of violence is detrimental to society on a whole it destroys the trust ppl have for eachother and creates hostility among the people, people with a mind violent enough to carry out a felony, (im not talking about a bar room brawl) in sound mind should have their right to vote taken away, they do not contribute to society's evelution, they don't cause progress, they cause us to step back to the days when barbaric actions were commonplace

[Misodoctakleidist]

What is the reason a criminal is not allowed to vote?
It's becuase they have deviated too far from the societal norms. Just because we think violence is wrong doesn't mean that it definatly is. As a matter of principle nobody should be prevented from voting just because they have a different opinion of morality.

[gawkygeek]

r u trying to argue that violence is not detrimental to our society at this time? trying to say that it helps us get along? if this is the case, then why put them in prison at all? why not let them be free on the streets, do as they please as to not infringe their right to be different? i can answer this myself, because their actions hurt us all and they destroy the world that we have worked so arduously to create, we strive for a world without violence and with everyone working in compainionship and unity. when u allow a convicted felon to vote u allow him/her to influence the creation of society, u allow them to slowly peck away at what we have created and we will never have the world we set forth to create

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 05:40 PM
their actions hurt us all and they destroy the world that we have worked so arduously to create
Many people would say the same of communists, do you think people who don't support the government should be banned from voting, afterall they are trying to destroy the established order of society. Infact why not have a totalitarian state where no one can vote and it's illegal to and change society.

[gawkygeek]

the concept of gradual change has been proven effective and the advesary system in our government has shown useful, the totalirist governments have been proven not to work by their inability to make it beyond one maybe 2 leaders
violent acts cause ppl to be afraid, ppl who are afraid cannot act in a free manner, violent ppl spreading violent sympathetic ideas cause all of society to be afraid
remember we are not talking about a political party here, words can be undone, the dead can not be brought to life, rape victims hadly recover from the emotional scars, ppl who have been mugged don't feel comfortable in dark areas for years. they choose to commit the crime and in doing so surrender their right to vote

[Misodoctakleidist]

You are assuming that everyone shares your veiw on morality. There is no such ting as right or wrong, morality is defined by subjective opinions, there is no natural law stating that murder is wrong. Laws are based on moral judgments and are used to enforce them, the objective of democracy is to make sure that the law reflects the moral values of the population, if you think that these values should be supressed then you don't belive in democracy but in autocracy where everyone is forced to share YOUR views on what is right or wrong. Let me suggest this example;

There is a society where most people think that wearing red is evil and wrong and so it is made illegal and everyone who is convicted of wearing red has their right to vote stripped from them. One day 90% of people realise that there is nothing wrong with wearing red but they aren't allowed to vote so they can't chnage anything.

I'm not defending violence but it's not my opinion that counts, it's the opinion of society and if the majority of people wanted to legalise murder then how could you say that it is wrong?

[gawkygeek]

there is no law against thinking that murder is ok, if a large population of people believed that murder was not a bad thing, they could vote for ppl like them and they could find their way into the congress or presidency and change the laws to allow murder, and then they could go around killing ppl all they please, but as long as the action takes place when the majority agrees its wrong and we can all see the negative effect of violent crimes, they should be stripped of some of their rights, after all they took all the rights away from the murdered, took the right to choose a sexual partner in raping, in mugging to the right to choose where ur money was spent, they have no regard for the rights of others, and so they must learn to respect the rights of another

[Hampton]

Getting back on track I think that there are two issues to think about, and that is while in prison should the prisoner be allowed to vote? And once they get out should they be allowed to vote, becuase they're two diffrent things. While in prison they can't give back to society and participate in it but is still being subjected to its laws when it comes to prison issues and should they be able to vote for those who are willing to get rid of the death penalty or ease drug laws which would keep them alive or get them out of prison earlier. The answer is yes.

As for the second question it's an obvious yes also, once you've done your time and are back out paying taxes and all that bullshit there's no point in having no right to vote because you made a mistake and were to poor to have a good lawyer to get you out of doing time in jail.

Also on the issue of Prison voting..check out Hayden v. Pataki, Joseph "Jazz" Hayden, Director of the New York City Right to Vote Coalition, is suing Pataki for the right to vote. He is one of the 1.4 million African-American men, or 13% of black men, who are disfranchised

http://www.demos-usa.org/demos/nyc_campaign/

Link (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:EGH5KMRQfooJ:www.cssny.org/pdfs/statements.pdf++Hayden+v.+Pataki&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

[gawkygeek]

hampton, ur always turning everything into the opression of the black man, i don't see how u can say that this is just another way to keep them down. im quite confident that u could find a way to connect ANYTHING to black opression.

however, ur comment on the poor suffering under the law more than the rich is valid, and definitely needs attention in reform to the system

[ComradeRobertRiley]

violance and murder in my veiw are not always wrong. I agree with Che when he killed people.

[Son of Scargill]

I have to agree with Hampton.The state is inherently racist,even if it believes(deludes?) itself not to be.Some may understand this,and use it to their advantage,people who run privatised prisons,say.Police officers wanting to up their arrest/conviction rate,say.There is a large underclass in the US and it is,in the main,not caucasian.Even with shoddy evidence many people can't afford a lawyer good enough to keep them out of jail.Easy meat.

Getting back off track,as for your non-adversary government that's fine,as long as you think and act roughly within their idealogical channels.Think or act outside of these,and I'm not just talking violent crime,then you'll soon find adversaries.And they'll be state driven.

In the big world the US govts. can hardly be called non-aggressive either.It hasn't gradually allowed change in the world it wants.Since the late 1800's,when the USA felt it was strong enough to be a world player,it has frequently violently changed situations to suit its interests.If not violence,then it's been bribery or threats of violence.I find your line of reasoning slightly naive.

By the way,is it just me or has the prison population nearly doubled since wide-scale implementation of private prisons in the US?Surely no one could be trying to make a quick buck off of the decent,law-abiding(and tax paying) citizens of the United States?

[Fidel Castro]

I don't see why the 'mentaly ill' shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I thought this would be quite obvious. I am of course refering to serious mental illness, where it is obvious to a trained psychiatrist that the patient is unable to make a rational dicission. Am I the only one who thinks this is reasonable?

[ComradeRobertRiley]

sorry Genghis, I think every human should have the right to vote, mental illness or not

[Hampton]

hampton, ur always turning everything into the opression of the black man, i don't see how u can say that this is just another way to keep them down.

Look at the numbers then tell me that it's not another way to keep the under class down, which includes people of all colors, it dosen't matter if you're white, black, purple, or orange if you're poor your going to go to jail. But out of those people blacks seem to be in jail the most, why? Just be chance? Or is it as easy as saying that they commit the most crimes, do the most drugs, and use the most drugs? Both answers are wrong. There's nothing to flip around and spin here..it's just the truth and that fact that you ignore the numbers, turn around and try and attack my "agenda" for speading the information that will enlighten people is bullshit.

[Son of Scargill]

Inability to make a rational decision should not come into it.Millions of working class vote tory/republican/right-wing.Hardly rational in my view.
Vegetative mental disability,which is maybe what you are referring to,is a problem.They should obviously have the right to vote,but(obviously)they may have a problem getting around to the process of voting.Definately no proxy voting in these cases.
Many people I know do not suffer from these difficulties and still can't get up off their arse to vote.These people should be shot at dawn I say :o

[Fidel Castro]

HMMMMMM, Interesting to hear some views on this matter

[Soul Rebel]

yes, convicts should have the right to vote. i was going to say stuff about the prison population being large black, etc., but Hampton covered that nicely.

[iloveatomickitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 05:34 PM
What is the reason a criminal is not allowed to vote?
It's becuase they have deviated too far from the societal norms. Just because we think violence is wrong doesn't mean that it definatly is. As a matter of principle nobody should be prevented from voting just because they have a different opinion of morality.
You could use that against anything.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

A mentally ill convict can win the presidency, so why can't we let them vote?

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 02:49 PM

I don't see why the 'mentaly ill' shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I thought this would be quite obvious. I am of course refering to serious mental illness, where it is obvious to a trained psychiatrist that the patient is unable to make a rational dicission. Am I the only one who thinks this is reasonable?
If you decide to put a limit on voting anywhere, that line or limit, can be redrawn and redefined. It is a slippery slope, sometimes people say a true genious is somebody who leaves you wondering if they are crazy or just too intelligent to understand.

I don't want to see people with untreatable mental illness not be able to vote, because I know that what is next is going to be treatable illnesses. The bipolar are going to be chosen then the borderline personality disorders, then the clinicly depressed.

The only mentally ill people that I don't mind not being able to vote are dangers to themselves and society and are considered untreatable. They are such a small percentage of the population at this point that it doesn't matter. They are going to be always locked up and won't be able to get to a voting place. Although as a society we are not probably going to go out of our way to get them to vote, we won't take a foot on the path to pass laws restricting them to vote. Much like we won't make a law that says somebody in a coma is not allowed to vote, they just are unable to.

I do however believe people while in prison should retain the right to vote. If your society has such a huge number of criminals in it that they can swing elections, there is something seriously wrong with your society and allowing or not allowing post-incarcerated people to vote is the smallest of your problems. Perhaps having people who know why they did the things they did would be good on voting on ways to prevent others going down that path.

If you have 3 million ex-cons all saying that they wouldn't have done what they done if they had been given a better education and a stable job market, shouldn't they be able to vote?

America has all been about removing certain citizens from having a voting voice in the system. They want to keep as many people as possible from being able to participate in elections. Women, children, blacks and ex-cons. Freedom and equality isn't about allowing some people to be more equal than others, it is about everybody being equal in voice, 1 vote, 1 voice.