What's new

Why do we restrict the voting rights of felons?

sirkickyass

Moderator Emeritus
Contributor
This is a serious question.

Also, just think about what the electoral map would look like if it wasn't true.
 
50USAStatesSolidBlue.jpg
 
I agree that if we release a person from prison back into our society they should be able to be a "whole" citizen. Creating handicaps and giving them fewer liberties all just feeds into recidivism. I'm not saying it's the cause of recidivism, but it's part of it, imo.

I also vehemently oppose things like Megan's law. In my opinion if you're working off the premise that this human being is dangerous to those around him/her then I'm not sure how you justify allowing them to be out of prison in the first place. I question the "justice" of imprisoning so many people in this country, but if we're going to use prison so liberally as a one size fits all solution to crime we should at least agree to keep dangerous people in prison indefinitely.
 
I agree that if we release a person from prison back into our society they should be able to be a "whole" citizen. Creating handicaps and giving them fewer liberties all just feeds into recidivism. I'm not saying it's the cause of recidivism, but it's part of it, imo.

I also vehemently oppose things like Megan's law. In my opinion if you're working off the premise that this human being is dangerous to those around him/her then I'm not sure how you justify allowing them to be out of prison in the first place. I question the "justice" of imprisoning so many people in this country, but if we're going to use prison so liberally as a one size fits all solution to crime we should at least agree to keep dangerous people in prison indefinitely.

Not to mention the drag this has on the lives of those who are labeled sexual predators but no one in their right mind actually considers what they did as predation. I.E. an barely 18 y.o. banging an almost 17 y.o. 15 years ago or a drunk guy who pees on a tree in a park.
 
I agree that if we release a person from prison back into our society they should be able to be a "whole" citizen. Creating handicaps and giving them fewer liberties all just feeds into recidivism. I'm not saying it's the cause of recidivism, but it's part of it, imo.

I also vehemently oppose things like Megan's law. In my opinion if you're working off the premise that this human being is dangerous to those around him/her then I'm not sure how you justify allowing them to be out of prison in the first place. I question the "justice" of imprisoning so many people in this country, but if we're going to use prison so liberally as a one size fits all solution to crime we should at least agree to keep dangerous people in prison indefinitely.

Will rep you when I can, I agree completely.
 
I agree that if we release a person from prison back into our society they should be able to be a "whole" citizen. Creating handicaps and giving them fewer liberties all just feeds into recidivism. I'm not saying it's the cause of recidivism, but it's part of it, imo.

I also vehemently oppose things like Megan's law. In my opinion if you're working off the premise that this human being is dangerous to those around him/her then I'm not sure how you justify allowing them to be out of prison in the first place. I question the "justice" of imprisoning so many people in this country, but if we're going to use prison so liberally as a one size fits all solution to crime we should at least agree to keep dangerous people in prison indefinitely.

Completely agree with everything said here.
I'm sure you would agree with prisoners being incarcerated for non-violent crimes as well.
Like possession of illegal substances when that person is in their own home, or walking down the street.
 
Because there is no such thing as "justice" and the judicial system is based on the idea of vengeance. Even the idea of prison is suspect. What purpose do prisons serve? It does not seem to provide for an effective deterrence, and it creates a fantastic atmosphere for nurturing violence and criminality. Is it to protect society? Okay, but that is an awfully expensive way to protect society from non-violent offenders (the majority of inmates), and it seems to have no ultimate goal at all. Rehabilitation? That's the most laughable justification as not only is it easily contradicted by real life observations, but it does not even offer a mechanism for how that's supposed to be accomplished.

To make things worse, the system is the way it is because it's a reflection of society's mentality. If someone possesses the intellectual capacity and knowledge to question the system and propose alternatives, s/he will face an uphill battle of people questioning the motives, and an endless stream of accusation of having something to hide.

Long story short, felons cannot vote because punishment requires the punisher and the punished to be unequal. What's a better way to facilitate and reinforce this mentality than stripping away their citizenship privileges?
 
Good luck with that.

Anyhow, why restrict under-18 from voting? I was a taxpayer at age 14...where was my representation?
.

I know you're trolling, but obviously the rationale is different. 18 is obviously an arbitrary number, but we've decided as a society that's when you're effectively a real boy or girl. In that instance you never had the right to vote when you were 14. Felons have the right to vote and then it's taken away from them. It's only recently that I've tried to figure out why this is so. Felon voting laws vary substantially from state to state (some states make it effectively impossible to ever vote again, others allow prisoners to vote from prison) but to the extent that we think of democracy participation as a fundamental right it's actually kind of bizarre that we strip ex-cons of this particular right.

I, for one, think that the "tough on crime" escalation of politics might change if there was an extra constituency. Obviously there is a demographically disproportionate impact as well. Some rough figures I put together from research yesterday suggests that this one change alone would probably dramatically change the complexion of virtually all state-wide political races in Florida for example. Estimates on the number of potential voters disenfranchised range from 4 to 6 million in the United States. If even half of them voted that would markedly move the needle.

Long story short, felons cannot vote because punishment requires the punisher and the punished to be unequal. What's a better way to facilitate and reinforce this mentality than stripping away their citizenship privileges?

However, this isn't the case in many Western societies. It appears to be largely particular to the US and UK. Other countries allow disenfranchisement essentially only under extenuating circumstances or by special petition (e.g. in the case of election fraud or bribery of public officials). To wit, it is easier to lose the right to vote in the US than it is in China.

That's kind of chilling.

Wow, I hate white people.

Where's my banhammer?
 
If they have been released then they paid the debt demanded by society for their crime. Why should they continue to be punished when they paid their debt?

Agreed, if any sort of felony is a life sentence then what's the point of letting the person out of prison so that they can be mocked daily by having to live with free people when they are not free?
 
Top