ex cons get to vote. undecided on this.

[rabidbadger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14felony.html?ref=politics

On the one hand, they paid their dues, and they ARE still citizens, and voting is a fundamental right of all citizens. I mean, what if some felon was innocent but railroaded by some corrupt elected official. Once he is out, he should be able to vote the dude out.

But still. If an ex-con killed my kid, I would NOT want him having the same rights as me. How did this law begin, anyway? I've never really looked into it before.

[rabidbadger]

Hmm, reading page two (didn't notice it before posting) it seems a state by state thing. For some reason I thought it was national.

And another reason I'm leaning "for" it. So many votes have been thrown out in recent elections just cause folks had the same name as a current or former felon. It's not like when you vote the gov sends ya a postcard saying, "your vote was tossed cause you have the same name as a baby rapist. Please jump through these hoops to restore your vote..."

[masherscf]

Hmm, reading page two (didn't notice it before posting) it seems a state by state thing. For some reason I thought it was national.

And another reason I'm leaning "for" it. So many votes have been thrown out in recent elections just cause folks had the same name as a current or former felon. It's not like when you vote the gov sends ya a postcard saying, "your vote was tossed cause you have the same name as a baby rapist. Please jump through these hoops to restore your vote..."

Damn, I guess that means Martha Stewart gets to vote...

[comhcinc]

if a felon is not allowed to vote then the systerm is unfair(which it is)

if you make some one stay in prison for any amout of time you shouldn't continue to punish them.

i feel the same way about background checks. in some states they are illegal as they should be.

[rabidbadger]

Damn, I guess that means Martha Stewart gets to vote...

Funny. but seriously? What you think?

the more I think about it, I think the only former criminals who should get votes declined are those who committed crimes against the state/nation. (terrorism, treason, defrauding the gov/citizens) Not some dumb 19 year old who sold a bag of weed. Not for the REST of his life. I bought pot from those kids when I was 19. Now they old hard working honest farts like me.

[masherscf]

I person is presumed innocent until they're convicted. Then, for good or ill, the presumption is guilt. For the sake of any general argument, we can ignore all cases where a person might be wrongly convicted. The remedy for any such person is to have that conviction reversed.

With a felony conviction, comes the forfeiture of certain rights. I think that keeping convicted felons off the voting roles is a practical way to try and minimize the influence of organized crime on the election system. I guess the politicians hate the competition.

[ariastar]

I agree with Com that ex-cons should have their rights restored. People who've committed crimes warranting registering for life (baby-raping, etc.) should not - they are a current convict or else wouldn't have to register. But once your dues are paid, then rights should be restored. I also agree that background checks should be illegal. Hell, in California people get denied jobs for small things years back. No one has led a perfect past, but some just didn't get caught or did deplorable things that just aren't illegal.

And, as Joel said, those who committed crimes against the state are those former convicts who should permanently lose their rights to vote.

I think, at least in California, only those with felony convictions don't get to vote, that people with misdemeanors (a 19yo who sold a bag of weed) get to.

[rabidbadger]

With a felony conviction, comes the forfeiture of certain rights.

forfeiture of rights is fine ... WHILE serving time. But the sentence HAS to end.
fully and completely. same reason I am against the child abuser constantly being monitered. Sucks. i know. hate them too. But you get out of improsinment, and back in society. ... then FULL society. One or another.

[ariastar]

forfeiture of rights is fine ... WHILE serving time. But the sentence HAS to end.
fully and completely. same reason I am against the child abuser constantly being monitered. Sucks. i know. hate them too. But you get out of improsinment, and back in society. ... then FULL society. One or another.

With a child abuser, being monitored is part of the sentence he could otherwise serve in jail. Not being able to vote isn't a part of a sentence that could otherwise be served in jail. Basically being monitored is a form of jail served in public. If that makes sense.

[masherscf]

forfeiture of rights is fine ... WHILE serving time. But the sentence HAS to end.
fully and completely. same reason I am against the child abuser constantly being monitered. Sucks. i know. hate them too. But you get out of improsinment, and back in society. ... then FULL society. One or another.

Convicted child abusers shouldn't be constantly monitored. However, not being allowed in cub scout troop meetings is another matter.

[rabidbadger]

true dat. so hard to erect boundries, though. but that's not the issue. Should a child molester be free to vote for a candidate who would make child molesters allowed to be at a girl/boy scout meeting?

and seeing a "molesters" like boys thing creeping in... with the cub scout ref. Molesters are as co-ed as the general population is.

[masherscf]

true dat. so hard to erect boundries, though. but that's not the issue. Should a child molester be free to vote for a candidate who would make child molesters allowed to be at a girl/boy scout meeting?

and seeing a "molesters" like boys thing creeping in... with the cub scout ref. Molesters are as co-ed as the general population is.

Would you have preferred alter-boys to cub scouts? Of course, said molester may also be a women.

[rabidbadger]

touché

[phatlip12]

Not allowing an ex con to vote after he/she paid for the crime? Isn't that sort of double jeopardy?

They should be allowed to vote.

[masherscf]

Not allowing an ex con to vote after he/she paid for the crime? Isn't that sort of double jeopardy?

They should be allowed to vote.

Double Jeopardy is being tried twice for the same crime. However, I think if you're thinking of the voting thing as punishment, you've missed the point. It's too keep organized crime out of elections.

[rabidbadger]

you keep mentioning organized crime. I don't get it" rico? please elaborate?

[masherscf]

you keep mentioning organized crime. I don't get it" rico? please elaborate?

The law is an old one. When it was penned, elections were sometimes dirty. Lawmakers felt that felons were more corruptible than normal folk.

There's probably a lot of social prejudice rolled up in there as well.

[rabidbadger]

no shit, sherlock. It's all racist. you know, i know, folks who will pretend to "disagree" know. No defense. Same reason my white suburbans friends never got busted for dealing, or if did, never got convicted, cause money for lawyers... I wish America would just QUIT fakiking that shit. It's real, and we all know it.

[esophagus]

Why shouldn't convicts get to vote? Everyone should get to vote.

I think it makes less sense that the severely mentally handicapped get to vote, but I also don't think their right should be taken away.

[rabidbadger]

er, good point, but I might disagree on that. Like I said. up in the air on this one.

[comhcinc]

if you want a true democracy then you got to take the bad with the good. if you start choosing who can and can't vote where do you draw the line.

i am for everyone voting who wants to vote. Including cons, women, neo cons, children, really anyone who is interested in the process.


just think if high school students could help choose who is on the school board.

[rabidbadger]

I love the sentiment. But kids are different. even teens. Parts of the brains, decision functions, etc, aint ready yet. Late now, but i'll look it up this week. My "litmus test" is... Old enough to die in a war, then old enough to vote for the war mongers who put ya there, draft or no draft.

[comhcinc]

kids never get any respect. btw, in this country you can vote at 18 but you can join the military at 17.

[rabidbadger]

and as dropout. and as a criminal. anything to kill the tr'r'istas. I hate this admin. killing kids for oil.

[esophagus]

At 15 I was probably a lot more into politics than a lot of people throwing away their vote. Sure, there are kids who can't handle the responsibility, but neither can a lot of adults. Thats why voter turnout is so low.

I'm with comhcinc here.

[straylightrise]

yea its an issue that really just confuddles me as well.

my 2cents- they paid their dues (if their out of jail) if they are on parole I feel they shouldn't vote yet either. They give up a lot of rights once imprisoned or paroled and losing the right to vote when they broke the law (generally knowingly) isn't a life or death right. Plus they lose the right to decide the lawmakers when they break the law.

After parole/probation/prison time is over? Sure go vote.

[skyz]

I hate this admin. killing kids for oil.

it is always old men who send the young men to war

that always struck me as being rather 'odd' psychologically

[ariastar]

kids never get any respect. btw, in this country you can vote at 18 but you can join the military at 17.

Somewhat. You can't be sent into combat until 18.