Should convicted felons be allowed to vote?

[ZombieHorde]

[gateley]

1. I think they can get clearance to vote, on a case by case basis, can't they? nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. It varies from state to state

Some states you get your right to vote immediately after you are released from prison. In some you have to go through some sort of application process. And in others you are permanently barred from voting.

[slackmaster]

2. Once out of prison, they should have ALL civil rights restored

If they aren't capable of exercising them responsibly, they shouldn't be out of prison.

[mike_c]

5. agreed 100 percent....

The trend toward additional punishments AFTER someone has served their time is terrible, IMO. If nothing else, it's a tacit acknowledgment that the judicial and prison systems are not very effective.

[Rosemary2205]

7. What you said.

[Richard Steele]

10. Agreed. nm

[Clear Blue Sky]

15. Exactly. Pay your dues to society and move on with your life, including the right to vote.

[Deja Q]

38. What would be deemed appropriate punishments for rapists, murderers,

multiple offenders, and so on?

Pretty high crimes should demand pretty high dues.

Conversely, it seems reasonable to let a person live legally or be mature enough to walk away from issues that would otherwise lead to murder or rape. It doesn't seem to be THAT difficult, but I might be wrong.

[Clear Blue Sky]

57. Prison release.

Once released from prison, the presumption is that they have paid their debt to society. Should that be an appropriate time to let them vote? I think so. They have been given their freedom back at that point.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Including owning a firearm?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

27. Yes

It is a civil right.

I think people who commit VIOLENT felonies should be kept in prison for a very long time. Tax cheats etc. are not nearly as much of a danger to society.

If we trust someone with the voting franchise, we should also be able to trust that person with a firearm.

Here is a non-violent felon who will be free in a little over a year:



He never hurt anyone. Why not allow him to own a gun for hunting, self-defense, etc.?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

36. All this does is raise the bar for letting people out!

This would be very bad as parole boards would be reluctant to let out otherwise rehabilitated offenders. The mere risk this person will legally purchase a firearm will set the bar even higher and just cause more institutionalization..

[slackmaster]

42. You may have a point, but I think rehabilitated is all or nothing

The mere risk this person will legally purchase a firearm will set the bar even higher and just cause more institutionalization..

OTOH anyone who really wants to obtain a firearm illegally can do so now. I don't see any easy way to fix that.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

44. But lets say a parole officer comes by the house

for a surprise check up and sees a glock if its not legal he can do something about it.

While rehab might be all or nothing sometimes its like being a 'recovered alcoholic' inthat temptation needs to be avoided.

In terms of voting I think it should be done on a crime by crime basis if you murder someone you don't get to vote again if you take a car for a joyride you can (hell for crimes that minor I'm fine with letting them vote while in prison)..

[slackmaster]

45. I don't consider someone who is on probation as having finished paying his or her "debt"

While rehab might be all or nothing sometimes its like being a 'recovered alcoholic' inthat temptation needs to be avoided.

I believe the strongest predicter of repeat offending is age. If someone in his or her mid-20s commits a single violent offense and is kept locked up until age 40, it's very unlikely that he or she will commit another one.

[treestar]

47. IA with this - also they should have a stake in society if they are out

Having people on the streets with no stake in society is just dangerous.

When they've got nothing to lose, what will they do?

[Ohio Joe]

55. Agreed, well said - nt

[Quantess]

3. I know a convicted felon. He happens to be a great guy,

an upstanding citizen. He didn't murder or rob anyone, so it's not like that. But he was convicted and now he can't vote.

[grassfed]

4. No - Scooter Libby should never vote again

[juno jones]

6. Know too many former felons who have been disenfranchised.

Not allowing them to vote prevents them from re-assimilation into their communities and society-at-large, and prevents them from making changes in their surroundings that might improve the chances for themselves and others.

What are people afraid of? That they'll vote for criminals? Already got plenty of those in office, ex-felons or no.

PS most ex-felons I've known were guys who very stupidly did some B&E, joyriding etc. in their youths (often before 18, but sentenced as adults) and are paying for it with the rest of their lives.

[raccoon]

29. "What are people afraid of? That they'll vote for criminals? "

No, TPTB are afraid that they'll vote for progressive candidates.

[uncle ray]

41. my radical view

is that an individuals right to vote should never be taken away. not even while imprisoned.

[Radical Activist]

46. Agreed

[varkam]

56. It's only radical in America.

In all other first-world democracies, that is the status quo view.

[monmouth]

8. If they've paid their dues, finished probation and make the application

with absoluetly NO incidents involving police, the governor of the state will restore their rights. Of course they should be able to vote. Not all felons are Scooter Libby...

[Fearless]

9. Not if they were convicted of voter fraud... otherwise, yes of course they should.

[lonestarnot]

14. I would add more not if's, but can't frame them well.

[RedCappedBandit]

11. I challenge anybody to give me a good reason why they *shouldn't*

Once let out of prison, they have paid their debt to society. It should end there.

[PDJane]

12. Felons can vote here.

They can vote from jail. Other countries allow this too, including Denmark, France, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Norway, Peru, Sweden, and Zimbabwe. These men and women didn't stop being citizens when they got convicted of whatever it was they were convicted of.

The United States is the only democracy in the world that takes the vote away from ex-prisoners who have completed their sentences.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

39. PDJ you dont get it..

The US does not take that right away the individual states do, the US is far more federal than most nations and as such many things are really not the 'united states' does x or y but Texas or California does x or y..

[PDJane]

48. Yeah, I got it.

I do understand this, but those laws are holdovers from the Jim Crow laws; the ones meant to restrict the voting lists to whites if possible.

The fact remains, however, that the United States is still the only democratic country which does this.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

49. Ummm no...

Those laws are in north and south, east and west...

"The fact remains, however, that the United States is still the only democratic country which does this."

Wrong on two counts:

1) The United states has no policy for or against fellons not voting, that happens at the state level and can be reversed just as easy.. Today, only three states continue to impose a life-long denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or state legislature.

2) Several European countries, e.g. France and Germany, permit disenfranchisement on some occasion, but only by special court order.

--

The basis for disenfranchisement is constitutional:

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proclaims that States which deny the vote to male citizens, except on the basis of "participation of rebellion, or other crime", will suffer a reduction in representation.

[varkam]

52. I think this might just be an issue of semantics.

While federal law does not prohibit felons from voting, it is simultaneously true that the United States is one of the few countries that bars felons from the polls even though that this is so as a result of state law. Perhaps another way of putting it is that the US is not one of the many countries that prohibits the practice.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

53. But the united states *does not* ban felons from voting

Several states do! but others do not...

Thats not a semantical difference, your statement at the end (bravo) and the original statement are completely different.

[varkam]

54. I guess I don't think they are completely different, though...

I do think that the former statement can lead to a bit of confusion.

[L. Coyote]

13. YES. Absolutely, if for no other reason because so many are innocent!!

[Iggo]

16. Felons can vote almost everywhere.

The notion that we can't is a myth and/or wishful thinking.

[ZombieHorde]

18. I found this...

Felon Laws Bar 3.9 Million Americans from Voting

(Washington, D.C., October 22, 1998) — A stunning proportion of black men in the United States will not be able to vote in the November elections because they have been convicted of a felony, according to a new report released today by Human Rights Watch and The Sentencing Project. In seven states, a staggering one in four black men is permanently disenfranchised. In two states, Alabama and Florida, the ratio is one in three

If current trends continue, in a dozen states as many as 30-40% of the next generation of black men will permanently lose the right to vote.
Almost every state in the U.S. denies prisoners the right to vote. But fourteen states bar criminal offenders from voting even after they have finished their sentences. In these states, over one million ex-offenders are permanently disenfranchised.

Any felony can trigger disenfranchisement. A first-time young offender who pleads guilty to a single drug sale and is placed on probation can lose the right to vote for a lifetime.

"These people have paid their debt to society. It makes no sense to turn them into political outcasts," said Jamie Fellner, associate counsel at the New York-based Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. "No other country in the world takes away the right to vote for life."
------------

Taken from Human Rights News (Human Rights Watch)
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1998/10/22/usdom1351.htm

What state do you live in?

[Iggo]

26. California.

One of the 36 states that don't disenfranchise ex-felons.

[varkam]

31. Untrue.

I'm a felon and cannot vote. If I do vote, then that is voter fraud and (surprise!) another felony. :hi:

[Posteritatis]

17. No for, say, treason; yes for all other circumstances. (nt)

[mitchum]

19. Yes

it is absurd to lose a constitutional right due to a criminal conviction

[annabanana]

20. Once they've paid their debt, yes. Absolutely.. . . .n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

40. Can a murderer really repay that debt?

I mean they can be rehabilitated, but can you repay the debt of taking a life?

[pinto]

23. Yes. Once the legal constraints for the adjudicated offense is over, they ought to have a vote.

[Fox Mulder]

24. I think they should be able to.

They served their time while in jail/prison. That was punishment enough.

[Jed Dilligan]

25. If they can live in our communities they are responsible enough to vote.

If they are too irresponsible to be trusted to vote, they are too irresponsible to have as next-door neighbors, aren't they? Releasing people into society but not letting them rejoin it is stupid and dangerous.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. YES!!!!

There's absolutely no justification (other than imprisonment)IMHO for taking away the right of people convicted of a felony to vote, particularly when you consider the harsh penalties regularly and disproportionately meted out (i.e. the poor and minorities) for NON-VIOLENT drug offenses in the name of the so-called "War on Drugs". Up until a few years ago I never honestly believed that a person's constitutional right to vote could ever be taken away unless they were currently incarcerated.
I was shocked to learn that during the 2000 (s)election that scores of people had been stripped of the right to vote because of Florida election law (and dubious if not criminal interpretations thereof) prohibiting felons from exercising their right to vote EVEN AFTER BEING RELEASED FROM INCARCERATION AND/OR SERVING THEIR SENTENCES (apparently you have to have your right to vote "re-instated" after serving your sentence). Not only that but a lot of people whom had NEVER committed a crime let alone a Felony had apparently lost their right to vote because of the misfortune of having a similar name as other people whom had been "purged" from the voting rolls. I have never understood (and probably never will understand) why criminality should have ANYTHING to do with a person's constitutional right to vote unless one is currently incarcerated and, as such, unable to fully exercise their constitutional rights (even though I think that I heard somewhere that some states do actually allow prison inmates to vote). I don't believe in any laws that continue to punish criminal offenders in any way past the length/terms of their duly imposed sentences and I don't believe that exercising one's constitutional rights, particularly to vote, should ever have ANYTHING to do with past criminal behavior.
Unfortunately, there are probably not a lot of people whom are aware of this and/or willing to fight for the constitutional rights of "criminals" but such laws should not be allowed to continue to exist without some kind of justification.

[noonwitch]

30. Once they've served their time, yes

But not when they are still serving their time.

[varkam]

32. I see a lot of people saying that felons should be allowed to vote once they've served their time...

but why should we deny voting rights to people in prisons?

[High Plains]

33. Interesting point. Many countries allow prisoners to vote.

[varkam]

35. I, for one, never understood the rationale of disallowing voting for prisoners.

Such laws were enacted in the context of systemic racism - I don't see why we should continue those policies.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

34. Third option:

Its up to each state...

In my ideal state I suppose it would depend on the crime. Depriving someone of property is far more forgivable than depriving them of life, A DWI (first timer with no casualties) is more forgivable than rape, A drunken bar room brawl is more forgivable than a wife beater and so on..

There is room to say: You have so deprived others of their rights that while you may be allowed to function, for the most part, in society again you will have certain rights that will never be restored.

Boosting a car: yes
Murdering someone: no

[tabasco]

37. People caught with pot plants in their closet?!? Heaven forbid!

These dangerous marijuana felons should be banished!!

:sarcasm:

[eShirl]

43. after they have served their sentence, sure

[Blue_In_AK]

50. Yes, after they've done their time

and any probation/parole. Their rights should be restored and they should be treated like any other citizen, with the possible exception of allowing them to own firearms if they were convicted of a crime involving firearms. I don't think the firearm bar should be a blanket thing.

[sammythecat]

51. Yes, they have a responsibility to vote too.

Maybe it should be a requirement while on parole, or even while incarcerated.

[Uncle Joe]

58. Once they've paid their debt to society, I see no reason to punish them more after prison. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

59. Yes, even while in prison. Citizens are still citizens after....

...committing a crime.

Telling them that they shouldn't participate in society is bad for how they will act when they are released.

The state of Vermont lets people in prison vote.

[ismnotwasm]

60. Yes n/t

[onethatcares]

61. hell yes, when you complete your court mandated sentence

all rights should be restored, except for the owning of firearms if you have committed a firearm related crime. Sorry but that's just the way I feel.

[CatholicEdHead]

62. Yes they should, once their sentence is served

parole does not count.