Reasonable people (by which I usually mean people left of the Gross Ol’ Perverts) can and do differ on this question. And reasonable people can accept that fact, even have a productive discussion about why they do or don’t think it’s good.
Pro “the con vote” (sorry, couldn’t help myself): It’s one more way for them to feel like they can and should fit into society when they get out. They’re already being punished by losing freedom. They’re citizens too.
Con “the con vote” (my position): They’ve proven they have bad judgment, they’ve had several other rights removed, what’s one more? Seems more likely than in the general population that their vote could be bought or coerced.
@curmudgeon303: “Bernie is wrong about this one.…”
I disagree. If there are so many imprisoned individuals that they could sway an election, then there must be something wrong with the laws that put them there.
Imagine a single party in “temporary” control of the lawmaking process (e.g., nationally, Republicans before the last midterms, but it has happened in some states, too) passing laws that make a felony out of some behavior which is common among their opponents but not among their supporters. If felons are not allowed to vote, then that party has basically made it illegal for their opponents to participate in government, i.e., to vote.
@Concretionist: “Pro ‘the con vote’ (sorry, couldn’t help myself): It’s one more way for them to feel like they can and should fit into society when they get out. They’re already being punished by losing freedom.”
I reject your “feelings” argument (which you also seem to consider weak). A right to participate in government should not depend on a person’s “feelings” about how they “fit into society”, much less on someone else’s opinion of how they “should” or shouldn’t fit in.
“They’re citizens too.”
That, to me, is the only valid argument.
“Con ‘the con vote’ (my position): They’ve proven they have bad judgment…”
Or bad lawyers? It seems that there are plenty of individuals who should be in prison but aren’t. And vice versa. Plea bargaining often allows should-be felons (especially white-collar ones) to escape by pleading guilty to non-felony charges, just to “save” the “justice” system some trouble. Meanwhile, others are talked into accepting “shorter” felony sentences though they believe themselves innocent, because they conclude that the system is indeed unfair, if not outright corrupt.
“…they’ve had several other rights removed, what’s one more?”
Gee, by that “logic”, if for some reason you lost your car, you would consider it no big deal to lose your house, too.
“Seems more likely than in the general population that their vote could be bought or coerced.”
So you believe that buying and/or coercing votes is common enough for that to matter? Who do you believe is doing the buying/coercing? And if that’s already happening, then it’s happening with non-felons.
Besides, it doesn’t “seem” that way to me at all. There are different kinds of criminality.
And what about their votes being influenced by “social” and other media? More likely than non-felons? I doubt it very much.
The only area where I would expect felons, whether or not they’ve completed their sentences, to vote as a bloc is for candidates who favor prison reform.
Daeder about 5 years ago
“No, I probably wouldn’t take that job on Individual 1’s campaign staff.”
brwydave Premium Member about 5 years ago
brit-ed about 5 years ago
If the election were held today, he wouldn’t be voting. The voting rights need to be restored to those that have served their punishment however.
Ontman about 5 years ago
How would convict Trump answer that question? We might find out.
danholt about 5 years ago
Would you work for Trump again…?
Concretionist about 5 years ago
Reasonable people (by which I usually mean people left of the Gross Ol’ Perverts) can and do differ on this question. And reasonable people can accept that fact, even have a productive discussion about why they do or don’t think it’s good.
Pro “the con vote” (sorry, couldn’t help myself): It’s one more way for them to feel like they can and should fit into society when they get out. They’re already being punished by losing freedom. They’re citizens too.
Con “the con vote” (my position): They’ve proven they have bad judgment, they’ve had several other rights removed, what’s one more? Seems more likely than in the general population that their vote could be bought or coerced.
gammaguy about 5 years ago
@curmudgeon303: “Bernie is wrong about this one.…”
I disagree. If there are so many imprisoned individuals that they could sway an election, then there must be something wrong with the laws that put them there.
Imagine a single party in “temporary” control of the lawmaking process (e.g., nationally, Republicans before the last midterms, but it has happened in some states, too) passing laws that make a felony out of some behavior which is common among their opponents but not among their supporters. If felons are not allowed to vote, then that party has basically made it illegal for their opponents to participate in government, i.e., to vote.
gammaguy about 5 years ago
@Concretionist: “Pro ‘the con vote’ (sorry, couldn’t help myself): It’s one more way for them to feel like they can and should fit into society when they get out. They’re already being punished by losing freedom.”
I reject your “feelings” argument (which you also seem to consider weak). A right to participate in government should not depend on a person’s “feelings” about how they “fit into society”, much less on someone else’s opinion of how they “should” or shouldn’t fit in.
“They’re citizens too.”
That, to me, is the only valid argument.
“Con ‘the con vote’ (my position): They’ve proven they have bad judgment…”
Or bad lawyers? It seems that there are plenty of individuals who should be in prison but aren’t. And vice versa. Plea bargaining often allows should-be felons (especially white-collar ones) to escape by pleading guilty to non-felony charges, just to “save” the “justice” system some trouble. Meanwhile, others are talked into accepting “shorter” felony sentences though they believe themselves innocent, because they conclude that the system is indeed unfair, if not outright corrupt.
“…they’ve had several other rights removed, what’s one more?”
Gee, by that “logic”, if for some reason you lost your car, you would consider it no big deal to lose your house, too.
“Seems more likely than in the general population that their vote could be bought or coerced.”
So you believe that buying and/or coercing votes is common enough for that to matter? Who do you believe is doing the buying/coercing? And if that’s already happening, then it’s happening with non-felons.
Besides, it doesn’t “seem” that way to me at all. There are different kinds of criminality.
And what about their votes being influenced by “social” and other media? More likely than non-felons? I doubt it very much.
The only area where I would expect felons, whether or not they’ve completed their sentences, to vote as a bloc is for candidates who favor prison reform.