Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Florida, a convicted felon can never own a firearm, but certain rights are restored, including the right to vote.
I'm on the fence about felon gun rights. While some offenses make sense; murder for example. I can understand not wanting them to own guns. But what about non-violent offenses? Like drug possession. Realistically, if they have no history of violence, them having a gun isn't going to cause a problem.
I don't want to get into the issue too much though, but I think that with the passage of time, some felons (certainly the non violent ones) should eventually be able to own a gun. Maybe with restrictions on use (like if they want to hunt or something; no open carry or concealed carry for ex-felons is a reasonable precaution, but I support case by case legislature not 'let's assume they're all the same' legislation, which is what we pretty much use now).
I wouldn't call it clear. It mentions rebellion and 'other crimes.' That's extremely vague. Crime is technically any action that the state can punish. This would mean that yes, the state can legally withhold the right of someone convicted of murder from voting. It also means that they can technically do the same for someone who gets a parking ticket, as that is an action punishable by the state (a crime).
150 yrs of case law has made it clear and explicit, and already dealt with the exactly questions you are raising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Bare in mind, the constitution isn't 100% right all the time. While it's legally valid, that doesn't mean it makes sense or is justified in every way. At one point, the constitution banned the possession and consumption of alcohol, yet this was removed because it was deemed counter productive and frankly pointless. I'd argue the same is true about that section in the 14th amendment.
Yes, but we passed an amendment to address the wrongs of prohibition. Until we amend the 14th amendment, the Constitution is 100% right.
I agree with you. There's differences in the levels of felonies. In Florida, I understand felons can possess an air rifle. Currently no one in the family of a convicted felon can possess a gun unless they can show the police it is locked away and the family member that is a felon cannot get to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
I'm on the fence about felon gun rights. While some offenses make sense; murder for example. I can understand not wanting them to own guns. But what about non-violent offenses? Like drug possession. Realistically, if they have no history of violence, them having a gun isn't going to cause a problem.
I don't want to get into the issue too much though, but I think that with the passage of time, some felons (certainly the non violent ones) should eventually be able to own a gun. Maybe with restrictions on use (like if they want to hunt or something; no open carry or concealed carry for ex-felons is a reasonable precaution, but I support case by case legislature not 'let's assume they're all the same' legislation, which is what we pretty much use now).
150 yrs of case law has made it clear and explicit, and already dealt with the exactly questions you are raising.
Yes, but we passed an amendment to address the wrongs of prohibition. Until we amend the 14th amendment, the Constitution is 100% right.
Then I believe we should amend the 14th amendment. I believe that the biggest mistake the founding fathers made was not clearly stating the importance of voting rights. Of course, even if they had, only white men would be allowed to vote anyway.
It's my view that felons who are treated only as felons are far more likely to remain felons. If they're treated like human beings, then most of them will act like human beings. Yes, someone will reoffend, some multiple times. But punishing those who won't reoffend because some people might is clearly wrong, and from a certain perspective, unconstitutional. While not explicitly stated in the constitution, you are innocent until proven guilty (it wasn't explicitly stated because the practice had been an aspect of English common law for so long that it was just an assumed part of the court; they felt no need to put it in the constitution because they assumed people would just know that's how it works). Harsh regulations and punishment post release are either violating the excessive punishment aspect of the constitution or assuming guilt (or potential guilt) of a person prior to an act even being committed.
Constitutionally valid or not, felony disenfranchisement is wrong.
I would also like to point out that nothing written by man, especially by men employed by a government, is capable of being 100% right.
Simple question: should felons have voting rights.
As of right now, only two states (Maine and Vermont) have no restrictions on felon voting rights; as in an inmate may vote via absentee ballot. Thirteen states (plus D.C.) restore voting rights once an inmate is released from prison. Four states restore after parole, and nineteen include probation in felon disenfranchisement. The remaining twelve states have various laws. Arizona, for example, disenfranchise felons if it's a second offense. Nevada does not disenfranchise voters for first time, non-violent offenses. Iowa permanently disenfranchise felons, however you can get the governor to return voting rights back through a rather tedious and lengthy process.
So I ask, which group of states does it right?
Personally, I'm skeptical of any law that prohibits a certain group from voting. I think Maine and Vermont have it right. I see no reason why a prisoner can't vote. With that said, certain liberties (though not all) can be reasonably suspended while in prison. So while I think felon disenfranchisement is nothing but a political game to exclude a group of people from the voting process (fewer people to win over means fewer potential voters for the opposing party), I do think some restrictions can be justified, though I do not believe that any person, once released from prison, should be permanently banned from voting. It contradicts what most people claim are American values. A person who has paid their debt to society deserve the opportunity to have their full rights returned to them. I sincerely do not care what the crime was. Murder, being the worst crime (in my opinion, is wrong, but frankly, if a former murderer has paid their debt to society, I can think of no reason (aside from our not so Christian, and really not so American, love of punishing people) that they cannot vote. Committing a crime, no matter how serious, should have no impact on a person's ability or inability to vote.
This site has some interesting information regrind the topic. Most notably addressing the common arguments in favor of felon disenfranchisement having no basis in actual fact. Why Should Felons Vote?
So, what do you all think?
This may not be a popular opinion especially for a conservative....I suppose it's the libertarian side of me coming out, but I think it should really depend on the specific nature of the crime.
Not all felonies are created equal. For example, some things can be a felony in one state but not in another.
I also think that once they've done their time/completed probation or whatever the punishment was, they should be able to petition to have all rights and privileges restored. Yes, even 2nd ammendment rights if they were not convicted of a violent felony.
If you're going to punish someone for life, then keep them locked up. Otherwise, if they can demonstrate that they have regained their worth to society, then let them be a productive member of society again, including voting.
As for those two states, they can vote in state and local elections. Not federal elections.
Edited to add. Felons in prison and on parole can't vote. Once all that has cleared up, depending on the state, they can vote.
So there is no disenfranchisement going on.
Much ado about nothing.
Where in the constitution does it say that felons lose their right to vote? I looked and I could not find any such provision. That leaves the matter up to the states.
They have clearly demonstrated that they have bad judgement. Do we want them choosing our leaders?
A lot of people have clearly demonstrated poor judgment. The woman with 12 kids who wants to vote for a congressman who will create welfare programs for her poor decisions is allowed to vote though. And let's ask, what costs society more money? Reducing restrictions for felons after release or welfare programs? Yeah, the one that is cheaper, and probably cost free, is the one that's illegal.
People make poor decisions all the time. Look at congress. Each one is allowed to run again yet...
A few poor decisions in life shouldn't mean we can assume they will never be capable of making good decisions. In fact, no human alive only makes good or bad decision. Just because some decisions are worse doesn't mean that a person is incapable of making good decisions. If we were intelligent about how we handled criminal justice, we'd want to put ex-felons in an environment that encourages them to make good decisions, not put them in unreasonably difficult situations our of fear they'll make another bad decision.
As the study I linked showed; ex-felons who voted were far less likely to reoffend. It suggests that treating them like people will encourage them to act like people (seems obvious to me). Why then would we want to do anything different?
I guess that it depends on what they did in terms of the severity of the crime, how long ago they did it, and how they've lived their lives since their offense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, yes they should be allowed to vote.
