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.
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?
Yeah I dont really see the point of denying them, since an overwhelmingly number of candidates are criminal in nature.
Actually rather hypocritical to deny them.
no, i feel they knew they would loose the right to vote before they committed the crime, they should loose them for life, no matter if they serve their punishment , should loose the right to own guns too for life. I would make the punishment so harsh they would think about it before the crime. they knew about it before, so why give in, they did the crime.
no, i feel they knew they would loose the right to vote before they committed the crime, they should loose them for life, no matter if they serve their punishment , should loose the right to own guns too for life. I would make the punishment so harsh they would think about it before the crime. they knew about it before, so why give in, they did the crime.
There's more to the justice system than just punishment. This is one of my biggest issues with our justice system. We constantly talk about public safety and feel punishment is the best way to ensure this, yet ignore the other aspects of criminal justice, rehabilitation and prevention, that arguably are much more closely tied to public safety.
In the link I posted, it showed that ex-felons who voted were much less likely to commit another crime. The results were consistent across race, age, and conviction. The study was done in Minnesota, a state the restores voting rights after the punishment is complete (includes probation).
If we do care about public safety, we need to stop basing our opinions on assumptions or fear and instead on studies that show us what works. The only way to do this is to get the public thinking; this will pressure congress to do something I don't think it's ever been asked to do: think! If restoring voting rights will positively impact crime rates and public safety, I can't think of a sensible reason to not do it.
I also feel the need to point out the foolishness of your logic. They knew the consequences before hand? If that's how it worked, crime rates would be lower. Crime is a complicated issue. Simplifying it to such a basic degree is a logic that cannot be used if we want to actually improve the conditions of our very clearly deteriorating justice system.
no, i feel they knew they would loose the right to vote before they committed the crime, they should loose them for life, no matter if they serve their punishment , should loose the right to own guns too for life. I would make the punishment so harsh they would think about it before the crime. they knew about it before, so why give in, they did the crime.
Irrational anger. They committed a crime and served their time. Get over it.
Irrational anger. They committed a crime and served their time. Get over it.
I know, right? It's not like they have a history of making terrible decisions.
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.
