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.
I never thought I would say this. But with today's political climate, I can see a situation where an act against the gubment, that would traditionally be deemed as "treasonous" by some, could be viewed as Patriotic by others.
Unless that felony was treason, sure, after they have served their sentence and successfully completed their probation. Why not?
Only 30 people have ever been tried for treason in the history if the US, and only eleven convicted, the last one in 1952. So whether or not they get to vote is hardly worth making an exception.
I don't really understand what the argument is for not allowing convicts to vote. Is it supposed to be ongoing punishment? Is it thought that convicts' votes could lead to the overthrow of the government? That they are more susceptible to undue influencing or corruption than the average citizen?
AFAIK, the laws against convicts voting have been in place for quite some time, if not since the beginning of our country. The idea of punishment proportional to the crime has been in place for quite some time. The idea of extended punishment beyond the sentence (like parole and probation) has been around for a while, but it is still proportional to the original sentence. The idea of a life-long punishment regardless of the crime or original sentence is a fairly new idea (sex-offender registries, 3 strikes laws). Yet the lifelong ban on convicts voting is more in line with these more recent criminal justice concepts.
All those thoughts aside, I really just don't see what effect it has. The loss of the right to vote is certainly not a deterrent to crime.
I don't really understand what the argument is for not allowing convicts to vote. Is it supposed to be ongoing punishment? Is it thought that convicts' votes could lead to the overthrow of the government? That they are more susceptible to undue influencing or corruption than the average citizen?
AFAIK, the laws against convicts voting have been in place for quite some time, if not since the beginning of our country. The idea of punishment proportional to the crime has been in place for quite some time. The idea of extended punishment beyond the sentence (like parole and probation) has been around for a while, but it is still proportional to the original sentence. The idea of a life-long punishment regardless of the crime or original sentence is a fairly new idea (sex-offender registries, 3 strikes laws). Yet the lifelong ban on convicts voting is more in line with these more recent criminal justice concepts.
All those thoughts aside, I really just don't see what effect it has. The loss of the right to vote is certainly not a deterrent to crime.
Nothin is. Just look around you.
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.
