POLL: Should convicted felons be allowed to vote?

Remove all ads!

Are you sure they knew the risks? Or are you sure they made their choise while fully aware of what they did? They might have been high or drunk. In which case they were not fully aware of the consequences. Over 50% of felonies in Finland are made under the effects of alcohol or drugs, I'm not sure how it is in US but I'd bet the percentage is quite significant in there too.

My real point is though what is the reason they should not be able to vote? They have plenty of other rights left, why the need of taking their rights to vote away?

This one is an interesting statement. What exactly are the rights of the victims?

 

This is continuing down the off-topic slope....

I do not believe drugs or alcohol is an acceptable excuse -- those were also choices. I don't believe 'under the influence' should be allowed as a defense. For that matter, require breath test before voting (I guess we'd be eliminating the redneck vote).

Victim's rights: This was a presidential speech of ~three years ago:

 

Well look at it this way, if the Dems knew that the majority of felons would vote GOP, they would be against the restoration of their voting rights. Just look at how they try to stop our military personel overseas from voting.

 

Our justice system accepts alcohol or drugs as an excuse. One does not escape sentence because of it, but it prevents one from being labeled as a dangerous psychopath and that will affect the lenght of the sentence.

That speach was a lot of pretty words but I still don't quite get what you want as the rights of the victim. Right for a secure life? No one can guarantee that. Rights for a financial compensation? Insurances usually take care this if the convict is not able to pay the required sums.
Victims right to explain his/her suffering to the court? This suffering is explained by lawyers and they usually do a lot better of a job explaining the victim's suffering than the victim ever could.

I feel the victim should be given free psychological councel, a lawyer and the right to appeal for the sentence. That's about the rights the victim needs and should have. The victim's right to affect the sentence or release of the prisoner should be none.

 

Well, we'll just have to disagree on this. I think we're far to easy on crime.

 

Finland's system is significantly different from the U.S. In the U.S. ignorance of the law (whether drug induced or not) never constitutes an excuse. In fact, you're more than likely to get additional charges for being high/drunk at the time of committing a crime.

 

I prefer a non-blanket-law approach on this one. I'd prefer to leave it up to a judge, and not the jury, with the actual parole board making a recommendation.

There are some ex-felons who should even be allowed to carry a concealed. There are some ex-felons who are better people that 80% of our federal Congress members.

Good old Teddy. Boy, he's had a rough life. I guess, for whatever reason, they've brought it upon themselves; but still. Rough.

 

I think that while they are in prison and serving time that they should not be allowed to vote. They don't want to live by the rules of society then they don't get the priveleges granted to law abiding citizens of society. When they are released and are integrated back into society then they regain the right to vote. I was in a major tiff when prisoners were allowed to vote in the last Canadian election. Voting is a privelege granted to law abiding citizens in my opinion. You want to vote, stope breaking the law a@#hole!!! LOL

 

Our court systems are far from perfect, just because twelve men and women thought someone was guilty doesn't mean the acused is. Your going on the opinions of a few people to decide if a covicted felon has the right to vote. If your not going to let someone vote or have any other rights for that matter, then why not shoot them in the head.

Are you threatened by the fact that a person who has broken the law might get to vote just like you, a good hardworking citizen? Are you mad because this felon may get equal rights? Calm down and push aside any arrogance you may have.

With the level of savagery surrounding us in this dangerous world condemning people who messed up only makes things worse, let them vote!

 

People make mistakes, everyone does. People change and so do their morals and ideals. I think the penal system should allow for that, if you kill them or suspend their (voting) rights you don't allow people to change and become contributing members of society.

Also, the focus should be more on the prevention of crimes than the punishment. What drives people to commit crimes? Who commits crimes? Where are crimes committed? Can we help these people in some way, so they wont commit crimes? I think few people really want to commit crimes, some people just fall in a hole and cant get out.

 

I am not a democrat but I have to call you on this khazadman:

Democrats have never sought to stop military personel from voting. That is a bald assertion.

This issue really hit home here in WA state recently with the Governor's race ebtween Democrat Christine Gregoire and republican Dino Rossi. The first machine count had Rossi winning the election by a few hundred votes which meant that a mandatory recount was in order. The second machine recount had Rossi ahead by much less which proved, if nothing else, that the machines were inconsistent.
Understandably Gregoire opted for the hand recount she was entitled to(paid for by the Dem's).

Hand recounts in WA. are overseen by a representative from both parties. Each vote must be agreed to by these rep's before it is counted as being for either candidate. The hand recount had Gregoire winning by 129 votes or so. The machine counts that had Rossi ahead were not subject to oversight by representativesw from each party adn the machines made errors.
Furthermore, it came out in the course of investigating the election(before the hand recount) that hundreds of mostly democratic voters were fraudulently disincluded from the voting process(including some elected officals!) because of errors made. When Gregoire's camp brought this up adn demanded that "every vote count" the republicans accused them of whining adn such.

When Rossi ended up losing, the republicans let loose a bevy of unsubstantiated allegations such as "Military personel were deprived of their right to vote" and such(turns out the only military personel that did not have votes counted were those who simply did not vote! For whatever reason including procrastination, they simply did not get in their absentee ballots!). Ever since the republicans have been crying "Let every vote count" and seeming to be doing their best impersonation of the "whining democrats" .
The bad thing(for them) is that they cannot find any real improprieties that favored democrats. The "felons" they complained should not have been allowed to vote were few and voted almost 50/50 for republicans and democrats.
They only desired to put the election process under the microscope to reveal every tiny flaw and harp on it when their boy lost. They wanted nothing to do with examining the process when Rossi was ahead.
I think you should lose the right to vote if you actively commit an act that prohibits someone else from exercising their right to vote(including murder, intimidation etc.) or otherwise violates essential civil lioberties such as free speech or the right to not be raped/molested. That would make republicans think twice about trying to sleight black voters and the like.

 

I am really not gunning for you Rune, but you keep making these statements.

Please go back and review the 2000 election. Democrats did everything they could to block the counting of the absentee ballots for military personnel (especially those coming in from overseas), while wanting all absentee ballots from within the states counted, even when there was evidence that many of these votes were cast by people who were also registered to vote in the local they were currently located in.

 

@Darkwolf: There's not fourth option in the poll: "I'm a convicted felon and I don't know whether I have the right to decide on that matter."

As for felons voting. There are many cases which would qualify them to never be allowed to vote again. For example, paedophiles. There are politicians (among Democrats) who advocate that it should be legal to have sex with children (some advocate the age of consent should be taken down to 4 years), and guess who the paedophiles would elect.
As with them, I guess you could find an example in every possible criminal area, not just this one.

Of course, felons should have the right to full pardon and reinstatement if they were falsely convicted, but otherwise?
Voting is not a civil right, it is a civil privilege.

 

Somehow I doubt this, what kind of a serious politican would support this? Down to four? Please, that's completeley ridicoulous. Supporting something like that would be a political suicide.
Besides a democracy should be open for all kinds of oppinions, even if they were supporting something like that or a fascist party or whatever. In a democracy the people should have the right to make the wrong choice.

Personally I consider even pedophiles having the vote. In a democracy every person who has the age and mental ability to cast a vote should be able to do so, neither being in prison nor having served time in prison should be considered a hinder for this.

 

@Darkwolf: I am calling B***sh*t" on that one! That is how republicans spun the complicated mess to be sure.

@Morogoth


Agreed in full and you are correct. There are NO democrats supporting such initiatives/legislature.


Voting IS a RIGHT, not a "priveledge". Arguing otherwise is complete NONSENSE! If you are a citizen adn you are not incarcerated for breaking our laws, then your voice is just as important as anyone else's.

Being able to rent movies from a video store is a PRIVLEDGE. Not just anyone is automatically entitled to rent movies for the corner store. Being able to order a martini at the country clubg is a PRIVELDGE(largely dependent on one's parentage or finacial status and sometimes even gender or ethnic background). Voting is something that EVERY American is entitled to do.

America is not about "Rights and Priveledges". It is about "Rights and Responsibilities". THe only reason voting is not a responsibility is because that would entail America being other than a free republic.

A good example of why this is can be found in the movement to legalize marijuana. There have been people who have been busted for providing marijuana to people with medical needs for the drug and this has resulted in them being convicted felons. Should they now lose the right to vote for politicians who support legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana?
Imagine if it were not marijuana but instead penicillin or ibuprofren. Just imagine for a second that by some turn of events, the religious majority was against people taking pain medication. Should the asprin smugglers not only suffer in such a backwater theocracy but on top of that lose their right to vote, even AFTER ibuprofren and such were legalized?

 

Generally one must ask if the voters are any worse than the votees!

Given the lack of honesty in politicians on both sides of the water, we should be asking whether the checks on candidates are sufficiently thorough.

As for felons voting, why not? Remebber that for every convicted felon, several more have got away with it. Until we can screen out these felons, any ban would be based on luck (and criminal competance - only clever criminals can vote).

That last aside links back to the candidates - big time!