*frowns*

[conuly]

From an article on inmate voting in the Times...

"I just was horrified when I realized they could vote," said Mary Black Andrews, a state representative from York, Me., whose first husband was a Maine state trooper who was shot and killed in the line of duty. "I just don't think that they deserve that right if they've been convicted of a violent crime."

*blinks*

I'm sorry, please explain the logic. Somebody commits a violent crime and suddenly their ability to reason is horrifically impaired AND they have no stake in this country at all?

Moreover, rights aren't something you deserve or earn. They're something you get just by being there.

I'm not arguing about this, seriously. I'm sure people can come up with many more coherant arguments against inmate voting than how "horrified" you are. I'll just sit here and stew a while.

Comments

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

The one "argument" I've heard against this, and it's a pretty weak one, IMO, is that some elections, like the 2000 presidential election, are so close that even one single vote can tip the scales, and no one wants that vote to be the one cast by Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olsen or another serial murderer.

I don't see the logic in that -- if it's one vote, how can you tell whose vote that one vote is? -- but there you are.