*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

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

It's not a black-and-white thing; it's a question of degree. The degree to which one should lose one's rights is directly proportional to the degree of the severity of the person's violation with the social contract. (This is why different crimes receive different penalties, rather than just having the death penalty for all violations.) Loss of the franchise is a fairly severe penalty and should probably be applied only to felonies, and possibly to the more severe misdemeanors.

I'm mostly speculating, here, since I just woke up and I haven't really thought about it, but I'm not sure I'd have a problem with disenfranchising drunk drivers if they're repeat offenders. After all, they clearly don't think that drunk driving should be prohibited; one might therefore reasonably speculate, then, that they would use their franchise to try to elect people who will soften or even repeal drunk driving laws.