*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

[ser-kai.livejournal.com]

One of the things you give up when convicted is the rights of citizenship.
Voting is a right of citizenship, therefore, it's wrong for inmates to be able to vote.
Better?

[conuly]

Do you give up the rights of citizenship? Why? Are there some rights of citizenship you maintain? (Do you still pay taxes?)

[ser-kai.livejournal.com]

Yes, because society has deemed you unfit for the term of a sentence & placed you in an institution that seriously infringes on your rights as a citizen.
I don't know about the states(I doubt it or only for the period of time you were free in the fiscal year) but I'm pretty sure they don't, here due to lack of income.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

When you commit a violent crime, you are violating your social contract with society at large, and that being the case, you give up certain rights. Apart from the obvious (incarceration), you forfeit other rights as well, such as the right to vote and the right to own firearms, because your behavior demonstrates that you cannot be trusted to exercise those rights responsibly.

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

That, and really, they cost taxpayers lots of money. :-P

The other major argument is that they have infringed on other people's rights, so why should they be granted full rights?

I don't know. If I'm going to support a group that should have equal rights, inmates are pretty low on my priority, personally.

But yes, that person needs to learn how to do more than scream about how horrified she is. :-P

[ser-kai.livejournal.com]

Zacktly.

[conuly]

I'm not sure that the fact that you kill somebody proves that you can't be trusted to vote. I mean, I'm sure that's the reasoning, but I'm not sure it's correct reasoning. Which I'd be happy to debate, but it's now the middle of the night and I must sleep. Djusk' a.

[conuly]

I don't know. If I'm going to support a group that should have equal rights, inmates are pretty low on my priority, personally.

That is a fact :)

But... *shrugs* It just seems that laws that prevent inmates from voting favor those who do not want to see poor/black people from voting - we all know these groups are disproportionately represented in prisons, and disproportionately convicted of violent crimes. In addition, many inmates are mislead, they think they can never vote again, even after they're released from prison, which, depending on where they are, may not be true. So a huge chunk of potential voters aren't voting, not because they don't want to but because they think they can't.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

People entrusted with the right to vote are presumed to have society's best interests at heart when they do vote. Violent criminals have given proof, by their actions, that they do not have society's best interests at heart. Therefore, they are not permitted to vote. I can't explain it any more clearly than that.

[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.

[moroveus.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's just me, but I think the "threat" of a felon's vote is greatly outweighed by the threat of purging innocent people from voter rolls under the guise of weeding out the felons.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Drunken drivers have given proof, by their actions, that they do not have society's best interests at heart. Ditto for polluters, shoplifters, tax evaders, deadbeat dads, people who speed through school zones, and a host of others. Following your logic, *none* of these people ought to be allowed to vote.

Do you think that ought to be the case, or should we re-work your premise to find something that more accurately represents your viewpoint?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

My two cents worth here -
In Britain,felons do not vote, niether do those registered as mentally ill, nor anyone who sits in the House of Lords (and this puts them in good company, some suggest). However, upon release, felons are deemed to have 'paid their debt' to society and are allowed to take up all the rights and prvileges of full citizenship.
I understand that in some States, those who have been convicted can never vote again. As the poor are more likely to get a conviction, this weighs heavily against the Democrats.

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

I do think inmates' rights are worth supporting, because I don't think that people become non-people as soon as they do something wrong. (And not all inmates have done anything wrong, and even when they have there's a wide range of how wrong.) Taking away more of people's rights than absolutely necessary leads to more of the desperation that can drive violent and other convictable crimes. Not less.

[madamjolie.livejournal.com]

What if you are in prison for a non-violent offense? I mean, just because Bill got stuck with a dime bag in his car, does that really mean he's no longer a citizen with rights?

I mean, if we're talking about people unable to use judgement, that makes no sense, since those who are in IP facilities can vote just fine.

[frogmajick.livejournal.com]

Once you are convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison you have become a ward of the state.

As a ward of the state, you have lost all rights regarding decision making for yourself. The state tells you where to sleep, when to eat, what work you must do. You CAN refuse to comply, but when you do that you lose priviliges and generally make life harder on yourself. You have limited freedoms, including freedom of speech.

Another factor is there are federal prisons and state prisons and different laws cover different things. However, while incarcerated you may not cast a vote, you can't say the pledge of allegiance or salute the flag (well, that's in military prison. It may not apply to other prisons).

You do not lose basic human rights. This is where the whole "cruel and unusual punishment" comes into it. This all depends on the facility you are in though. There's a lot of debate right now about Maricopa county jail and thier reinstitution of chain gangs and requiring people to wear pink underpants.

What it comes down to is losing the right to vote is part of your punishment. Once released most states give you that right back. Depending on the area you may or may not be able to own a gun ever again, and certainly not while on probation or parole.

See, it's not so much that felons can't make a decision or have lost the ability to reason. It's that when you are convicted you get punished, and losing your vote, essentially your voice in society, is part of the punishment.

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I see your point, but... I'm just not moved to very much pity for them. I'd be just as happy if ex-cons weren't voting anyway.

The racial or potential racial issues here need to be dealt with separately, in my opinion.

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree there's a spectrum. And for small crimes and stuff, yeah, they definitely should, at the very least, be voting once they're out. I'm not sure I care one way or another if they're voting while they're in.

But for... well, murder, for instance, that person has taken away someone else's right to *live*, so I don't really think they in any way deserve equal rights.

And again, I do think the compassion would be better served elsewhere... such as in preventing these people from committing crimes in the first place, thus protecting their rights.

[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.

[precia.livejournal.com]

But yes, that person needs to learn how to do more than scream about how horrified she is.

Actually, Mary Black Andrews has spent much of her political career (she's been a state representative for as long as I can remember) championing this kind of cause. She's done a lot of work helping families who have suffered tragedies similar to the one she went through.

She's also been an instrumental advocate for many bills concerning felon's/victim's rights in Maine. I believe she's been working hard on this inmate voting issue since 2000 or so.

Aside from the current issue, and her less than persuasive quote, she's a damn good woman to have on your side if you have an issue that needs to be resolved.

[ser-kai.livejournal.com]

One of the things you give up when convicted is the rights of citizenship.
Voting is a right of citizenship, therefore, it's wrong for inmates to be able to vote.
Better?

[conuly]

Do you give up the rights of citizenship? Why? Are there some rights of citizenship you maintain? (Do you still pay taxes?)

[ser-kai.livejournal.com]

Yes, because society has deemed you unfit for the term of a sentence & placed you in an institution that seriously infringes on your rights as a citizen.
I don't know about the states(I doubt it or only for the period of time you were free in the fiscal year) but I'm pretty sure they don't, here due to lack of income.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

When you commit a violent crime, you are violating your social contract with society at large, and that being the case, you give up certain rights. Apart from the obvious (incarceration), you forfeit other rights as well, such as the right to vote and the right to own firearms, because your behavior demonstrates that you cannot be trusted to exercise those rights responsibly.

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

That, and really, they cost taxpayers lots of money. :-P

The other major argument is that they have infringed on other people's rights, so why should they be granted full rights?

I don't know. If I'm going to support a group that should have equal rights, inmates are pretty low on my priority, personally.

But yes, that person needs to learn how to do more than scream about how horrified she is. :-P

[ser-kai.livejournal.com]

Zacktly.

[conuly]

I'm not sure that the fact that you kill somebody proves that you can't be trusted to vote. I mean, I'm sure that's the reasoning, but I'm not sure it's correct reasoning. Which I'd be happy to debate, but it's now the middle of the night and I must sleep. Djusk' a.

[conuly]

I don't know. If I'm going to support a group that should have equal rights, inmates are pretty low on my priority, personally.

That is a fact :)

But... *shrugs* It just seems that laws that prevent inmates from voting favor those who do not want to see poor/black people from voting - we all know these groups are disproportionately represented in prisons, and disproportionately convicted of violent crimes. In addition, many inmates are mislead, they think they can never vote again, even after they're released from prison, which, depending on where they are, may not be true. So a huge chunk of potential voters aren't voting, not because they don't want to but because they think they can't.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

People entrusted with the right to vote are presumed to have society's best interests at heart when they do vote. Violent criminals have given proof, by their actions, that they do not have society's best interests at heart. Therefore, they are not permitted to vote. I can't explain it any more clearly than that.

[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.

[moroveus.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's just me, but I think the "threat" of a felon's vote is greatly outweighed by the threat of purging innocent people from voter rolls under the guise of weeding out the felons.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Drunken drivers have given proof, by their actions, that they do not have society's best interests at heart. Ditto for polluters, shoplifters, tax evaders, deadbeat dads, people who speed through school zones, and a host of others. Following your logic, *none* of these people ought to be allowed to vote.

Do you think that ought to be the case, or should we re-work your premise to find something that more accurately represents your viewpoint?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

My two cents worth here -
In Britain,felons do not vote, niether do those registered as mentally ill, nor anyone who sits in the House of Lords (and this puts them in good company, some suggest). However, upon release, felons are deemed to have 'paid their debt' to society and are allowed to take up all the rights and prvileges of full citizenship.
I understand that in some States, those who have been convicted can never vote again. As the poor are more likely to get a conviction, this weighs heavily against the Democrats.

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

I do think inmates' rights are worth supporting, because I don't think that people become non-people as soon as they do something wrong. (And not all inmates have done anything wrong, and even when they have there's a wide range of how wrong.) Taking away more of people's rights than absolutely necessary leads to more of the desperation that can drive violent and other convictable crimes. Not less.

[madamjolie.livejournal.com]

What if you are in prison for a non-violent offense? I mean, just because Bill got stuck with a dime bag in his car, does that really mean he's no longer a citizen with rights?

I mean, if we're talking about people unable to use judgement, that makes no sense, since those who are in IP facilities can vote just fine.

[frogmajick.livejournal.com]

Once you are convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison you have become a ward of the state.

As a ward of the state, you have lost all rights regarding decision making for yourself. The state tells you where to sleep, when to eat, what work you must do. You CAN refuse to comply, but when you do that you lose priviliges and generally make life harder on yourself. You have limited freedoms, including freedom of speech.

Another factor is there are federal prisons and state prisons and different laws cover different things. However, while incarcerated you may not cast a vote, you can't say the pledge of allegiance or salute the flag (well, that's in military prison. It may not apply to other prisons).

You do not lose basic human rights. This is where the whole "cruel and unusual punishment" comes into it. This all depends on the facility you are in though. There's a lot of debate right now about Maricopa county jail and thier reinstitution of chain gangs and requiring people to wear pink underpants.

What it comes down to is losing the right to vote is part of your punishment. Once released most states give you that right back. Depending on the area you may or may not be able to own a gun ever again, and certainly not while on probation or parole.

See, it's not so much that felons can't make a decision or have lost the ability to reason. It's that when you are convicted you get punished, and losing your vote, essentially your voice in society, is part of the punishment.

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I see your point, but... I'm just not moved to very much pity for them. I'd be just as happy if ex-cons weren't voting anyway.

The racial or potential racial issues here need to be dealt with separately, in my opinion.

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree there's a spectrum. And for small crimes and stuff, yeah, they definitely should, at the very least, be voting once they're out. I'm not sure I care one way or another if they're voting while they're in.

But for... well, murder, for instance, that person has taken away someone else's right to *live*, so I don't really think they in any way deserve equal rights.

And again, I do think the compassion would be better served elsewhere... such as in preventing these people from committing crimes in the first place, thus protecting their rights.

[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.

[precia.livejournal.com]

But yes, that person needs to learn how to do more than scream about how horrified she is.

Actually, Mary Black Andrews has spent much of her political career (she's been a state representative for as long as I can remember) championing this kind of cause. She's done a lot of work helping families who have suffered tragedies similar to the one she went through.

She's also been an instrumental advocate for many bills concerning felon's/victim's rights in Maine. I believe she's been working hard on this inmate voting issue since 2000 or so.

Aside from the current issue, and her less than persuasive quote, she's a damn good woman to have on your side if you have an issue that needs to be resolved.