Kevin Drum asks the right question.
So here's a question: Do you think convicted felons who have served their time should be prohibited from speaking freely? Do you think they should lose the right to a fair trial?I don’t understand this on a lot of levels. I mean, what’s really being accomplished by not allowing those who have served their time to vote. My guess is (and this is just a guess) that convicted felons aren’t the most likely demographic to go vote anyway. And sure, while you’re actually doing the time, no rights like voting. That’s fine. But once you’re out, what’s the big deal? Are all the ex-cons going to form a PAC, elect the right people and get crime repealed? Or vote out the judges and sheriffs and states attorneys that got them put away?
No? Then why do they lose the right to vote in 20 states?
This has never made sense to me other than being an arbitrary and spiteful bonus “punishment”. I'd even go so far as to say it's counterproductive. Any ex-con engaged enough to go out and vote probably now feels they have a stake in society and unlikely to undermine that with a life of crime.
5 comments:
If someone gets convicted of a felony, that means that they committed a very serious crime and are a threat to society. Just because they serve time for this act does not mean that all of a sudden they are a good person. Part of the overall punishment for a convicted felon is losing their right to vote. If they want to keep this right, then they should not do the crime.
Another right that a convicted felon loses is his right to bear arms. If you give a convicted felon the right to vote, would you also give them the right to own a gun?
I’m not sure how someone who is “dangerous to society” can do any harm by voting. I can see how he could with a gun.
That said, I’m pretty much against any extra penalties that aren’t part of a court-issued sentence.
Congratulations Dave...the infamous Rick Monday posted on your blog. I wonder how long before he starts using the n-word and other offensive, insulting words, along with personal attacks...like he did my blog a couple months ago.
Blevins, any post such as the ones you describe will be quickly shit-canned.
Actually, I was just waiting for someone to post the tired saw about “if you don’t want the penalty don’t do the crime, blah, blah, blah…” without addressing the relevance of said penalty to the crime.
Actually, I was just waiting for someone to post the tired saw about “if you don’t want the penalty don’t do the crime, blah, blah, blah…” without addressing the relevance of said penalty to the crime.
# posted by Dave : 3/01/2007 01:10:09 PM
Dave, I am under the assumption that these people were imprisoned for felonies, not misdemeanors. Thus they were imprisoned for doing something that was a serious threat to society. Since they were capable of seriously threatening out society, they lose certain rights. Now why?
I can only make an educated guess that in an extreme example, as a group, the convicted felons could make up a sizable voting block. And in theory, they could vote for someone as a representative who would make it legal to commit, say murder. (extreme example but you get my point.)
Now I would argue that there are too many crimes that are classified as felonies but that is a different topic.
Post a Comment