Convicted Felons Not Voting

[Pnt]

As it currently stands, a convicted felon that has served his or her time in prison and has been released is not allowed to vote in any political ballot/election for the rest of his/her life*. In some states, a person in this situation can be granted clemency, but this is usually by the executive branch and is very subjective to how the person will be voting (ie, don't expect to get clemency if you'll vote against the person granting it). This bothers me, as the person has paid their debt to society and should not have constitutional rights stripped of them for eternity.

The only response I've ever heard to this is "Well, don't commit a felony and you don't have to worry about it." To me, that doesn't cut it. The debate isn't whether to commit a felony or not, it's why people are not being allowed suffrage after they have supposedly been "Rehabilitated", "Corrected", or at the very least have "Paid their debts" to society. Especially with this "War on Drugs" (tm), this is becoming a problem in the US.


*This is in the US.

[lion_roog]

My Mom's ex-boyfriend is actually pretty pissed he can no longer vote because he was in Prison for about three years. Him being an ex-Marine probably just adds to his resentment of his current situation seeing as he spent quite a bit of time fighting for America in the Middle East back in the 1980s.

But I think the right to vote should be given back after you have paid your dept to society. Other rights being taken away, such as the right to own a fire-arm, I can understand more if they were in prison for committing a violent crime.

[Darkslash]

Is that every state, pnt, or nationally, or what?

[Shadow]

thats bull....

[SpiritWolf77]

I think every American citizen deserves the right to vote. Perhaps if they are currently serving prison time, then no. But if they are out of prison, then they deserve to have a say on what goes on in this country as much as anyone else.

And on the topic of drugs, the idea of a felon convicted on drug abuse charges being prohibited from voting is absolutely absurd. I hate this country's current policies on drug abuse. I believe dealing drugs is a crime, but possession of personal amounts of drugs shouldn't land you in prison for several years (with the exception of things like driving under the influence). Drug addicts need help and rehabilitation, not prison time. Drug addicts do not plan to become drug addicts, chances are they tried it a few times out of curiosity, and became addicted. Yes, they made an awful mistake, but I fail to see how prison time helps correct that mistake. Mandatory admittance to a rehab clinic is a much better course of action in those circumstances in my opinion.

My uncle was a drug addict. He was not a criminal. He never hurt anyone but himself. Drugs pushed him into schizophrenia, and he's spent the rest of his life paying for it. If he had been caught in possession of drugs by the authorities (he was using LSD, very hard drugs) he would've been sent to prison. I believe that would have only worsened his condition. Rehab and time spent at home being taken care of by my grandparents has helped him get over his drug use and rehabilitated him as an active member of society to a degree. Prison would have destroyed him.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Is that every state, pnt, or nationally, or what?

To my knowledge, it technically varies from state to state, but every state has similar laws. Some states don't allow clemency, some do.

That's from a class on government and law at the Ohio State University.

[Darkslash]

I spent some time researching this issue, as I really didn't have too strong of an opinion before.

After looking it over, I think states are justified in disenfranchising felons, including those who have completed their prison sentence.

The 14th Amendment offers the legal basis for this:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,

John Locke specified that all humans have, by nature, certain rights -- but he also specified that we can lose those rights by breaking the social contract with his fellow citizens by committing a crime.

A felon has broken society's rules. Is is not unreasonable for that society to bar said felon from determining those rules, or electing those who enforce them?

If we can deprive someone of their right to liberty by placing them in prison, certainly we can deprive them of their right to vote. I would think a loss of liberty is a greater punishment.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by Darkslash
I spent some time researching this issue, as I really didn't have too strong of an opinion before.

After looking it over, I think states are justified in disenfranchising felons, including those who have completed their prison sentence.

The 14th Amendment offers the legal basis for this:


John Locke specified that all humans have, by nature, certain rights -- but he also specified that we can lose those rights by breaking the social contract with his fellow citizens by committing a crime.

A felon has broken society's rules. Is is not unreasonable for that society to bar said felon from determining those rules, or electing those who enforce them?

If we can deprive someone of their right to liberty by placing them in prison, certainly we can deprive them of their right to vote. I would think a loss of liberty is a greater punishment.

To me, a loss of voting rights is a loss of liberty. You no longer have any say in your government; any law can be passed against you without any legislative representation in your defense. Taxes can be taken from you, but you would have no say in how that money will be spent, or even how much should be taken. These laws don't allow for convicted felons to become good, contributing members of society. Instead, they assign them a blanket, life-long punishment of seperation from how their society will be run before even being given the chance to change.

Taking away an ex-felon's right to vote removes one of the five pillars of democracy: minority rights. Though majority opinion makes the rules, minority groups must be guaranteed certain rights lest they be wiped out by the majority. By not allowing all ex-felons to vote, those who have committed felonies and served their time effectively become a minority group, as they have absolutely no way of escaping such a label. This group has no say in how their government will be run. Thus, the rest of society is able to pass any law that they choose against ex-felons. Society could decide to tax an ex-felon's income 50%, or heck, maybe 98%. It could also decide to require ex-felons to wear tracking devices, be sterilized, etc... (These are laws that have been or are currently in legislation). Because those who are having the laws passed upon them have no legislative representation, they have very little defense against such actions of society. Society would be able to, in effect, "Wipe out" those who have served their time in prison for felonies. This would, of course, be an excessive punishment for many of the felonies that people have served time for, such as possession of marijuana, mail fraud, etc... I also don't like that this punishment is executed by legislation instead of the judicial branch (ie, I think that if anyone is to take the right to vote away, it should be the court systems.)

Also, it just doesn't provide a felon a chance to turn over a new leaf. One of the goals of prison is to turn a law-breaking citizen into a law-abiding, contributing member of society. If our prison system has any effectiveness whatsoever, then at least a few of these people coming out of prison should be rehabilitated. I see no point in not allowing a law-abiding, contributing member of society to be able to vote. Plus, many of the felons that get out of prison and want to vote are probably those who have been "Corrected" to some degree, as they want to contribute something to how their government will be run.

Regardless of all of that, I feel that once a person has served their prison sentence, they have made even with society, and society has no right to not treat them as normal citizens.

[Darkslash]

(side note before I start -- Vermont and Maine are states which do let ex-cons vote; Delaware has allowed them to vote after a period of time after leaving jail)

As society has yet to tax ex-felons at 98%, or impose any other sort of restrictions (the bills you mention are the sort that most likely will not get passed), I think we can safely conclude that the vast majority of people in any given state feel that the current punishments for felony crimes are sufficient.

Disenfranchisement, furthermore, is not a loss of one's liberty. It may be a loss of a right to interact and change your government -- one type of liberty -- but certainly it is not a loss of all liberty.

We don't, as a society, allow children to vote. We simply do not trust their judgment given their state of development. At the age of 18, we have societally agreed that they can now participate as an adult, with (almost) full legal rights and privileges, voting among them. This concept of trust we also apply to remove voting rights from some people -- voting, after all, is not inalienable -- after they violate that society's trust by committing what has been determined as a "very bad" crime.

And though an ex-felon out of prison may be completely reformed, law-abiding, driving-10-miles-under-the-speed-limit citizen, volunteering at the food bank, etc. -- I don't think it is unreasonable for society to continue to view said person with suspicion. Yes, they made a huge mistake -- and we forgive -- but we will not forget.

(side note: we also do not allow noncitizens, illegal aliens, and the mentally incompetent to vote)

I would suggest, rather than giving the franchise back wholesale once one leaves prison, to do something like Delaware has done, reinstituting the right to vote after a set period of time. This allows, I think, a compromise, a different type of understanding between an ex-con re-entering society and the society itself. Let the person prove that they've been reformed.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Darkslash
I would suggest, rather than giving the franchise back wholesale once one leaves prison, to do something like Delaware has done, reinstituting the right to vote after a set period of time. This allows, I think, a compromise, a different type of understanding between an ex-con re-entering society and the society itself. Let the person prove that they've been reformed.
I think that's a very good approach/compromise to the idea. That allows those who have truly reformed retain their rights as citizens, and prevents those who may continue to be problematic (or even dangerous) members of society from having any major say in the affairs of the state.