Barring Felons From Voting

[Jazzy]

According to the non-profit research group The Sentencing Project, an estimated 5.8 million Americans are barred from voting because of a felony conviction, nearly half of whom have completed their sentences. This number has increased dramatically over the past four decades or so—not necessarily because the disenfranchisement policies have gotten stricter, but merely because the number of people involved in the criminal justice system has grown.

The group’s research also looked into the impact of these polices on minorities in the U.S., finding that “one of every 40 adults is disenfranchised nationally, but among African Americans the figure is one of every 13.” In three states with the strictest disenfranchisement policies (Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia), more than one in five African Americans are barred from ever voting.

While appearing at a civil rights conference last week, Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech about, among other things, the disproportionate burden of voter disenfranchisement of felons felt by minorities. He placed the current policies in their proper historical context, starting as they did in post-Reconstruction Southern states that “enacted disenfranchisement schemes to specifically target African Americans and diminish the electoral strength of newly-freed populations.” By 1890, Holder said, 90 percent of the prison population in the South was black. Today, every stage of the criminal justice process in the U.S., from arrest to imprisonment, is disproportionately experienced by people of color.

Holder specifically called for the rights restoration for people who have completed their sentence,” Porter says. “In theory, that’s a good place to start, but there are hundreds of thousands of individuals who are living in the community, and who may be living in the community under supervision for the rest of their lives, who, depending on where they live, may be disenfranchised for the entire time…. They should have the ability to participate in our democracy.”

Source

Should Americans be barred from voting because of a felony conviction? Why/Why not?

 

[DrLeftover]

Stopping them from voting?

How about just STOPPING THEM FROM RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION:

Below are a list of your elected representatives (mostly federal, but I don't mind including state politicians either when they interact with the feds) who have or had criminal records on their Congressional rap sheet. Note the specific language: "Charged" means formal charges have / had been made, though the representative was not necessarily convicted. (I include charges only if said representative shows a pattern of behavior along those lines.) Convicted...well, you get the idea.
An asterisk at the end of a Congressfolk's record means that the charges came either before or after their terms...though often the "after" is the result of something(s) done while in the Capitol. Best of all, a name in boldface means that the representative is still a representative!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_senators_and_congressmen_are_convicted_felons

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

According to the non-profit research group The Sentencing Project, an estimated 5.8 million Americans are barred from voting because of a felony conviction, nearly half of whom have completed their sentences. This number has increased dramatically over the past four decades or so—not necessarily because the disenfranchisement policies have gotten stricter, but merely because the number of people involved in the criminal justice system has grown.

The group’s research also looked into the impact of these polices on minorities in the U.S., finding that “one of every 40 adults is disenfranchised nationally, but among African Americans the figure is one of every 13.” In three states with the strictest disenfranchisement policies (Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia), more than one in five African Americans are barred from ever voting.

While appearing at a civil rights conference last week, Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech about, among other things, the disproportionate burden of voter disenfranchisement of felons felt by minorities. He placed the current policies in their proper historical context, starting as they did in post-Reconstruction Southern states that “enacted disenfranchisement schemes to specifically target African Americans and diminish the electoral strength of newly-freed populations.” By 1890, Holder said, 90 percent of the prison population in the South was black. Today, every stage of the criminal justice process in the U.S., from arrest to imprisonment, is disproportionately experienced by people of color.

Holder specifically called for the rights restoration for people who have completed their sentence,” Porter says. “In theory, that’s a good place to start, but there are hundreds of thousands of individuals who are living in the community, and who may be living in the community under supervision for the rest of their lives, who, depending on where they live, may be disenfranchised for the entire time…. They should have the ability to participate in our democracy.”

Source

Should Americans be barred from voting because of a felony conviction? Why/Why not?

They picked there course in life and now need to live with that decision that certain rights are gone forever. Maybe some of them will become model citizens in the future. Maybe some did there crime out of desperate means to survive. But there has to be some punishments in society that cant be reversed to know there are consequences in lifes choices.

 

[Jazzy]

Holder specifically called for the rights restoration for people who have completed their sentence

I agree with Holder. They were punished and then they are punished more by not being allowed to vote. Makes no sense to me.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Holder specifically called for the rights restoration for people who have completed their sentence

I agree with Holder. They were punished and then they are punished more by not being allowed to vote. Makes no sense to me.

Indeed, its hard enough to get voters out there in the first place. Banning 5.8 million additional people just seems silly. We need all the votes we can get!

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Holder specifically called for the rights restoration for people who have completed their sentence

I agree with Holder. They were punished and then they are punished more by not being allowed to vote. Makes no sense to me.

When a child molester does there time and they are freed they are usually no longer allowed to be around children. Should that be reversed also if they want to work in daycare or be a teacher since they served there time? Is that being punished again?

How about a drunk driver that killed a whole family? Should they get there driving privileges back or is that being punished again?

Sometimes to create a stable society people who have broken the rules may get a second chance but within limits because they did break the rules.

 

[Jazzy]

So, by your standards, TRUE LIBERTY the millions of ex felons who have turned their lives around and have become upstanding citizens do not deserve the right to vote ever again. Is that correct?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Correct.

Do those people I mentioned deserve ALL there rights back?

 

[Bluezone777]

The problem with eternal punishment as it provides no incentive to improve their behavior. Punishment of that variety is more to pleasure the person doing the punishing because some people think jail should be a way to get joy out of it for themselves rather then actually reform people.

Not everyone in jail is evil as there are many who made bad choices or felt trapped in a bad situation and had no way in their mind to get out of but to commit crime. I am all for paying their debt but that debt should be payable within their lifetimes especially when we feel they are worthy of eventually leaving prison.

There was once a time when the only person who could vote was a male landowner. The rest were deemed unworthy of voting but somehow worthy of being under the law that they had no part in creating. To me, that's not fair because if you are under the law then you should have a say in it via voting. How can you be fairly represented in government if you don't have the right to speak your mind via voting?

We should not be going back to creating a second class citizen group as that goes against everything our constitution says this country is about.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I will ask it again..................

When a child molester does there time and they are freed they are usually no longer allowed to be around children. Should that be reversed also if they want to work in daycare or be a teacher since they served there time? Is that being punished again?

How about a drunk driver that killed a whole family? Should they get there driving privileges back or is that being punished again?

And I will add one more how about a person convicted of man slaughter using a gun on somebody? Should they get all there gun rights back?

Not Giving ex cons all there rights back does not go against our constitution. They have and should loose all right on how our government works. Every founder would have backed such a law.

The problem with eternal punishment as it provides no incentive to improve their behavior. Punishment of that variety is more to pleasure the person doing the punishing because some people think jail should be a way to get joy out of it for themselves rather then actually reform people.

Sure it does they get out of jail. If that is not a incentive I dont know what is.

 

[Jazzy]

I will ask it again..................

When a child molester does there time and they are freed they are usually no longer allowed to be around children. Should that be reversed also if they want to work in daycare or be a teacher since they served there time? Is that being punished again?

How about a drunk driver that killed a whole family? Should they get there driving privileges back or is that being punished again?

And I will add one more how about a person convicted of man slaughter using a gun on somebody? Should they get all there gun rights back?

We're discussing the right to vote. Nothing more or nothing less.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

So I will take that as a no. And the idea of someone actually getting a second chance and paid for there crimes does have there limits. So people would not give convicts there rights restored for those crimes but they will for something that has effects possibly negative on all the citizens who have broken no laws. To me that screams huge double standard.

 

[Sinon]

So I will take that as a no. And the idea of someone actually getting a second chance and paid for there crimes does have there limits. So people would not give convicts there rights restored for those crimes but they will for something that has effects possibly negative on all the citizens who have broken no laws. To me that screams huge double standard.

You're basically a poster-boy for logical fallacies. Argument ad baculum, red herring, strawman. Additionally, half-truths. With testing and medical exams, you can get your license back after drink-driving incidents, for example.

Also, there/their/they're are different words and are not interchangeable.

Additionally, if an ex-convict is supposed to lose all their rights regarding the government, what reason is there for them to follow any of the rules laid out by said government?

You mentioned a manslaughter scenario. I wonder if you'd have the same belief if the person in question was you.

"true liberty" my ass.

 

[DrLeftover]

Making fun of somebody's user name has no part in a serious debate.

 

[Sinon]

It's not really making fun of it. More like pointing out that his beliefs do not fit with the liberty he claims to advocate.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Always wanted to be a poster boy. Lol!

If you drink and kill someone you lose your license forever in most states. But if you disagree fine ignore that one and I can find other examples.

I have noticed people who try to do writing corrections is there way to intimidate and shut down all opposition.

Who said they lose all rights? They can buy a home, start there own business, have family, etc.

I noticed you skipped a child molester.

If I broke the law and a jury found me guilty of manslaughter then I deserve the punishments coming to me.

True liberty for law abiding citizens.

 

[Jazzy]

So, not one felon has learned their lesson by being incarcerated, turned their life around and have become law abiding citizens. I find that hard to believe, don't you?

 

[Sinon]

Always wanted to be a poster boy. Lol!

If you drink and kill someone you lose your license forever in most states. But if you disagree fine ignore that one and I can find other examples.

I have noticed people who try to do writing corrections is there way to intimidate and shut down all opposition.

Who said they lose all rights? They can buy a home, start there own business, have family, etc.

I noticed you skipped a child molester.

If I broke the law and a jury found me guilty of manslaughter then I deserve the punishments coming to me.

True liberty for law abiding citizens.

I agree regarding child molestation/paedophilia, hence not disputing it.

I corrected you because it was somewhat irritating.

Also, I'd be inclined to believe that "true liberty" doesn't exist, by nature of there being a government. Liberty is freedom, but rules restrict freedom. Sometimes for you, sometimes for others. So even then, it isn't "true" liberty.

Besides, a government is (supposed to) serve its people. Even felons. From that, I'd assume that it should be a basic right for people to have a say in the way their government runs things.

I'm of the opinion that while incarcerated, a prisoner should not have the vote. But once they have served their time, their right vote should be restored.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

So, not one felon has learned their lesson by being incarcerated, turned their life around and have become law abiding citizens. I find that hard to believe, don't you?

Never said all felons dont turn there lives around. Many do and go on to do great things. But they broke the rules our society put into place. Just like other examples I stated you lose certain rights. And one of those should be to have a say on how our government works. Sorry dont want ex convicts from murder to armed robbery who get out of jail part of deciding in the future of my life and family with a vote.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Always wanted to be a poster boy. Lol!

If you drink and kill someone you lose your license forever in most states. But if you disagree fine ignore that one and I can find other examples.

I have noticed people who try to do writing corrections is there way to intimidate and shut down all opposition.

Who said they lose all rights? They can buy a home, start there own business, have family, etc.

I noticed you skipped a child molester.

If I broke the law and a jury found me guilty of manslaughter then I deserve the punishments coming to me.

True liberty for law abiding citizens.

I agree regarding child molestation/paedophilia, hence not disputing it.

I corrected you because it was somewhat irritating.

Also, I'd be inclined to believe that "true liberty" doesn't exist, by nature of there being a government. Liberty is freedom, but rules restrict freedom. Sometimes for you, sometimes for others. So even then, it isn't "true" liberty.

Besides, a government is (supposed to) serve its people. Even felons. From that, I'd assume that it should be a basic right for people to have a say in the way their government runs things.

I'm of the opinion that while incarcerated, a prisoner should not have the vote. But once they have served their time, their right vote should be restored.

Thats good.

Well get used to it I am the king of messing up the use of words.

Maybe it does not exist but it is something that should be pursued for all the time.

True it is supposed to serve the people and felons but they do and should lose the right to have a say in what course it goes. So unless you are going to TRULY restore ALL rights of ex convicts people are being hypocrites on the matter. And whats scary is people would not allow a ex convict near children again convicted of molestation but will allow them a say in your future. That to me is mind boggling and scary.