Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Felon Disenfranchisement

135

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Felonies typically involve robbing a person of their right to do something (like, say, live)

    At a bare minimum, murderers and rapists should have their right to vote stripped from them permanently. Pretty much any violent felony, really. And some nonviolent ones.

    an eye for an eye?

    what is the reason for taking away rights of felons, other than cosmic justice? If taking something away from a person is so heinous, then why does taking away even more make it okay?

    georgersig.jpg
  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    I'd say it acts as a sort of deterrent, but I don't think "I'm losing the right the right to vote!" is a thought that crosses the mind of a murderer or a rapist

    So yeah it's pretty much cosmic justice. Plus, I do not want a murderer influencing the laws which I have to follow.

    lost_sig2.png
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    Terrendos wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    You have the right to earn yourself a license. You have the right to vote, and you have the right to lose it.

    Are you going to actually explain your belief or just continue to say it as though it were self evidently right?

    Since I don't care what any of you think? If I did care, I wouldn't have posted in the first place.

    It's more that you're not even correct on a factual level. While you do technically have a right to try for a license, that's only because the government isn't allowed to discriminate, which means there are no ways to turn you away without letting you try. Besides that, the government could decide that you have to be capable of unassisted levitation to get a driver's license. Hell, I recall a case where licenses for something were severely quota'd, and I think it might have been a gun-sellers license (or it could have been selling pot. All I know for sure was that it was the basis for a national drug policy that was found illegal).

    Voting, on the other hand, is a basic human right. A case for prohibiting prison voting could only really be couched in the same argument used for minors and, when it was a practice, slaves: undue influence by those who have power over said persons.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    As much as I don't like someone I despise having influence, thats the beautiful thing about democracy which I support.
    I want my government to represent its people. Some of those people are felons and they have had a drastically different life path than mine and they deserve to vote on whats important.
    It's not like someone is going to successfuly run on a "alarm systems are illegal" campaign.

    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    Okay, except they're murderers

    lost_sig2.png
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers

    What exactly are you worried about, that they'll vote to legalize murder?

    camo_sig2.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    I'd say it acts as a sort of deterrent, but I don't think "I'm losing the right the right to vote!" is a thought that crosses the mind of a murderer or a rapist

    So yeah it's pretty much cosmic justice. Plus, I do not want a murderer influencing the laws which I have to follow.

    as I posted a couple pages back, voting as a deterrent is like taking away a kid's broccoli to punish him. The only people who care about voting rights, in this nation, are the folks who already don't have them.

    Cosmic Justice, I think, is a stupid reason. If there are truly any sort of cosmic forces, let them mete out their own justice.

    As for murderers shaping laws, they already do. Convicted felons are just the ones who got caught. Also, why is a murderer less valid as far as opinions regarding, say, a referendum to play slot machines at race tracks? I don't see how murdering has anything to do with that (and I believe that any politician who tried to pander to murderers would receive enough of a backlash from the rest of the public to prevent that.)

    georgersig.jpg
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers
    Which is logic you could use to deny veterans, hunters, lab scientists or planned parenthood employees their voting rights depending on who you've got making the decisions about those things.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers

    Which is why they are treated as such. I believe that voting is an inalienable right. Nothing one can do should cause them to lose that right.

    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers

    What exactly are you worried about, that they'll vote to legalize murder?

    NORML is now the "National Organization for the Reform of Murder Laws"

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    also, not all felons are murderers

    there are other kinds of felonies

    georgersig.jpg
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers

    If Charles Manson had voted in every election since his incarceration, who would have been harmed?

    eokNV.jpg
  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers
    Which is logic you could use to deny veterans, hunters, lab scientists or planned parenthood employees their voting rights depending on who you've got making the decisions about those things.

    None of those people are convicted felons.

    lost_sig2.png
  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers

    If Charles Manson had voted in every election since his incarceration, who would have been harmed?

    5.3 million felons, on the other hand, could do a lot of harm.

    Those aren't all murderers and rapists, but I'm sure there are enough murderers and rapists to Make A Difference!

    lost_sig2.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers
    Which is logic you could use to deny veterans, hunters, lab scientists or planned parenthood employees their voting rights depending on who you've got making the decisions about those things.

    None of those people are convicted felons.
    Which depends on the fact that the people they oppose aren't unilaterally writing the laws.

    Viva la democracy.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    So yeah it's pretty much cosmic justice. Plus, I do not want a United States Citizen influencing the laws which I have to follow.

    Fix'd.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    also, not all felons are murderers

    there are other kinds of felonies

    A friend of mine appealed the state in which he was arrested on felony drug charges in order to win back his voting rights.
    I don't know any more details other than he can now vote.

    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers
    Which is logic you could use to deny veterans, hunters, lab scientists or planned parenthood employees their voting rights depending on who you've got making the decisions about those things.

    None of those people are convicted felons.

    So you're saying that your moral argument can't be applied to them because of legal technicalities?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers

    If Charles Manson had voted in every election since his incarceration, who would have been harmed?

    5.3 million felons, on the other hand, could do a lot of harm.

    When the reason to disenfranchise felons becomes "there's too damn many of them," doesn't that make you stop and think for a second?

    camo_sig2.png
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers

    If Charles Manson had voted in every election since his incarceration, who would have been harmed?

    5.3 million felons, on the other hand, could do a lot of harm.

    Less than 1% of the population? When so many don't vote anyway?
    I disagree.
    It's not as if all felons are moving to new Hampshire to take over the state via voting.

    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers
    Which is logic you could use to deny veterans, hunters, lab scientists or planned parenthood employees their voting rights depending on who you've got making the decisions about those things.

    None of those people are convicted felons.

    Under this system the executive has the authority to bring felony charges against people who if convicted are then unable to vote in elections of the same officials with the authority to initiate the criminal proceedings. And you don't see why that's prone to abuse and discrimination?

    eokNV.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers
    Which is logic you could use to deny veterans, hunters, lab scientists or planned parenthood employees their voting rights depending on who you've got making the decisions about those things.

    None of those people are convicted felons.

    There aren't any veterans or hunters who have ever [strike]committed[/strike] been convicted of a felony?

    tea-1.jpg
  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    If they're convicted of a felony, then that means they committed the felony in the eyes of the legal system. I know it isn't a perfect system, but it's a system we have to follow.

    lost_sig2.png
  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    Under this system the executive has the authority to bring felony charges against people who if convicted are then unable to vote in elections of the same officials with the authority to initiate the criminal proceedings. And you don't see why that's prone to abuse and discrimination?

    Are you really worried about some political figure having his opponents convicted of murder to keep them from influencing the political process?

    lost_sig2.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    If they're convicted of a felony, then that means they committed the felony in the eyes of the legal system. I know it isn't a perfect system, but it's a system we have to follow.

    Good thing nobody is arguing we shouldn't treat felons like prisoners or release them onto the street right in front of a convent and orphanage.

    tea-1.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I think the only felons who shouldn't be able to vote are those booked on felony tax fraud/tax evasion.

    Because if they are refusing taxation, then I think it's finally fair to refuse them representation.

    georgersig.jpg
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Under this system the executive has the authority to bring felony charges against people who if convicted are then unable to vote in elections of the same officials with the authority to initiate the criminal proceedings. And you don't see why that's prone to abuse and discrimination?

    Are you really worried about some political figure having his opponents convicted of murder to keep them from influencing the political process?
    Voter fraud, bribery and interfering with a federal investigation are all felonies. You don't have to shoot for murder.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers

    If Charles Manson had voted in every election since his incarceration, who would have been harmed?

    5.3 million felons, on the other hand, could do a lot of harm.

    Those aren't all murderers and rapists, but I'm sure there are enough murderers and rapists to Make A Difference!

    In what way? 5.3 Million out of 300 Million decide to vote in the most malicious way possible. Are there suddenly going to be ballot initiatives with titles like "Free the Rapists Act" and "Cocaine Trafficker Tax Exemption Agenda"?

    If felons have the numbers to tip the scales in overturning a law, then the law was already at least somewhat unpopular and things like whether it rained on voting day would have more effect than former criminals.

    eokNV.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Under this system the executive has the authority to bring felony charges against people who if convicted are then unable to vote in elections of the same officials with the authority to initiate the criminal proceedings. And you don't see why that's prone to abuse and discrimination?

    Are you really worried about some political figure having his opponents convicted of murder to keep them from influencing the political process?

    I have friends who are government docs librarians and friends who are law librarians. I can inform you on good authority that the United States Federal Code contains more laws than simply the prohibition of murder.

    tea-1.jpg
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Under this system the executive has the authority to bring felony charges against people who if convicted are then unable to vote in elections of the same officials with the authority to initiate the criminal proceedings. And you don't see why that's prone to abuse and discrimination?

    Are you really worried about some political figure having his opponents convicted of murder to keep them from influencing the political process?

    No, but I'm reminded of disparate sentencing with powder and freebase forms of cocaine (both are felonies and treated the same now, I believe).

    During the Jim Crow period in the South, a black man could be arrested for any number of trumped up charges and end up in a prison labor outfit under de facto slavery. The point is that codified disenfranchisement provides the means for the majority to oppress the minority.

    eokNV.jpg
  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    well it's a good goddamn thing that we aren't in the Jim Crow period anymore, huh?

    lost_sig2.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    So, just because Jim Crow is over, discrimination is impossible.

    georgersig.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Okay, except they're murderers
    If Charles Manson had voted in every election since his incarceration, who would have been harmed?
    5.3 million felons, on the other hand, could do a lot of harm.
    Less than 1% of the population? When so many don't vote anyway?
    I disagree.
    It's not as if all felons are moving to new Hampshire to take over the state via voting.
    Actually, it's almost two percent of the population. And overwhelmingly poor, and disproportionately black/hispanic. Why? Well, for one reason, poor people tend to commit crimes more often. For another reason, when a rich or middle-class person commits a crime, they can afford a good attorney; a poor person cannot. And a good attorney can often make the difference between pleading to a felony and pleading to a misdemeanor. In addition, police tend to racially profile black/hispanic people, which means that they're going to get convicted of felonies more often, which means they're going to lose their voting rights more.

    So, Kazhiim, would you object to a law that forbid felons from going to church? I mean, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are rights, too, and you don't have any problem denying them one right that may or may not have anything at all to do with their crime, why not deny them some more? Should we prohibit them from every having a right to another jury trial, or the ability to seek redress in a civil court? Can we force them to quarter soldiers in their homes?

    I mean, it's one thing to say "you're a child molester, you can't be on school property." It's another thing to say "you mugged someone, you no longer have a right to freedom of speech; you're not allowed to say anything on the internet, ever, and you're prohibited from voicing your opinions of the legal system and the process you've been through."

  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    No, but I'm saying murder isn't a Jim Crow law. You commit murder, you need to have your ass punished. It comes down to what level of punishment is acceptable, and I happen to think that eye for an eye is appropriate in this case. It's why I'm pro-death penalty.

    lost_sig2.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    No, but I'm saying murder isn't a Jim Crow law. You commit murder, you need to have your ass punished. It comes down to what level of punishment is acceptable, and I happen to think that eye for an eye is appropriate in this case. It's why I'm pro-death penalty.
    Yeah, I'm sure racist applications of the law has nothing to do with why black convicted murderers are far more likely to receive the death penalty than white convicted murderers, right?

  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    I should really make it clear that I'm only speaking for violent crimes on the same line as murder and rape. I've tried to stress it, but I don't think it's clear enough.

    lost_sig2.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    I should really make it clear that I'm only speaking for violent crimes on the same line as murder and rape. I've tried to stress it, but I don't think it's clear enough.

    "murder" is not the same thing as "felony"

    also, you've yet to show how it would be harmful for murderers to vote. Paint me a picture of what could go wrong.

    georgersig.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    No, but I'm saying murder isn't a Jim Crow law. You commit murder, you need to have your ass punished. It comes down to what level of punishment is acceptable, and I happen to think that eye for an eye is appropriate in this case. It's why I'm pro-death penalty.
    moniker wrote: »
    I have friends who are government docs librarians and friends who are law librarians. I can inform you on good authority that the United States Federal Code contains more laws than simply the prohibition of murder.

    In point of fact, there are 50(!) different Title Codes in order to help classify the various Acts of Congress!


    And this is completely ignoring your bullshit about the Corrections department being about punishment rather than rehabilitation, which is a whole 'nother thing. Mind pointing to any peer reviewed articles pointing out the impact that restricting voting rights has on preventing criminal acts or as a promotion to reduce recidivism?

    tea-1.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    I should really make it clear that I'm only speaking for violent crimes on the same line as murder and rape. I've tried to stress it, but I don't think it's clear enough.

    No, you're talking about felonies. Because voting rights are restricted on the basis of violating Federal Law.

    I'm curious, has anyone ever been arrested and convicted for violating the Flag Code under Title 4?

    tea-1.jpg
  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    No, you're talking about felonies.

    I'm pretty sure I said earlier in the thread that I only felt this way about violent crimes. And yeah, I said some nonviolent ones, but I take that little part back I guess. Murder and rape. Let's get rid of rape for good measure.

    I mean

    They're murderers! I don't see why it's so outrageous that a dude who ended some other dude's life has forfeited his own rights as a human being, let alone a U.S. citizen.

    lost_sig2.png
Sign In or Register to comment.