Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

  1. #31
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Logical explanation would mean there is some reasoning. Saying convicted felons would vote for people who aren't tough on crime isn't reasonable. Actually, it ignores the fact that most people don't have "tough on crime" on their list of concerns when voting.
    his reason was clearly stated. they lost their rights by violating other peoples rights.

  2. #32
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,419

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Prison should be about making society more safe. Disconnecting prisoners and ex-prisoners from politics is counter-productive to that goal.

  3. #33
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Prison should be about making society more safe. Disconnecting prisoners and ex-prisoners from politics is counter-productive to that goal.
    one part of imprisonment is punishment and retribution. the person with the opinion that they are in prison because they took away someone elses rights is clearly grounded in logical thought to hold the position they hold.

    just as someone that wants to give prisoners voting rights because it might aid in correction, are grounded in logic.

    you can logically hold both positions.

  4. #34
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Prison should be about making society more safe. Disconnecting prisoners and ex-prisoners from politics is counter-productive to that goal.
    What is your logic here? I don't see where them losing their right to vote is in anyway counter-productive to public safety. I see several ways in which them voting could harm public safety. They would be voting for sheriffs, district attorneys, judges and the people who allocate funding for law enforcement and prisons. On the National level, it probably would not make much difference on way or another, but when you get more local, it can have a large impact.

    California is releasing felons who have not completed their sentence because of over crowding, is it logical to assume concentrations of these people would vote for more funding to expand prisons? I think it more logical that they would vote the opposite and without that funding, more prisoners will be released early or never serve at all. Would these same people be more likely to vote for a district attorney who prosecute more crimes and ask for larger sentences or the one who presecutes less crimes and advocates for lighter sentences? My money is that they vote for the less effective district attorneys. Same with judges who give lighter sentences vs a judge that gives heavier ones.

    Historically, Democrats, aka liberals, have been the ones who have championed prisoner rights, alternative sentencing and also reduced funding for prisons, guards and law enforcement, prefering instead to spend monies on social programs. So, it is logical to think that prisoners and ex-prisoners, if given the right to vote, would tend towards the liberal side of the ticket. In a state the size of Cal., we are talking hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a million or more, that would definitely give them a big boost on the state and local levels. In a state like Texas, it could even be enough to allow the democrats to break the quorum held by the republicans. You can chose to believe that these politicians and political stratigist are actually concerned about those prisoner's rights, heck, a few might even be, but I for one see this more as them seeking this avenue inorder to bolster the number of seats held by their party. Politicians being Politicians, which do you think they are really more interested in?

    I still stand by my statement, if you infringe upon or take away the rights of others, commit a felony, then you lose rights yourself. If you don't want to lose those rights, then don't commit crimes. Since some believe that these criminals have served their "debt" to society and should be returned those rights, does that mean the same people also want to do away with the sex offender registry? After all, the same principle applies.
    Last edited by DVSentinel; 03-09-12 at 11:20 PM.

  5. #35
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    What is your logic here? I don't see where them losing their right to vote is in anyway counter-productive to public safety. I see several ways in which them voting could harm public safety. They would be voting for sheriffs, district attorneys, judges and the people who allocate funding for law enforcement and prisons. On the National level, it probably would not make much difference on way or another, but when you get more local, it can have a large impact.

    California is releasing felons who have not completed their sentence because of over crowding, is it logical to assume concentrations of these people would vote for more funding to expand prisons? I think it more logical that they would vote the opposite and without that funding, more prisoners will be released early or never serve at all. Would these same people be more likely to vote for a district attorney who prosecute more crimes and ask for larger sentences or the one who presecutes less crimes and advocates for lighter sentences? My money is that they vote for the less effective district attorneys. Same with judges who give lighter sentences vs a judge that gives heavier ones.
    So what? This basically boils down to the fact that you think they will vote for issues and candidates that YOU personally disapprove of. And that isn't a good enough reason. If more citizens want lighter sentences for crimes, then maybe instead of seeing their opinions as a problem to circumvent by disenfranchising them, our political system should actually consider giving the people what they want. We already incarcerate far more people per capita than any other country in the world anyway.

    Historically, Democrats, aka liberals, have been the ones who have championed prisoner rights, alternative sentencing and also reduced funding for prisons, guards and law enforcement, prefering instead to spend monies on social programs. So, it is logical to think that prisoners and ex-prisoners, if given the right to vote, would tend towards the liberal side of the ticket. In a state the size of Cal., we are talking hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a million or more, that would definitely give them a big boost on the state and local levels. In a state like Texas, it could even be enough to allow the democrats to break the quorum held by the republicans. You can chose to believe that these politicians and political stratigist are actually concerned about those prisoner's rights, heck, a few might even be, but I for one see this more as them seeking this avenue inorder to bolster the number of seats held by their party. Politicians being Politicians, which do you think they are really more interested in?
    Any political advantage would be short term. In the medium to longer term, the parties would simply modify their platforms to stay roughly competitive with one another.

    I still stand by my statement, if you infringe upon or take away the rights of others, commit a felony, then you lose rights yourself. If you don't want to lose those rights, then don't commit crimes.
    Many people who have committed a felony didn't infringe on the rights of others, or even if they did the infringement was not so great that they need to be punished by losing their voice in society. This is an easy way to both disenfranchise people and entrench unjust laws so it's evermore difficult to repeal them: 1) Make something a crime, 2) Convict everyone who breaks the new law, 3) Take away their right to vote to eliminate potential voters to overturn it.

    Since some believe that these criminals have served their "debt" to society and should be returned those rights, does that mean the same people also want to do away with the sex offender registry? After all, the same principle applies.
    I can't speak for everyone, but *I* certainly want to do away with the sex offender registry. It's an unconscionable assault on the dignity of people who have completed their sentences, and is based on the presumption that those crimes are A) worse and B) more likely to recur than any other crimes...neither of which have any basis in fact the majority of the time. But let's not go off on a tangent about that.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-10-12 at 04:55 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •