• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

hardcore criminals in my opinion are an unknown voting block.studies show they tend to be more liberal but since felons arent allowed to vote no one actually knows for sure other than what was gathered from weak studies and polls.

california is very criminal friendly state but ill give them one thing,they usually dont arrest people for weed,rather just fine them or make them go through rehab and do community service.i get tired of prisons releasing rapists and murderers because they need to make room for potheads getting arrested,just throw them in rehab fine them $100 and if you want to deter them,take them out back and beat them with a rubber hose,but for the love of god save our crowded prisons for real criminals!
 
Question: Why is it bad, immoral or wrong to let people who've served their time and repaid society vote?

Answer: It isn't.

The isolation of people who've been to prison needs to stop. It's disgusting that in the 21st century we deny people their democratic rights simply to feel good about ourselves.
 
Hatuey said:
Question: Why is it bad, immoral or wrong to let people who've served their time and repaid society vote?

Answer: It isn't.

The isolation of people who've been to prison needs to stop. It's disgusting that in the 21st century we deny people their democratic rights simply to feel good about ourselves.
Click to expand...


i think criminals who paid their time on voting depends on the type of crime.violent felonies you may have paid your time,but all in all you can never fully repay murder rape etc.for non violent felonies and misdomeaners once your time is done i believe you should have full rights like any citizen!
 
I don't get why people can't vote in prison. What, are they gonna vote in a bunch of pro-prisoner candidates?

Gun rights should be restored as well. Self defense is a human right.
 
like i said in other posts it depends on the type of crime.many felonies are just stupid and dont equal people losing their rights.like a guy who gets his gun and voting rights taken away for knocking a mail box is stupid.people on drugs deserve their rights back upon full rehabilitation or repayment to society.so long as as the crime wasnt extremely violent as to take someones life,or severely violate other peoples rights,i believe they should have full rights restored upon serving time.however while in prison voting is part of their rights,and part of their punishment is they lose their rights until complete their time!
 
Hatuey said:
Question: Why is it bad, immoral or wrong to let people who've served their time and repaid society vote?
Click to expand...

the article I read didn't have anything to do with those that served time. It is about those serving time.
 
Hatuey said:
Question: Why is it bad, immoral or wrong to let people who've served their time and repaid society vote?

Answer: It isn't.

The isolation of people who've been to prison needs to stop. It's disgusting that in the 21st century we deny people their democratic rights simply to feel good about ourselves.
Click to expand...

Whoa. I agree with Hatuey here.
 
ARealConservative said:
the article I read didn't have anything to do with those that served time. It is about those serving time.
Click to expand...

From the sound of it, California is essentially trying to commute/reduce their sentences, which would mean that they have served their time. As far as I can tell these changes wouldn't affect the voting rights (or lack thereof) of anyone who was still incarcerated after the sentences were reduced.

Makes sense to me that people who are on parole, or even serving a short sentence in a local jail rather than a prison, should have the same voting rights as everyone else. I don't really see what negative outcome could possibly arise from this, and therefore I'm inclined to support it.
 
Kandahar said:
From the sound of it, California is essentially trying to commute/reduce their sentences, which would mean that they have served their time. As far as I can tell these changes wouldn't affect the voting rights (or lack thereof) of anyone who was still incarcerated after the sentences were reduced.

Makes sense to me that people who are on parole, or even serving a short sentence in a local jail rather than a prison, should have the same voting rights as everyone else. I don't really see what negative outcome could possibly arise from this, and therefore I'm inclined to support it.
Click to expand...

I really don't care either way, but it is important to clarify this isn't about those that served their time. If you are on parole, you are still serving time. If you get moved to a lower security prison, you are still serving your time. these people have not repaid their debts to society.
 
ARealConservative said:
the article I read didn't have anything to do with those that served time. It is about those serving time.
Click to expand...

You sure you read it?

The plaintiffs said more than 85,000 offenders who are no longer in state prison or on parole should be allowed to vote in the June primary election.
Click to expand...

The Sentencing Project, which acts as a nationwide clearinghouse on the issue, estimates that 5.3 million citizens nationwide have temporarily or permanently lost their right to vote because of a felony conviction. That number includes 1.4 million black males, or 13 percent of all black men, a rate seven times than the national average.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
You sure you read it?



:roll:
Click to expand...

i read it, and understood it.

claiming that tens of thousands of criminals being shifted to county jails and community supervision

they are moved from state prisons. They are not free, they are still serving time.
 
ARealConservative said:
i read it, and understood it.

claiming that tens of thousands of criminals being shifted to county jails and community supervision

they are moved from state prisons. They are not free, they are still serving time.
Click to expand...

Okay - I will underline it for you again:

The Sentencing Project, which acts as a nationwide clearinghouse on the issue, estimates that 5.3 million citizens nationwide have temporarily or permanently lost their right to vote because of a felony conviction. That number includes 1.4 million black males, or 13 percent of all black men, a rate seven times than the national average.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
Okay - I will underline it for you again:
Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with your initial claim that they served their time.

a person that serves their time isn't being transferred to county jail. Some percentage of 85k people are suing to gain the right to vote, but are still in jail. Another percent of 85k is required to undergo supervision (we call them half-way houses). They are still serving time for the punishment they received.
 
Meh, for that matter I don't even really have a problem with allowing incarcerated felons to vote. They have more government involvement in their lives than just about anyone else, so they certainly have a stake in who gets elected.
 
Kandahar said:
Meh, for that matter I don't even really have a problem with allowing incarcerated felons to vote. They have more government involvement in their lives than just about anyone else, so they certainly have a stake in who gets elected.
Click to expand...

I don't really care either. we have millions of uneducated voters, why not felons too.
 
beerftw said:
however while in prison voting is part of their rights,and part of their punishment is they lose their rights until complete their time!
Click to expand...

Let's discourage prisoners from being connected, informed and involved politically? How does that serve society?
 
I see no problem with denying felons the right to vote. They became felons because they infringed or took away other peoples rights, that is the basis for something being a crime, or at least should be. The potential loss of certain rights when convicted should help deter people from committing crimes in the first place. But then again, so many Americans who have the right to vote don't exercise it, so does it really deter anything?

The biggest effect I can see from letting prisoners/convicted felons vote is they would probably tend to vote for candidates who are weak on crime and who want to spend lots of taxpayer money on luxuries for prisoners instead of more prisons and guards, aka liberals.
 
DVSentinel said:
I see no problem with denying felons the right to vote. They became felons because they infringed or took away other peoples rights, that is the basis for something being a crime, or at least should be. The potential loss of certain rights when convicted should help deter people from committing crimes in the first place. But then again, so many Americans who have the right to vote don't exercise it, so does it really deter anything?

The biggest effect I can see from letting prisoners/convicted felons vote is they would probably tend to vote for candidates who are weak on crime and who want to spend lots of taxpayer money on luxuries for prisoners instead of more prisons and guards, aka liberals.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of nonsensical drivel.
 
DVSentinel said:
I see no problem with denying felons the right to vote. They became felons because they infringed or took away other peoples rights, that is the basis for something being a crime, or at least should be.
Click to expand...

But in practice, it's often not. Most of the people in prison aren't bad people, they're just stupid.

The potential loss of certain rights when convicted should help deter people from committing crimes in the first place. But then again, so many Americans who have the right to vote don't exercise it, so does it really deter anything?
Click to expand...

Of course not. If being locked in a cage and subjected to state-sanctioned rape doesn't deter crime, then taking away voting rights certainly won't.

The biggest effect I can see from letting prisoners/convicted felons vote is they would probably tend to vote for candidates who are weak on crime and who want to spend lots of taxpayer money on luxuries for prisoners instead of more prisons and guards, aka liberals.
Click to expand...

And why is that a problem? If residents of the state are dissatisfied with their living conditions, it's perfectly legitimate to petition their government to do something about it. That's no different than soldiers voting for candidates who support higher military pay, or unemployed voting for candidates who they think will bring more jobs to their state, or feminists voting for candidates who they think defends women's rights. Everyone has their own issues that they care about, the incarcerated are no different.

In fact, prisoners probably have MORE at stake than anyone else, since the government has a much bigger involvement in their lives than in the lives of the average citizen. The states that incarcerate huge numbers of their citizens in grotesque conditions (e.g. California and Texas) would have to answer to a lot of angry voters, as they should.

The fact that YOU might disagree with how (you assume) they would vote is not a valid reason to deny them the right to vote.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
Whoa. I agree with Hatuey here.
Click to expand...

So do I. People that served their time and complete their probation deserve to have their right to vote restored.

However, people that are doing time do NOT deserve to vote.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
that isn't a debate reply in the slightest.
Click to expand...

When there is something to debate, maybe I'll take the time? Assumptions based on nothing more than partisan hackery are not something I care to debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom