• 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!

Virginia Governor Restores Voting Rights to Felons

Governor made the right decision.

  • Total voters
    54
HenryChinaski said:
If they're still considered a threat to children, being on the radar having to notify authorities when they move, they haven't been really rehabilitated. Molesters never are. I'n not sure that they should be able to participate in voting.
Click to expand...

I still don't see what one has to do with the other. If a sex offender has done their time, paid their fees, and fulfilled their obligation by registering as an offender where they live they should have their rights restored just like any other criminal.
 
My thoughts are:

1. When you commit and are convicted of a felony, you suspend some of your rights, such as voting, freedom, etc. That is a choice you make, whether conscious or not, when you commit the felony.

2. Depending on the crime committed, prison should be more hardcore. It isn't much of a deterrent if it is more comfortable than outside prison.

3. Once your debt to society is paid, it is paid. All suspended rights should be restored. There should not be a sweeping law that states rights can be withheld once the sentence is concluded. Anything like that should be determined in court and given during sentencing on an individual basis. Keeping rights from citizens that have their debt paid makes a mockery of the "justice" system.
 
JANFU said:
As was mentioned earlier, once you begin removing rights, it then becomes political pandering.
If they relapse- normally sent to jail or their probation is altered.
Once a person has paid their debt to society, they should not be further punished by losing their right to vote.
Click to expand...

It appears the weasel Governor of VA has been incrementally softening the penalties since 2014. Finally he went all in.

Virginia - On Apr. 18, 2014 Governor Terry McAuliffe announced changes to Virginia's restoration of rights process. Under the new rules, people convicted of non-violent felonies (including drug crimes) will have their ability to vote automatically restored providing that they:

1. have completed their term of incarceration and all probation or parole;
2. have paid all court costs, fines, and any restitution; and
3. have no pending felony charges.

On June 23, 2015 Governor McAuliffe announced that "outstanding court costs and fees will no longer prohibit an individual from having his or her rights restored."

On Apr. 22, 2016, Governor McAuliffe signed an order restoring the vote to all felons, regardless of their charge, who have completed their term of incarceration and their term of probation or parole.


State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org

Hell. in VT, you can vote from prison!
 
azgreg said:
I still don't see what one has to do with the other. If a sex offender has done their time, paid their fees, and fulfilled their obligation by registering as an offender where they live they should have their rights restored just like any other criminal.
Click to expand...

As I said, I'm on the fence with this.
 
WCH said:
It appears the weasel Governor of VA has been incrementally softening the penalties since 2014. Finally he went all in.

Virginia - On Apr. 18, 2014 Governor Terry McAuliffe announced changes to Virginia's restoration of rights process. Under the new rules, people convicted of non-violent felonies (including drug crimes) will have their ability to vote automatically restored providing that they:

1. have completed their term of incarceration and all probation or parole;
2. have paid all court costs, fines, and any restitution; and
3. have no pending felony charges.

On June 23, 2015 Governor McAuliffe announced that "outstanding court costs and fees will no longer prohibit an individual from having his or her rights restored."

On Apr. 22, 2016, Governor McAuliffe signed an order restoring the vote to all felons, regardless of their charge, who have completed their term of incarceration and their term of probation or parole.


State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org

Hell. in VT, you can vote from prison!
Click to expand...

You can in Canada.

Odd how Republicans are mainly against regaining the right to vote after sentence, parole, probation and all are met.
Yet when it comes to voting districts and assigning who votes in which district, counting who is a resident, well prisoners are suddenly a valuable commodity.
Read this a bit back.


BREAKING: Federal Court Rules Prison Gerrymandering Unconstitutional | ThinkProgress
According to the ACLU, of the nearly 1,200 inmates in the correctional center, only nine were convicted in Jefferson County. Yet the inmates make up a whopping 43 percent of the voting age population in District 3. “It skews the numbers so dramatically in this instance,” Abudu told ThinkProgress.

The county had argued before the court that the maps should remain the way they are, saying that because the county has a role in managing the prison, it should get to count the inmates as residents. But the judge, and Abudu, disagreed.
Click to expand...
 
My objection is not necessarily regarding the idea that felons should be allowed to vote, I object to the method. The Governor making such sweeping change in the state without first passing it through the legislature is simply wrong.

Look at it this way: Executive orders are as easily passed as they rescinded. So look at the action of McAulife and see if it sounds right if the opposite was done without the legislative process.

Do you want a state where voting rights can be rescinded by the Governor without the legislature? I would hope most of you would say no.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Does the constitution SAY all criminals will lose they're vote. My US education ended 50 years ago, but I don't recall it saying that.

If you allow a government to remove rights, you weaken democracy and strengthen corruption. Rights cannot be arbitrary in that one day a government decides that say, people with aids can't have the right to vote.

The fact that it is happening here, used for political reasons is proof enough to me it is a completely asinine restriction of a right that should e sacrosanct and untouchable. I consider the right to vote the greatest right there i, without it all the rest can disappear.
Click to expand...
Hear! Hear!

What does one's Constitutional right have to do with their breaking a law?

This allows for two classes of citizens! Are we not all citizens?

We're becoming a prison state where now one's rights can be abridged for what we *think* they might do! Think of that! Wasn't one considered free from penalty until they actually committed a deed. Is that now just a quaint notion?
 
HenryChinaski said:
If they're still considered a threat to children, being on the radar having to notify authorities when they move, they haven't been really rehabilitated. Molesters never are. I'n not sure that they should be able to participate in voting.
Click to expand...
And what determine a threat? A past criminal conviction?

How is that?
 
WCH said:
It appears the weasel Governor of VA has been incrementally softening the penalties since 2014. Finally he went all in.

Virginia - On Apr. 18, 2014 Governor Terry McAuliffe announced changes to Virginia's restoration of rights process. Under the new rules, people convicted of non-violent felonies (including drug crimes) will have their ability to vote automatically restored providing that they:

1. have completed their term of incarceration and all probation or parole;
2. have paid all court costs, fines, and any restitution; and
3. have no pending felony charges.

On June 23, 2015 Governor McAuliffe announced that "outstanding court costs and fees will no longer prohibit an individual from having his or her rights restored."

On Apr. 22, 2016, Governor McAuliffe signed an order restoring the vote to all felons, regardless of their charge, who have completed their term of incarceration and their term of probation or parole.


State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org

Hell. in VT, you can vote from prison!
Click to expand...
Perhaps the governor's methodology could be debated, or perhaps not; he may be within his purview. But what is the issue with the items you presented?

Exactly why is it our fellow citizens should not vote?
 
humbolt said:
The right to vote is based on good behavior. I agree that far too many are incarcerated for silly offenses - often the fines imposed can't be paid, and that in and of itself results in imprisonment. This should be changed. However, for the more serious offenses, I'd prefer that people so lacking in judgement not be permitted to vote or legally own a fire arm. I can forgive such people for their crimes, but that doesn't mean I trust them. I don't.
Click to expand...
Constitutional Rights are dependent upon behavior?

You found this in the Constitution somewhere?
 
humbolt said:
The right to vote is based on good behavior. I agree that far too many are incarcerated for silly offenses - often the fines imposed can't be paid, and that in and of itself results in imprisonment. This should be changed. However, for the more serious offenses, I'd prefer that people so lacking in judgement not be permitted to vote or legally own a fire arm. I can forgive such people for their crimes, but that doesn't mean I trust them. I don't.
Click to expand...

In the meantime, I was told in here, that states like Ohio have lowered the bar for sentencing so the state does not loose money to the private companies reliant on a certain level of incarceration.

So you are raising the rate of incarceration and disenfranchised votes simply to meet arbitrarily set finances in what appears to be a stupid business plan. Simply put, the 'justice' system is a business, everything from killers to carrying a joint, failing to pay fines are the commodity. You want to throw the right to vote into that equation, you are free to do so; I don't even see it meeting the bottom rung definition of 'democracy' where the right to vote is so arbitrary.
 
Chomsky said:
Constitutional Rights are dependent upon behavior?

You found this in the Constitution somewhere?
Click to expand...

A person's rights can be deprived through due process and written in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

It's not a complicated concept since incarceration itself is a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right.
 
American said:
Sorry, he just circumvented the constitution. That's not the way you do it. You put up a referendum to change the constitution.
Click to expand...

Let me guess - you really think they are going to vote for the wrong party so that is why you don't support people having their voting rights restored after they have paid their debt to society?.
 
jmotivator said:
A person's rights can be deprived through due process and written in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

It's not a complicated concept since incarceration itself is a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...



In a forum where people have dragged over history and examined today's news with a micro-scope; the running commentary of 'government over-reach", corruption, a centuries-long distrust of governments on gun control, but on a puny little matter like having a say in how things are done can vanish with a roach in an ashtray.

When, like I am told about Ohio, states start lowering the bar on incarcerations for economic reasons, both the font and back doors of the equation are wide open to all sorts of mischief.

The decision of who votes and who doesn't is not something I would trust with ANY government I have ever seen or read about, and based on the kind of corruption and bull**** from closed bridges to "you can keep your plan" it goes without saying there's nothing to trust there and certainly not the right to vote.
 
1. This decision belongs to the States. States can do as they please.
2. I would oppose my State doing this. Generally, if you have proven that you will abuse the power and liberties that society gives you, you shouldn't be put in charge of it.
 
Fearandloathing said:
In the meantime, I was told in here, that states like Ohio have lowered the bar for sentencing so the state does not loose money to the private companies reliant on a certain level of incarceration.

So you are raising the rate of incarceration and disenfranchised votes simply to meet arbitrarily set finances in what appears to be a stupid business plan. Simply put, the 'justice' system is a business, everything from killers to carrying a joint, failing to pay fines are the commodity. You want to throw the right to vote into that equation, you are free to do so; I don't even see it meeting the bottom rung definition of 'democracy' where the right to vote is so arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Well F&L, I didn't say exactly that above. When one is imprisoned, one has already surrendered freedom and all that comes with it. If voting here was as sacrosanct as you believe, our voter participation in elections would be much higher than it's currently dismal level. It seems that the right to vote only becomes valuable when it has been removed, even though I imagine that the actual votes cast by those before incarceration was in the single digits, percentage-wise.
 
JANFU said:
You can in Canada.

Odd how Republicans are mainly against regaining the right to vote after sentence, parole, probation and all are met.
Yet when it comes to voting districts and assigning who votes in which district, counting who is a resident, well prisoners are suddenly a valuable commodity.
Read this a bit back.


BREAKING: Federal Court Rules Prison Gerrymandering Unconstitutional | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily against them getting their rights back [particularly their second amendment rights] More concerned that any politician would pander for their vote by dismissing the seriousness of their crimes.

It's vote buying for sure.
 
Chomsky said:
Perhaps the governor's methodology could be debated, or perhaps not; he may be within his purview. But what is the issue with the items you presented?

Exactly why is it our fellow citizens should not vote?
Click to expand...

See post #70
 
Chomsky said:
And what determine a threat? A past criminal conviction?

How is that?
Click to expand...
Rapists and molesters never lose the desire or urge to rape or molest. They are a constant threat and danger, thus the reason they have to register with authorities.
 
jmotivator said:
A person's rights can be deprived through due process and written in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

It's not a complicated concept since incarceration itself is a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...

humbolt said:
...in Virginia. Convicted felons lose the right to vote in Virginia - at least, they did. It's the subject of the OP.



See above.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

There is legal procedure to do this, apparently.

I suppose the only thing to argue is the appropriateness of the right's restriction.

I would strongly prefer this right not be abridged though. Then again, I'd only want 2A rights abridged via a judge's order. Right now these things seem to be done summarily rather than through individual judges.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Rapists and molesters never lose the desire or urge to rape or molest. They are a constant threat and danger, thus the reason they have to register with authorities.
Click to expand...
You know this for fact?

They never lose their desire? They will absolutely commit another crime? They're all an active threat. Everyone convicted of a sex crime will commit another?

Can the same be true of someone convicted of stealing? Of Fraud? Of drug use?

I'm not sure upon where you're drawing the distinction here. It sounds like you're trying to convict or take away citizen's rights based-up what you *think* they may do, rather than their present actions.
 
WCH said:
See post #70
Click to expand...
Understood.

I can see the concern over political pandering, which is maybe why whenever as a society we abridge and prohibit rights we often end-up with political patronizing.

But hey, as long as the Constitution is not being infringed, may that's just the way our founders envisioned the process would work? We'll never know!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom