• 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!

6 Million Americans Without a Voice

my thought is, yes while a person may be a hardened criminal and its not always easy for a parole board to tell the difference or anything like that. If we want people to not return to prison in as high a rate, then give them a normal shot at a normal life after prison. Besides, they did their crime, they paid the time. When I punish my kids, when its over, i never mention it again and resume normal relations. This allows people to learn from their mistakes.

Certainly you can see the problem with that considering certain crimes? Ever held a bonded position? Imagine how quickly a bonding company would go out of business if all ex-felons records came back clean. How about sex crimes, you willing to hire teachers that just finished a sentence for child rape?
 
You're still not getting it. There is no appending in the argument you're responding to. Losing the vote is part of the sentence.

And any sentences that include such life "debts" (though I've never heard of sentences that include "shall forever lose the right to vote" myself) would fly in the face of the 15th amendment.
 
Certainly you can see the problem with that considering certain crimes? Ever held a bonded position? Imagine how quickly a bonding company would go out of business if all ex-felons records came back clean. How about sex crimes, you willing to hire teachers that just finished a sentence for child rape?

Child rape is a special case tending to have an associated disorder, so in that case no, but such a person should be in an institution anyway, most of the time.

bonding, I am on the fence.
 
my thought is, yes while a person may be a hardened criminal and its not always easy for a parole board to tell the difference or anything like that. If we want people to not return to prison in as high a rate, then give them a normal shot at a normal life after prison. Besides, they did their crime, they paid the time. When I punish my kids, when its over, i never mention it again and resume normal relations. This allows people to learn from their mistakes.

I do not know the percentages of those who serve time that get out and live life right vs. those that continue to commit crime. i think in an ideal world where one commits a crime, does his sentence, serves his punishment and gets out to become a productive citizen, then restoring all rights would be the proper thing to do. But this isn't an ideal world. I would prefer to let it be on an individual by individual basis. there is a big difference from punishing a child for not taking out the garbage or failing to do ones chores and someone who killed a person or committed armed robbery or something.
 
Child rape is a special case tending to have an associated disorder, so in that case no, but such a person should be in an institution anyway, most of the time.

bonding, I am on the fence.

How about folks with multiple convictions for say, embezzlement and fraud, do you want them working at your bank or as your accountant?
 
Cpwill attempted to make the argument that voting was not a right, when the 15th amendment clearly states that neither the Federal nor State can prohibit it. Period.

Are you a Constitutional scholar? Or just determined to say your opinion is incontrovertible? Whichever it is? You're wrong. The 14th Amendment clearly states that government has a right to abridge voting. And, of course, that's exactly what SCOTUS determined. Why you are denying reality is beyond me, Cardinal. I thought we were all here to teach when we're right and learn when we're wrong....?

SECTION 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
 
The question is, why append further punishments to the sentence? Is the sentence the sentence or not?

I don't understand what you mean by append the sentance. Unless a person is tried in Federal Court, it's the laws of the State that prevails. If the laws of a State include the loss of voting rights for those convicted of a felony, incarceration and/or fines are added to the loss of voting rights, and that is the sentance. The loss of voting rights isn't added later.

Such a fact indicates the sentenece is "all the above", not "portions of the above".
 
Are you a Constitutional scholar? Or just determined to say your opinion is incontrovertible? Whichever it is? You're wrong. The 14th Amendment clearly states that government has a right to abridge voting. And, of course, that's exactly what SCOTUS determined. Why you are denying reality is beyond me, Cardinal. I thought we were all here to teach when we're right and learn when we're wrong....?

And why are you determined to ignore the 15th amendment?
 
The most important statistical factors in that vote were church attendance, age and political leaning. Race was actually one of those lowest statistically important factors in the prop 8 vote.

I was actually talking about money and activism prior to the vote.

Mormons and black churches played a big role.
 
How about folks with multiple convictions for say, embezzlement and fraud, do you want them working at your bank or as your accountant?

if its shown that they cannot live in adult society then they shouldnt be outside prison in the first place
 
Unless a person determined to be mentally incompetent, I believe all adult citizens should be allowed to vote. No exceptions. If not allowed to vote, then the person would no longer have any tax obligations. "No taxation without representation."

If a person is sent to prison because of a corrupt DA, sheriff and judge or due to a bad law, the person should be able to at least be able to vote against them.

Once a person is released finally from prison, all rights should be restored otherwise.
 
Someone in Wisconsin getting caught in possession of any amount of marijuana a second time becomes permanently ineligible to vote. That's after the 3.5 years in jail. First offense cultivation of four plants or more is also a felony. Do you think this is just?

Yes. You deserve to be punished to full extent of the law. These idiots should know the penalty for breaking the law they are willingly breaking.
 
Two can play that game. Does anyone think that conservatives aren't coming to the defense of voter disenfranchisement because of their belief that it ultimately helps the Republican party?

Republicans tend to also be tougher on crime, and more likely to argue that increasing democracy by spreading power to those most likely to be irresponsible with its exercise is harmful to good governance. However, yes, probably the realization that felons would likely overwhelmingly vote Democrat is part of the mix as well. So are you willing to admit that this is AG Holders' motivation, then? Do you think that having an Attorney General who seeks to use the power of his office to enhance the power of his political party - the idea that law enforcement should be partisan in nature - is a good thing, or a bad thing?

Or would you like to stick to the defensibility of the laws themselves?

I'm fine with that. These laws are both well within the States' powers, and are examples of responsible governance, to boot.
 
I was actually talking about money and activism prior to the vote.

Mormons and black churches played a big role.

So you're suggesting the liberal voters who dominate California are easily swayed by bright lights and slick messages?

I suppose that rather explains the current state of politics and the economy in California.
 
if its shown that they cannot live in adult society then they shouldnt be outside prison in the first place

Perhaps, but it doesn't work like that at all. You serve your time and you get out. Fitness has nothing to do with the process, other than consideration for parole or early release.
 
Someone in Wisconsin getting caught in possession of any amount of marijuana a second time becomes permanently ineligible to vote. That's after the 3.5 years in jail. First offense cultivation of four plants or more is also a felony. Do you think this is just?

You are describing not the injustice of our voting laws, but the foolishness of our marijuana prohibitions.


What about voter fraud? That's a felony. Should someone convicted of abusing the electoral system be enabled in doing so again?
 
Perhaps, but it doesn't work like that at all. You serve your time and you get out. Fitness has nothing to do with the process, other than consideration for parole or early release.

I agree, I was speaking from an "if I were king for a day, what I would do" perspective, not what currently goes on.
 
So you're suggesting the liberal voters who dominate California are easily swayed by bright lights and slick messages?

I suppose that rather explains the current state of politics and the economy in California.

My reply was to the idea that black and latino felons would all vote Democrat.

Black and latino non felons voted to ban gay marriage.

I dont think being a felon changes fundamental ideologies.

And simple observation strongly suggests that about 23% of Americans of all stripes are totally swayed by bright lights and slick messages.
 
My reply was to the idea that black and latino felons would all vote Democrat.

Black and latino non felons voted to ban gay marriage.

I dont think being a felon changes fundamental ideologies.

And simple observation strongly suggests that about 23% of Americans of all stripes are totally swayed by bright lights and slick messages.

Gotcha.

BTW, only 23%?. Must be a higher number.
 
Republicans tend to also be tougher on crime, and more likely to argue that increasing democracy by spreading power to those most likely to be irresponsible with its exercise is harmful to good governance. However, yes, probably the realization that felons would likely overwhelmingly vote Democrat is part of the mix as well. So are you willing to admit that this is AG Holders' motivation, then? Do you think that having an Attorney General who seeks to use the power of his office to enhance the power of his political party - the idea that law enforcement should be partisan in nature - is a good thing, or a bad thing?



I'm fine with that. These laws are both well within the States' powers, and are examples of responsible governance, to boot.

And those laws are ultimately discriminatory. I don't buy into the idea of bad state laws being magically good because the state made them.
 
Gotcha.

BTW, only 23%?. Must be a higher number.

I say 23% for the Illuminati Trilogy reference.

But every time a study comes out counting people who believe complete nonsense, any ideology, its somewhere between 20-25%.
 
I say 23% for the Illuminati Trilogy reference.

But every time a study comes out counting people who believe complete nonsense, any ideology, its somewhere between 20-25%.

Is that right? I hadn't noticed that.

Well, it's good to be part of the 75-80% group then.
 
I don't have anything to add other than (baring the Constitution) my thought is that once you serve your time and pay your fees all your rights should be restored. However, what I really came in here to say is that this is a fascination debate. Truly enjoying it.
 
Back
Top Bottom