• 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!

Should Nonviolent drug offenders get their voting rights back?

Should Nonviolent drug offenders get their voting rights back?

  • Total voters
    52
chromium said:
They can't vote for the same reason drug sentencing is so unjust to begin with. Most americans were/are terrified of crime and no politician wants to look lenient in any way.
Click to expand...

That's actually the cause of the schizophrenia of crime, law enforcement and punishment in the United States. Most people agree that the militarization of the police, minimum sentencing, asset forfeiture, violence in prisons and permanent loss of voting rights are bad, but any political candidate who runs against those things will be turned into a skid mark for being "soft on crime."

What people say and how they vote are completely divergent.
 
Last edited:
AliHajiSheik said:
It is a punishment that continues after the sentence is satisfied, just as some jurisdictions continue to prevent felons from voting after their sentence has been completed.
Click to expand...

You mean it's a continuation of the sentence, and you know what else is? The fact it's so damn difficult to find work at even a temp agency if you have a record. Even housing, i know a case where a guy with full time job has to stay at a homeless shelter because he's had over 20 apartment app rejections. Then the shelter is often locked when he gets off work. It's so ass backwards that we pretend to prioritize public safety, then make it *more* difficult for ex cons to avoid falling back into crime, once they're released.
 
yes: but voting is dumb anyways and they shouldn't do it regardless
 
Cardinal said:
That's actually the cause of the schizophrenia of crime, law enforcement and punishment in the United States. Most people agree that the militarization of the police, minimum sentencing, asset forfeiture and permanent loss of voting rights are bad, but any political candidate who runs against those things will be turned into a skid mark for being "soft on crime."
Click to expand...

CA voters actually eliminated "3 strikes" for nonviolent crimes recently, i guess after one too many outrages of people getting life sentences for stealing golf clubs. You know state legislatures should just be removed altogether if they need the voters to do even that for them.

And what "civilized" country charges 13 year olds as adults and gives out death sentence to mental retards who can't even read the "confession" they're signing, which is later proven false by DNA? I swear our legal is stuck in the 1300s in many ways.
 
chromium said:
CA voters actually eliminated "3 strikes" for nonviolent crimes recently, i guess after one too many outrages of people getting life sentences for stealing golf clubs. You know state legislatures should just be removed altogether if they need the voters to do even that for them.

And what "civilized" country charges 13 year olds as adults and gives out death sentence to mental retards who can't even read the "confession" they're signing, which is later proven false by DNA? I swear our legal is stuck in the 1300s in many ways.
Click to expand...

We like to talk about "rehabilitation," and there are in fact numerous rehabilitative programs, such as those for learning new trades or getting degrees while in prison. But people have, consciously or unconsciously, voted consistently for a system that is weighted toward the punitive end. The result is many ex-cons who might have easily gone straight after serving their time, but instead who have themselves hopelessly and forever alienated from society and unable to successfully reintegrate.
 
Cardinal said:
We like to talk about "rehabilitation," and there are in fact numerous rehabilitative programs, such as those for learning new trades or getting degrees while in prison. But people have, consciously or unconsciously, voted consistently for a system that is weighted toward the punitive end. The result is many ex-cons who might have easily gone straight after serving their time, but instead who have themselves hopelessly and forever alienated from society and unable to successfully reintegrate.
Click to expand...
Right. We talk a good game. We continually spout noble sounding phrases like 'pay/paid your debt to society', 'innocent until proven guilty', 'fair trial', 'second chance', and so on, yet deep down I don't think we really believe any of it.

"We" being generic, of course. There are some who truly do, but they are a small minority.

There is a guy here in town who got out of prison in the late 1990s and couldn't find a job to save his life. I'm not sure exactly what the crime was, but as I understand it it was non-violent. Anyway, he did what he felt was his only option... he started his own business, a restaurant. Now, he owns five restaurants in the metro area, including a steak house, and is doing quite well for himself and his family.

Now, HE did well, but he shouldn't have felt forced into it, either. Yet, as a matter of practical reality with today's societal mindset, self-employment may be the only best option for ex-cons. Maybe instead of just skills, we should be teaching them business courses as well.
 
Last edited:
I think it all depends on the crime. If it's an crime like what Bernie Madoff was convicted of or something else egregious that has hurt countess number of people then I say screw them. You don't have to be violent to be a completely irresponsible a**hole
 
If someone has been released from prison after they did their time they should be allowed to vote, their right to vote should never have been taken from them in the first place. Maybe you can justify people in jail not voting but when released they should have that basic of civil right.

There may be a few exceptions, people who have been found guilty of terrorism, people who have been convicted of electoral fraud or political corruption might be banned from voting because of the nature of these crimes, but regular criminals once released should be allowed to vote.
 
The removal or restriction of rights should be a part of sentencing, not an automatic process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom