• 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!

Is banning convicted felons from voting compliant with the constitution?

Is banning felons from voting constitutional?

  • Yes. Felons should lose their right to vote under the constitution during and after incarceration.

    Votes: 7 20.6%
  • Felons constitutionally lose their right to vote only during incarceration.

    Votes: 15 44.1%
  • There is no constitutional justification to ban felons from voting during or after incarceration

    Votes: 12 35.3%
  • Stop using the race card!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    34
If he was prone to do that anyway, what recognizing his rights gonna do about that? He'd probably just get a gun illegally and do it that way. Or are you one of those people who believe that restrictions magically make it so people cannot obtain things?

hahaha
Good, extra charge to keep him prison longer next time.
 
When some guys right are restored and he sticks a 9mm in your face.
There's incarceration mechanisms for dealing with repeat offenders. I'm not concerned.

But I do believe strongly in not limiting rights to my fellow Americans.

We can't see fear around every corner, and use that as rationale to limit each-other's rights.
 
They have proven they made at least one very bad decision in their lifetime.

the most common felonies?

Drug abuse, DUI, Property crime, larceny, theft, assault, disorderly conduct, drunkenness....
I'm not saying those are minor crimes but half those are probably done by a majority of college students during Spring Break...

I don't know about the Constitution in this case, but it doesn't seem to make sense as it would tend to weaken the society.
 
Most of the same people who don't want convicted felons to vote are also the same people who don't want welfare recipients to vote because they don't pay taxes. They "don't have skin in the game".

Hence, if these people are being consistent, they also favor that convicted felons not pay taxes because they can't vote, right? Fair is fair.
 
There's incarceration mechanisms for dealing with repeat offenders. I'm not concerned.

But I do believe strongly in not limiting rights to my fellow Americans.

We can't see fear around every corner, and use that as rationale to limit each-other's rights.
I believe strongly in that as well. But giving a criminal X number of chances? Na.
 
Deciding who gets to vote is left (with very few exceptions) up to the States. If they don't want to let Felons vote, they don't have to.
 
For those who are in here arguing that the Felons, upon leaving prison, have full rights returned to them (they do not), where do you stand on their 2nd Amendment rights?
 
For those who are in here arguing that the Felons, upon leaving prison, have full rights returned to them (they do not), where do you stand on their 2nd Amendment rights?

They should be restored with all other rights.
 
For those who are in here arguing that the Felons, upon leaving prison, have full rights returned to them (they do not), where do you stand on their 2nd Amendment rights?

Returned to them as well. If it was a violent felony, then after their probationary period.

If they are likely to continue to be violent and break the law...they'll get guns anyway. If they are rehabilitated, then why cant they have their rights back? They paid their debt to society.
 
Returned to them as well. If it was a violent felony, then after their probationary period.

If they are likely to continue to be violent and break the law...they'll get guns anyway. If they are rehabilitated, then why cant they have their rights back? They paid their debt to society.

1. you don't have a right to vote.
2. you do have a right to bear arms.

3. nonetheless, if you are a felon, you have demonstrated that, given freedom of action, you will abuse it. That is why society should continue to limit you.
 
1. you don't have a right to vote.
2. you do have a right to bear arms.

3. nonetheless, if you are a felon, you have demonstrated that, given freedom of action, you will abuse it. That is why society should continue to limit you.

And you are also meted out punishment appropriate to your crime. And then done with it. Released and part of society again. Paid that debt.

Loads of violent, dangerous people are never jailed and go on offending. Innocent people are imprisoned and serve unwarranted sentences. If you are not safe for society when released, then you should not be released. Firearms are easy to get....it's punitive...not constructive...to permanently remove their rights. Judgemental and actually non-productive to not provide incentives to people to rehabilitate themselves.

And your question was specifically about the 2A, not voting.
 
1. you don't have a right to vote.
2. you do have a right to bear arms.

3. nonetheless, if you are a felon, you have demonstrated that, given freedom of action, you will abuse it. That is why society should continue to limit you.
Not necessarily. "Will" is too broad to be accurate. One's individual felony could be a one-time thing due to unusual circumstances that would never happen again, and never would have happened to begin with in other circumstances.
 
And you are also meted out punishment appropriate to your crime. And then done with it. Released and part of society again. Paid that debt.

Sure - to an extent. But you've also indicated that you are a danger at some level to society around you. We should not enable you in being a greater danger.

Example: Joe and Cindy are going through an ugly divorce. Joe accuses Cindy of cheating on him (he cheated on her, projection accusations are common), and they get into a physical altercation. Cindy calls the cops, and Joe is forced from the house. Joe begins to threaten Cindy for ruining his life, at one point telling her that if she tries to steal their daughter, Sarah, he will kill her. The proceedings are going badly for Joe, and so he takes Sarah from School. He drives her to his Aunt's the two states over, where he assumes he will not be found, and calls Cindy to let her know that he's going to stop her from stealing his child, and t if she knows what's good for her she won't come looking. Joe is caught and, after a fight with the police, arrested. He goes to jail, he's a felon.

When he gets out, Joe should in no way be enabled by society to have the power to threaten Cindy. That includes allowing him to buy guns. It can also include limiting where he can live, how close he can come to Cindy or his daughter, his ability to contact them, etc..

Loads of violent, dangerous people are never jailed and go on offending

Yup. And that's a bad thing.

If you are not safe for society when released, then you should not be released

Now you aren't imprisoning people for their crimes, but rather because you think they are possibly dangerous? The Justice system doesn't work like that. That's why, for example, we don't let people with sexual crimes live next to schools, but we also don't keep them locked up for the rest of their life. This isn't an avocation for human rights, it's an avocation for a sharp curtailment of human rights.

Firearms are easy to get....it's punitive...not constructive...to permanently remove their rights. Judgemental and actually non-productive to not provide incentives to people to rehabilitate themselves.

:shrug: if we wanted to construct a program that would allow them to build and demonstrate rehabilitation over time, I could see that being tied to a series of incentives on things like voting, gun ownership, etc. But "wasn't powerful enough or fast enough or smart enough to stop the state from catching and punishing you for your crimes" is not an indicator of rehabilitation.

And your question was specifically about the 2A, not voting.

The point there is that the case for restricting guns seems more obvious, yet it is actually a stronger curtailment of their rights than voting.

radcen said:
Not necessarily. "Will" is too broad to be accurate. One's individual felony could be a one-time thing due to unusual circumstances that would never happen again, and never would have happened to begin with in other circumstances.

Yes, you have. You don't get to say that things like murder or kidnapping and raping a child should be overlooked because you only did it once (that we know of) before you were caught. You have demonstrated that, given freedom of action, you will abuse it. That's it. You haven't demonstrated that now you won't, you have only demonstrated that you prefer punishment to things like death-by-cop.
 
Sure - to an extent. But you've also indicated that you are a danger at some level to society around you. We should not enable you in being a greater danger.

Sounds like trying to fight 'thought crime' to me.

"Freedom doesn't mean safe. It means free."
 
Yes, you have. You don't get to say that things like murder or kidnapping and raping a child should be overlooked because you only did it once (that we know of) before you were caught. You have demonstrated that, given freedom of action, you will abuse it. That's it. You haven't demonstrated that now you won't, you have only demonstrated that you prefer punishment to things like death-by-cop.
Are you saying that the woman who kills her extremely abusive husband WILL kill again when given the chance?
 
Sounds like trying to fight 'thought crime' to me.

"Freedom doesn't mean safe. It means free."

Wait a minute - you just argued that we should jail people not on the basis of their crime but rather by their perceived risk.

Square what you just said with:

Lursa said:
If you are not safe for society when released, then you should not be released

Because that is creating and punishing people for thought crime while seeking security far more than anything I've proposed.

radcen said:
Are you saying that the woman who kills her extremely abusive husband WILL kill again when given the chance?

:shrug: I can play this game: Are you saying that child rapists don't have a recidivism rate?

...The 1994 recidivism study estimated that within 3 years, 51.8% of prisoners released during the year were back in prison either because of a new crime for which they received another prison sentence, or because of a technical violation of their parole...

That's a pretty heavy repeat-offender rate.

Woman who killed her husband has demonstrated that there are unlawful conditions where she will kill (murder) another human being. She hasn't demonstrated that she will do it only to a spouse who hit her, she has only demonstrated that that is one trigger that will cause her to do so. Maybe she never kills again or maybe she kills the next guy who rear-ends her car.



For some felons, sure, they won't commit crimes again. However, "having been jailed" is not an indicator of that, and using "has been released from jail" as our filter is stupid and dangerous.
 
:shrug: I can play this game: Are you saying that child rapists don't have a recidivism rate?

...The 1994 recidivism study estimated that within 3 years, 51.8% of prisoners released during the year were back in prison either because of a new crime for which they received another prison sentence, or because of a technical violation of their parole...

That's a pretty heavy repeat-offender rate.

Woman who killed her husband has demonstrated that there are unlawful conditions where she will kill (murder) another human being. She hasn't demonstrated that she will do it only to a spouse who hit her, she has only demonstrated that that is one trigger that will cause her to do so. Maybe she never kills again or maybe she kills the next guy who rear-ends her car.

For some felons, sure, they won't commit crimes again. However, "having been jailed" is not an indicator of that, and using "has been released from jail" as our filter is stupid and dangerous.
Thank you for repudiating your blanket statement.
 
Thank you for repudiating your blanket statement.

I'm not. Assuming accurate conviction, that's why they are felons. At the point of leaving prison, that's all they've demonstrated.
 
Wait a minute - you just argued that we should jail people not on the basis of their crime but rather by their perceived risk.

Pretty sure I said the opposite. That statement indicates that the assumption...and law...says they are no longer a threat. Presuming they are or can be...that would be what I got from your posts.

And I disagree. But if they are generally believed to be a threat...why are they released?
 
There are many punishments that stay with a person once they are a felon and out of prison. Many times depending on their crime.

We're talking about the law (not personal or other consequences). The law has sentences for specific reasons & crimes. Then they have parole. What due process enables the govt to continue to infringe on someone's liberty and other rights (voting, 2A) if they have already served the sentences that their previous due process meted out?
 
Back
Top Bottom