Case would let thousands of Calif. criminals vote

Kandahar said:

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

Click to expand...

Ah, so you admit that most of them are liberals/socialist!!!

Of course they are stupid, they are criminals. But being stupid doesn't give them any excuse to escape paying for what they have done. And if it was a serious enough crime to rate a felony conviction, then let them lose their right to vote, own guns, etc. They have demonstrated the inability to abide by the common laws of the land and will forever be under suspicion that they may do so again. If they want the right to vote, fine, come up with some measurable means that proves that they will never commit crimes again. Until you can prove that all of them will become law abiding, responsible citizens, then all of them lose certain rights, period.

Kandahar said:

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.

Click to expand...

State-sanctioned rape? Really, there are laws against it, even in prison. Of course any prisoner who is dumb enough to actually try to file charges would probably find him/herself subject to much worse. But, the state does not "sanction" it, they just have no viable way to prevent it.

Kandahar said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except that the incarcerated are criminals who have committed crimes against other citizens. Incarceration is just one means of punishment, and it is supposed to be that, punishment. If you don't like what happens to you in prison, then don't do something that gets you tossed in there. Prisons should run a lot differently than they are currently. Military prisons have the right of it, discipline, regimented rutines and hard labor. No cable television, no gym stocked like the local health club and they should only be fed a vitamin/protein fortified tasteless gruel.

Kandahar said:

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.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't have anything at stake if they were not criminals. As far as "grotesque conditions", really, get real. Our prisons are too soft and too comfortable with the prisoners having too many "rights", privileges and benefits now. Too many people cosider the rights and "humane treatment" of the prisoner after convition and don't bother to think of what the victims go through or went through. Frankly, we don't employ the death penalty near enough. Commit pre-meditated murder or kill someone in the commision of another felony, take them out back and double-tap a .22 into the back of their heads. Commit forcible rape, same. Sell or give drugs to minors, same. Commit sexual crimes against a minor, same.

Kandahar said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't deny them based upon how I think they would vote, I would deny them based upon the fact that they are convicted criminals, a group in our society that I have absolutely no love or pity for. Once again, if you don't like losing your right to vote, fine, don't become a criminal. But now that you mentioned it, what the hell, the basis of liberalism/socialism is to steal from the self-reliant productive citizens to give to the lazy non-productive ones, perhaps liberalism/socialism should be a crime also, since their philisophy is just a bunch of nonsense to justify theft. Heck, I would even vote to make it a capital crime, but then I could see where some wouldn't want to go that far.

ARealConservative said:

that isn't a debate reply in the slightest.

Click to expand...

The post he was responding to wasn't a debate post, so I don't see the problem.

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...

This post is asinine. 1) only 16% of the criminal population are what we consider to life long criminals, 2) a large percentage of felonies are drug related 3) you really dont know anything about sentencing guidelines is you think felony status is only restricted to serious crimes


Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Deuce said:

The post he was responding to wasn't a debate post, so I don't see the problem.

Click to expand...

the post he was responding to laid out a policy position with a logical explanation of why he had that position. It didn't deserve the troll response it received.

ARealConservative said:

the post he was responding to laid out a policy position with a logical explanation of why he had that position. It didn't deserve the troll response it received.

Click to expand...

A logical explanation would mean there is some reasoning. Saying convicted felons would vote for people who aren't tough on crime isn't reasonable. It relies on partisan hackery.

Hatuey said:

Logical explanation would mean there is some reasoning. Saying convicted felons would vote for people who aren't tough on crime isn't reasonable. Actually, it ignores the fact that most people don't have "tough on crime" on their list of concerns when voting.

Click to expand...

his reason was clearly stated. they lost their rights by violating other peoples rights.

Prison should be about making society more safe. Disconnecting prisoners and ex-prisoners from politics is counter-productive to that goal.

ecofarm said:

Prison should be about making society more safe. Disconnecting prisoners and ex-prisoners from politics is counter-productive to that goal.

Click to expand...

one part of imprisonment is punishment and retribution. the person with the opinion that they are in prison because they took away someone elses rights is clearly grounded in logical thought to hold the position they hold.

just as someone that wants to give prisoners voting rights because it might aid in correction, are grounded in logic.

you can logically hold both positions.

ecofarm said:

Prison should be about making society more safe. Disconnecting prisoners and ex-prisoners from politics is counter-productive to that goal.

Click to expand...

What is your logic here? I don't see where them losing their right to vote is in anyway counter-productive to public safety. I see several ways in which them voting could harm public safety. They would be voting for sheriffs, district attorneys, judges and the people who allocate funding for law enforcement and prisons. On the National level, it probably would not make much difference on way or another, but when you get more local, it can have a large impact.

California is releasing felons who have not completed their sentence because of over crowding, is it logical to assume concentrations of these people would vote for more funding to expand prisons? I think it more logical that they would vote the opposite and without that funding, more prisoners will be released early or never serve at all. Would these same people be more likely to vote for a district attorney who prosecute more crimes and ask for larger sentences or the one who presecutes less crimes and advocates for lighter sentences? My money is that they vote for the less effective district attorneys. Same with judges who give lighter sentences vs a judge that gives heavier ones.

Historically, Democrats, aka liberals, have been the ones who have championed prisoner rights, alternative sentencing and also reduced funding for prisons, guards and law enforcement, prefering instead to spend monies on social programs. So, it is logical to think that prisoners and ex-prisoners, if given the right to vote, would tend towards the liberal side of the ticket. In a state the size of Cal., we are talking hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a million or more, that would definitely give them a big boost on the state and local levels. In a state like Texas, it could even be enough to allow the democrats to break the quorum held by the republicans. You can chose to believe that these politicians and political stratigist are actually concerned about those prisoner's rights, heck, a few might even be, but I for one see this more as them seeking this avenue inorder to bolster the number of seats held by their party. Politicians being Politicians, which do you think they are really more interested in?

I still stand by my statement, if you infringe upon or take away the rights of others, commit a felony, then you lose rights yourself. If you don't want to lose those rights, then don't commit crimes. Since some believe that these criminals have served their "debt" to society and should be returned those rights, does that mean the same people also want to do away with the sex offender registry? After all, the same principle applies.

DVSentinel said:

What is your logic here? I don't see where them losing their right to vote is in anyway counter-productive to public safety. I see several ways in which them voting could harm public safety. They would be voting for sheriffs, district attorneys, judges and the people who allocate funding for law enforcement and prisons. On the National level, it probably would not make much difference on way or another, but when you get more local, it can have a large impact.

California is releasing felons who have not completed their sentence because of over crowding, is it logical to assume concentrations of these people would vote for more funding to expand prisons? I think it more logical that they would vote the opposite and without that funding, more prisoners will be released early or never serve at all. Would these same people be more likely to vote for a district attorney who prosecute more crimes and ask for larger sentences or the one who presecutes less crimes and advocates for lighter sentences? My money is that they vote for the less effective district attorneys. Same with judges who give lighter sentences vs a judge that gives heavier ones.

Click to expand...

So what? This basically boils down to the fact that you think they will vote for issues and candidates that YOU personally disapprove of. And that isn't a good enough reason. If more citizens want lighter sentences for crimes, then maybe instead of seeing their opinions as a problem to circumvent by disenfranchising them, our political system should actually consider giving the people what they want. We already incarcerate far more people per capita than any other country in the world anyway.

Historically, Democrats, aka liberals, have been the ones who have championed prisoner rights, alternative sentencing and also reduced funding for prisons, guards and law enforcement, prefering instead to spend monies on social programs. So, it is logical to think that prisoners and ex-prisoners, if given the right to vote, would tend towards the liberal side of the ticket. In a state the size of Cal., we are talking hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a million or more, that would definitely give them a big boost on the state and local levels. In a state like Texas, it could even be enough to allow the democrats to break the quorum held by the republicans. You can chose to believe that these politicians and political stratigist are actually concerned about those prisoner's rights, heck, a few might even be, but I for one see this more as them seeking this avenue inorder to bolster the number of seats held by their party. Politicians being Politicians, which do you think they are really more interested in?

Click to expand...

Any political advantage would be short term. In the medium to longer term, the parties would simply modify their platforms to stay roughly competitive with one another.

I still stand by my statement, if you infringe upon or take away the rights of others, commit a felony, then you lose rights yourself. If you don't want to lose those rights, then don't commit crimes.

Click to expand...

Many people who have committed a felony didn't infringe on the rights of others, or even if they did the infringement was not so great that they need to be punished by losing their voice in society. This is an easy way to both disenfranchise people and entrench unjust laws so it's evermore difficult to repeal them: 1) Make something a crime, 2) Convict everyone who breaks the new law, 3) Take away their right to vote to eliminate potential voters to overturn it.

Since some believe that these criminals have served their "debt" to society and should be returned those rights, does that mean the same people also want to do away with the sex offender registry? After all, the same principle applies.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for everyone, but *I* certainly want to do away with the sex offender registry. It's an unconscionable assault on the dignity of people who have completed their sentences, and is based on the presumption that those crimes are A) worse and B) more likely to recur than any other crimes...neither of which have any basis in fact the majority of the time. But let's not go off on a tangent about that.