Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

Crusader13 · Mar 13, 2019

spud_meister said:
No. Here in Australia you can vote informally if you don't wish to vote for any of the candidates. You're compelled to get your name ticked off, not to vote.

So you'd have no problem if the government forced you to attend church every Sunday? You wouldn't be required to pray or donate to the collection plate, just show up for an hour to get your name ticked off.

That totally wouldn't be forced religion or anything...why wouldn't we just accept such a law?

Crusader13 · Mar 13, 2019

soylentgreen said:
There is no such thing as compelled voting. You are confusing the register to vote with actually voting.

Please point out where my citation proved your point. All you have is a belief that that is what will occur. Where as what i cited stated quite clearly that the opposite occurred. Allow me to post that bit of the citation again;

[/B]

No, I'm saying that regardless of whether you have to cast a vote or not, it's still a form of coerced expression to force people to participate in an event they don't agree with. Like I said, Im pretty sure you wouldn't be happy about the government forcing you to attend church every Sunday, even if you had the option to avoid praying or singing the hymns. It's still a form coerced expression.

The study you cited said many people would end up voting for the most popular candidates, but tries to refute that effect by saying mandatory voting is likely to increase people's knowledge of political issues. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. People can become more interested and aware of politics due to compelled voting while still ultimately voting for top-of-mind candidates based on popularity.

Moderate Right · Mar 13, 2019

soylentgreen said:
Again it needs to be pointed out that no one is being forced to vote. Whether a person votes or not is still a choice that they have.

The compulsory voting laws effect only the registering of voters. The purpose behind that is that politicians cannot effect laws to make it difficult for minority groups to vote which does happen in america. The other reason for it is outlined below in a conclusion to a study done on compulsory voting.

Where as studies on compulsory voting show a better outcome for the democratic process and a fairer representation of the classes of citizens. The only thing that those apposed to compulsory voting have to back them is their own personal opinion that they do not wish to go to the effort of voting.

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/westminster_model_democracy/files/fowler_compulsoryvoting.pdf

People are being forced to go to the polls. That would be against their rights in the US. Sometimes democracy is self defeating. What if everyone voted and showed a true representation and voted for candidates that were for eliminating taxes? The fact is Americans shouldn't be deciding every single US policy. There are a whole lot of things going on in foreign affairs where some of our representatives are briefed on intelligence matters and we hope they make the right decisions for what is best for our country. We can't brief every citizen on intelligence matters and let them decide what is best for our country. And, I don't want idiots voting. Idiots should remain idiots, non voting idiots.

soylentgreen · Mar 13, 2019

Crusader13 said:
No, I'm saying that regardless of whether you have to cast a vote or not, it's still a form of coerced expression to force people to participate in an event they don't agree with. Like I said, Im pretty sure you wouldn't be happy about the government forcing you to attend church every Sunday, even if you had the option to avoid praying or singing the hymns. It's still a form coerced expression.

The study you cited said many people would end up voting for the most popular candidates, but tries to refute that effect by saying mandatory voting is likely to increase people's knowledge of political issues. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. People can become more interested and aware of politics due to compelled voting while still ultimately voting for top-of-mind candidates based on popularity.

Your analogy again does not work. It is nothing more than applying a slippery slope and suggesting any foolish thing can be forced. There is no civic duty in attending a church and such laws would be creating a nanny state where the government is trying to force a specific set of morality. In which case you have a tyranny and not a government.

What your argument is really about is that you want all the rights, benefits and privileges society has to offer but have no desire to actually do the work needed to maintain those gifts.

If you want a society where elections are truly representative of the people then go and vote. If you think it just happens and you need do nothing then complain about having to do some civic duty.

It did not try to refute the effect it stated that critics like you really have nothing to offer but their opinion based only on their bias. Where as actual research shows the opposite effect to your baseless claims.

soylentgreen · Mar 13, 2019

Moderate Right said:
People are being forced to go to the polls. That would be against their rights in the US. Sometimes democracy is self defeating. What if everyone voted and showed a true representation and voted for candidates that were for eliminating taxes? The fact is Americans shouldn't be deciding every single US policy. There are a whole lot of things going on in foreign affairs where some of our representatives are briefed on intelligence matters and we hope they make the right decisions for what is best for our country. We can't brief every citizen on intelligence matters and let them decide what is best for our country. And, I don't want idiots voting. Idiots should remain idiots, non voting idiots.

Are people being forced to do jury service?

If you want a society where every one is entitled to a jury of their peers then you have a civic duty towards jury service instead of a complaint about being forced.

The same with elections. Do you actually want a free and representative government? Then go and do your civic duty instead of falsely claiming you are being forced.

The rest is quite ridiculous. The politicians are not asking the people how to go about doing their business. They are during an election giving the direction and policies they intend to follow during their term. Well, that is what happens in real countries. In america they just trash talk the opposition.

As for stupidity that is always a matter of opinion. People tend to think that those who do not vote as they did are stupid for doing so.

Besides, you have an idiot for a president, so if your government is trully representative of the people then only idiots should be allowed to vote.

Moderate Right · Mar 13, 2019

soylentgreen said:
Are people being forced to do jury service?

If you want a society where every one is entitled to a jury of their peers then you have a civic duty towards jury service instead of a complaint about being forced.

The same with elections. Do you actually want a free and representative government? Then go and do your civic duty instead of falsely claiming you are being forced.

The rest is quite ridiculous. The politicians are not asking the people how to go about doing their business. They are during an election giving the direction and policies they intend to follow during their term. Well, that is what happens in real countries. In america they just trash talk the opposition.

As for stupidity that is always a matter of opinion. People tend to think that those who do not vote as they did are stupid for doing so.

Besides, you have an idiot for a president, so if your government is trully representative of the people then only idiots should be allowed to vote.

You've got a point on the jury duty thing.

I'm not really sure I follow you on free and representative government. For the most part, in most elections, we have a choice between a Republican and a Democrat. No matter how many people do or don't vote, that's still our only choices, either the Republican or the Democrat. The left would have us believe that the low information voters voted for Trump and that's why he won. But, if we "forced" more low information voters to vote, supposedly Trump would have not only still won, but he might have won the popular vote as well. In any event, as far as the presidency goes, we only had a choice of voting for either Hillary or for Trump and no matter how many people voted, those were still our only two viable choices.

Mr Person · Mar 13, 2019

Crusader13 said:
Compelled speech - Wikipedia

Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?

No. The notion of "compelled speech" has to do with government in some way forcing/coercing an individual into engaging in specific speech content. Requiring people to vote doesn't require that they vote for anyone in particular. They could just write in "Mickey Mouse". And that's relying on a direct equivalence between voting for a candidate and engaging in speech.

The bigger problem with compelled voting is probably that people really would write in "Mickey Mouse" or randomly fill out ballots just to get back home. That, in turn, could wreak more than the usual havoc. Or it could shake things up. I don't know if I want people too lazy to get to a poll to be made to vote.

Mr Person · Mar 13, 2019

ttwtt78640 said:
That problem could be fixed by including "none of the above" for each ballot position.

We have that. It's the write-in option.

You can vote for Aragorn if you like and it'll count as none of the above.

veritas1 · Mar 13, 2019

Nobody should be compelled to vote. Anyone otherwise not interested enough to vote, should not be weighing in on who will make the laws for others who are interested.

Visbek · Mar 13, 2019

Moderate Right said:
People are being forced to go to the polls. That would be against their rights in the US.

Is it also against your rights to be compelled to report to jury duty?

Is it also against your rights to be compelled to perform military service?

Is it also against your rights to be compelled to pay your taxes, when you believe the government will spend some of it to make public statements you do not agree with?

Do people in Australia actually have different rights than Americans (as opposed to different legal protections of rights) just because they were born in Australia?

Governments are legitimately empowered to compel citizens to perform all sorts of obligations and duties. If the citizens don't like it, they can tell their elected representatives to change it -- something, by the way, that has never gained significant traction in Australia. Your personal irritation, dislike or disapproval of those actions does not prove that anyone's rights are illegitimately curtailed in those situations.

Sometimes democracy is self defeating. What if everyone voted and showed a true representation and voted for candidates that were for eliminating taxes?

Republicans have spent the better part of 40 years cutting taxes, and the consequences are obvious: Deficits, debts and inequality rise, with minimal impact on growth. Oddly enough, that policy hasn't won them 100% of the vote.

We should also note that your implication is that "more voters will result in worse policies," a claim that does not seem to fit the actual facts on the ground. E.g. I see little indication that Australians, after nearly a century of compelled voting, despise their own government and are seeking to overthrow it. They don't even want to get rid of compulsory voting.

The fact is Americans shouldn't be deciding every single US policy.

Compulsory voting ≠ Direct Democracy.

Moderate Right · Mar 13, 2019

Visbek said:
Is it also against your rights to be compelled to report to jury duty?

Is it also against your rights to be compelled to perform military service?

Is it also against your rights to be compelled to pay your taxes, when you believe the government will spend some of it to make public statements you do not agree with?

Do people in Australia actually have different rights than Americans (as opposed to different legal protections of rights) just because they were born in Australia?

Governments are legitimately empowered to compel citizens to perform all sorts of obligations and duties. If the citizens don't like it, they can tell their elected representatives to change it -- something, by the way, that has never gained significant traction in Australia. Your personal irritation, dislike or disapproval of those actions does not prove that anyone's rights are illegitimately curtailed in those situations.

Republicans have spent the better part of 40 years cutting taxes, and the consequences are obvious: Deficits, debts and inequality rise, with minimal impact on growth. Oddly enough, that policy hasn't won them 100% of the vote.

We should also note that your implication is that "more voters will result in worse policies," a claim that does not seem to fit the actual facts on the ground. E.g. I see little indication that Australians, after nearly a century of compelled voting, despise their own government and are seeking to overthrow it. They don't even want to get rid of compulsory voting.

Compulsory voting ≠ Direct Democracy.

If you remove the bottom half nonsense, I'll like your post because you made several valid points in the top half. However, once again, the loony left deals in fantasies rather than in reality. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Bernie wins the presidency in 2020 and has a 60 vote majority in the Senate and the House remains blue. Do you really believe the US will pass a law that everyone votes or faces a fine? Is this the way that Democrats want to stay in power, by forcing people to vote?

soylentgreen · Mar 13, 2019

Moderate Right said:
You've got a point on the jury duty thing.

I'm not really sure I follow you on free and representative government. For the most part, in most elections, we have a choice between a Republican and a Democrat. No matter how many people do or don't vote, that's still our only choices, either the Republican or the Democrat. The left would have us believe that the low information voters voted for Trump and that's why he won. But, if we "forced" more low information voters to vote, supposedly Trump would have not only still won, but he might have won the popular vote as well. In any event, as far as the presidency goes, we only had a choice of voting for either Hillary or for Trump and no matter how many people voted, those were still our only two viable choices.

The research done on countries show that your fear is not really that warranted.
Many of the low information voters do not vote because they see that others like them will not vote. Given that there would be a compulsory law to register does create an incentive for them to start taking an interest because they now know that others like them will start to vote.

America unfortunately is not a good example of the various political systems. You have a first past the post voting system along with a government that is not compelled to reveal its financial books. Combined you have politicians who can promise everything and not bother to deliver once elected.

A two party system is ridiculous for a country with your population.

It would take more than bringing about a compulsory voting system to fix it.

Moderate Right · Mar 14, 2019

soylentgreen said:
The research done on countries show that your fear is not really that warranted.
Many of the low information voters do not vote because they see that others like them will not vote. Given that there would be a compulsory law to register does create an incentive for them to start taking an interest because they now know that others like them will start to vote.

America unfortunately is not a good example of the various political systems. You have a first past the post voting system along with a government that is not compelled to reveal its financial books. Combined you have politicians who can promise everything and not bother to deliver once elected.

A two party system is ridiculous for a country with your population.

It would take more than bringing about a compulsory voting system to fix it.

Hey, I'm a US citizen and I'm going to admit that our country just has way too many stupid people in it and that isn't going to change. I'm not afraid to admit that but I am ashamed that there are so many stupid people in our country. I don't want stupid people voting. We also have the largest incarceration rate in the world, of which I am also ashamed. But, I'm also not afraid to admit that our country has more scumbags that need to be locked up. In fact, we need to lock up even more so that the rest of us can live in peace. It's not a world contest to see who can have the lowest incarceration rate. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and admit that our country leads the world in the number of stupid people and scumbags.

Thoreau72 · Mar 14, 2019

Moderate Right said:
Hey, I'm a US citizen and I'm going to admit that our country just has way too many stupid people in it and that isn't going to change. I'm not afraid to admit that but I am ashamed that there are so many stupid people in our country. I don't want stupid people voting. We also have the largest incarceration rate in the world, of which I am also ashamed. But, I'm also not afraid to admit that our country has more scumbags that need to be locked up. In fact, we need to lock up even more so that the rest of us can live in peace. It's not a world contest to see who can have the lowest incarceration rate. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and admit that our country leads the world in the number of stupid people and scumbags.

In defense of US citizens, one must consider that we are many generations into a system with incessant indoctrination by the government.

One must consider that William Casey of the CIA noted in about 1981 that 'when everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts.' He was not joking.

But your analysis is correct.

Visbek · Mar 14, 2019

Moderate Right said:
Hey, I'm a US citizen and I'm going to admit that our country just has way too many stupid people in it and that isn't going to change. I'm not afraid to admit that but I am ashamed that there are so many stupid people in our country. I don't want stupid people voting.

Since there is no IQ test for voter registration, opposition to compulsory voting does not in any way, shape or form address that problem.

Nor are people "stupid" because they choose not to vote. Rather, the US makes it difficult to vote. In most states, you have to register in advance; there is no single central clearinghouse to coordinate registration, and each jurisdiction handles it slightly differently; polling stations are often crowded; polling machines can be difficult to operate; and of course, Americans don't get time off to vote.

And of course, there are overt attempts to suppress voters, by proclaiming fraud where it doesn't exist; instantiating voter ID laws, and then making it difficult to get IDs; targeting minorities with "surgical precision" with voter restrictions and closures of polling stations; and gerrymandering districts in the attempt to nullify the impact of votes in the first place.

Even if you don't think that compulsory voting is a good idea, the idea that "the fewer people that vote, the better" is arrogantly and unjustifiably anti-democratic; a sad indicator the contemporary conservative point of view; and a cynical response to the lack of popularity for their policies.

We also have the largest incarceration rate in the world, of which I am also ashamed. But, I'm also not afraid to admit that our country has more scumbags that need to be locked up.

More irrelevant nonsense.

Almost 40% of the prison population is unnecessarily incarcerated. Around 25% are low-level, non-violent offenders. Another 14% are elderly and have basically aged out of criminal behavior.
How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated? | Brennan Center for Justice

We should also note that, for example, less than 4% of federal prisoners are there for homicide, aggravated Assault, and kidnapping combined. Around 45% are there just on drug charges.

Plus, compulsory voting doesn't automatically include prisoners. E.g in Australia, if your sentence is 3 years or longer, you can't vote while you are in prison.

In fact, we need to lock up even more so that the rest of us can live in peace.

Even more factless nonsense.

1) Crime rates have fallen in the US since 1991. How do you not know that?

2) There is no correlation between crime rates and incarceration rates. E.g. the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world (655 per 100k), and has a crime rate 4 times higher than nations like France (256 per 100k), the UK (140 per 100k), Denmark (63 per 100k), Japan (41 per 100k) etc

So no, locking up people for the sake of locking up people does not in fact reduce crime rates. What it does is fatten the bottom line of for-profit prisons, disenfranchises people (almost all poor and minorities, what a shock), and perpetuates a variety of racial injustices. That's not a great way to fix the US.

soylentgreen · Mar 14, 2019

Moderate Right said:
Hey, I'm a US citizen and I'm going to admit that our country just has way too many stupid people in it and that isn't going to change. I'm not afraid to admit that but I am ashamed that there are so many stupid people in our country. I don't want stupid people voting. We also have the largest incarceration rate in the world, of which I am also ashamed. But, I'm also not afraid to admit that our country has more scumbags that need to be locked up. In fact, we need to lock up even more so that the rest of us can live in peace. It's not a world contest to see who can have the lowest incarceration rate. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and admit that our country leads the world in the number of stupid people and scumbags.

I see that completely different. It is not that you have many stupid people going to jail. It is that you have many stupid people demanding that people be jailed. The so called war on drugs has people jailed fort petty things like smoking a joint. Drug addiction is medical problem not a criminal problem. Not to mention that those suffering from mental problems that should be treated by hospitals are instead criminalised and thrown in jail. Yours is not the only country that use prisons as a simple remedy to avoid dealing with health problems.

SonOfDaedalus · Mar 14, 2019

Excon said:
The effect is irrelevant to the fact that you are being compelled to vote regardless of the option you choose.

That's a fair point but maybe there is no ideal solution. Being required to vote and having the option to vote "none of the above" is pretty fair.

I think a better criticism is that those who don't want to vote may not understand or be interested in the issues. Forcing them to vote may mean they toss a coin or vote for superficial reasons. It just may mean the most popular candidate will win.

Moderate Right · Mar 14, 2019

Visbek said:
Since there is no IQ test for voter registration, opposition to compulsory voting does not in any way, shape or form address that problem.

Nor are people "stupid" because they choose not to vote. Rather, the US makes it difficult to vote. In most states, you have to register in advance; there is no single central clearinghouse to coordinate registration, and each jurisdiction handles it slightly differently; polling stations are often crowded; polling machines can be difficult to operate; and of course, Americans don't get time off to vote.

And of course, there are overt attempts to suppress voters, by proclaiming fraud where it doesn't exist; instantiating voter ID laws, and then making it difficult to get IDs; targeting minorities with "surgical precision" with voter restrictions and closures of polling stations; and gerrymandering districts in the attempt to nullify the impact of votes in the first place.

Even if you don't think that compulsory voting is a good idea, the idea that "the fewer people that vote, the better" is arrogantly and unjustifiably anti-democratic; a sad indicator the contemporary conservative point of view; and a cynical response to the lack of popularity for their policies.

More irrelevant nonsense.

Almost 40% of the prison population is unnecessarily incarcerated. Around 25% are low-level, non-violent offenders. Another 14% are elderly and have basically aged out of criminal behavior.
How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated? | Brennan Center for Justice

We should also note that, for example, less than 4% of federal prisoners are there for homicide, aggravated Assault, and kidnapping combined. Around 45% are there just on drug charges.

Plus, compulsory voting doesn't automatically include prisoners. E.g in Australia, if your sentence is 3 years or longer, you can't vote while you are in prison.

Even more factless nonsense.

1) Crime rates have fallen in the US since 1991. How do you not know that?

2) There is no correlation between crime rates and incarceration rates. E.g. the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world (655 per 100k), and has a crime rate 4 times higher than nations like France (256 per 100k), the UK (140 per 100k), Denmark (63 per 100k), Japan (41 per 100k) etc

So no, locking up people for the sake of locking up people does not in fact reduce crime rates. What it does is fatten the bottom line of for-profit prisons, disenfranchises people (almost all poor and minorities, what a shock), and perpetuates a variety of racial injustices. That's not a great way to fix the US.

What's Democratic is giving people the decision to vote or not. Since fines for not voting would disproportionally effect minorities, this would be discriminatory. Funny how the left scream bloody murder when minorities are "profiled" but they're perfectly fine with profiling minorities with this. Actually, if you look at my poll regarding this in the polling forum, you will see that there is a tremendous number of people who would not want this requirement.

SonOfDaedalus · Mar 14, 2019

Thoreau72 said:
In defense of US citizens, one must consider that we are many generations into a system with incessant indoctrination by the government.

One must consider that William Casey of the CIA noted in about 1981 that 'when everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts.' He was not joking.

But your analysis is correct.

I saw that quote recently on the Jimmy Dore show on YouTube. They were talking about Venezuela. Is that where you got it?

Moderate Right · Mar 14, 2019

soylentgreen said:
I see that completely different. It is not that you have many stupid people going to jail. It is that you have many stupid people demanding that people be jailed. The so called war on drugs has people jailed fort petty things like smoking a joint. Drug addiction is medical problem not a criminal problem. Not to mention that those suffering from mental problems that should be treated by hospitals are instead criminalised and thrown in jail. Yours is not the only country that use prisons as a simple remedy to avoid dealing with health problems.

I see your problem. You think that most people are in jail for drug problems or mental health issues. While there are certainly some of those, most of the people in jail are criminals and that is why they are there. And we keep on letting criminals back out to commit yet more crimes time and time again. For every one thing people are arrested for they have probably committed 10 other things that they got away with and many people have been arrested over twenty times. Officers risk their lives arresting the same people over and over. There should be no such thing as a career criminal because if that is their goal in life then we should just give them free room and board for the rest of their lives. I'm not against helping people that need help but the fact is, the very huge majority of these people don't have a good success rate at recovery.

soylentgreen · Mar 14, 2019

Moderate Right said:
I see your problem. You think that most people are in jail for drug problems or mental health issues. While there are certainly some of those, most of the people in jail are criminals and that is why they are there. And we keep on letting criminals back out to commit yet more crimes time and time again. For every one thing people are arrested for they have probably committed 10 other things that they got away with and many people have been arrested over twenty times. Officers risk their lives arresting the same people over and over. There should be no such thing as a career criminal because if that is their goal in life then we should just give them free room and board for the rest of their lives. I'm not against helping people that need help but the fact is, the very huge majority of these people don't have a good success rate at recovery.

You have no success in stopping recidivism because jails do nothing to prevent it, they are in fact the opposite. They are a breeding ground for creating criminals. They are where the organised gangs initiate new members.

If the aim is to reduce recidivism then stop building more jails and stop sending people to jails when their crime does not involve violence.

You call people in jail criminals on the simple logic that the law is such that many activities classed as crime are actually a mental health issue. To get back to the topic of abortion it is classed in the law as a criminal act. Where as in fact it should be classed as a medical issue.

soylentgreen · Mar 14, 2019

SonOfDaedalus said:
That's a fair point but maybe there is no ideal solution. Being required to vote and having the option to vote "none of the above" is pretty fair.

I think a better criticism is that those who don't want to vote may not understand or be interested in the issues. Forcing them to vote may mean they toss a coin or vote for superficial reasons. It just may mean the most popular candidate will win.

Yet have you any evidence to back this? Research on this has been done. We know what the results are.

Visbek · Mar 14, 2019

Moderate Right said:
What's Democratic is giving people the decision to vote or not.

Or, if we see voting as a civic duty -- and one we actually want people to do, including clearing away unjust barriers to voting -- then it's highly democratic.

Since fines for not voting would disproportionally effect minorities, this would be discriminatory. Funny how the left scream bloody murder when minorities are "profiled" but they're perfectly fine with profiling minorities with this.

:roll:

Or, since there is no indication that minorities in nations with compulsory voting are negatively impacted by fines, you're just desperately scrambling for more ad hoc objections.

Actually, if you look at my poll regarding this in the polling forum, you will see that there is a tremendous number of people who would not want this requirement.

LOL

43 people on a web forum! Tremendous!!! Oh yeah, that's real meaningful. Move over, Gallup.

Back in the real world, and again... Australia has had compulsory voting since around 1911. The citizens or government could get rid of it at any time, and yet they don't; nor has Australia turned into a totalitarian state. So that's maybe what, 20 million voting-age Aussies who have lived with it their entire lives, and don't want to change it.

Visbek · Mar 14, 2019

Moderate Right said:
I see your problem. You think that most people are in jail for drug problems or mental health issues. While there are certainly some of those, most of the people in jail are criminals and that is why they are there.

Still wrong. Again, nearly 40% of prisoners are incarcerated for low-level, non-violent crimes. Lots of it is petty drug crimes like possession.

And we keep on letting criminals back out to commit yet more crimes time and time again. For every one thing people are arrested for they have probably committed 10 other things that they got away with and many people have been arrested over twenty times....

Aside from how your claims are basically fact-free:

America's criminal justice system, which is driven by emotion rather than reason, is not even remotely designed to reduce recidivism rates. There is almost no education, no training, nothing to reform those individuals, and almost nothing to remove any stigma upon release, as Americans see that as being "soft on crime." Oh, it also costs money, and the for-profit prisons have zero interest in doing anything more than spending the bare minimum, so they can increase their profits. Why would they even want to lower recidivism rates, when that increases their bottom line?

Another factor to consider is that yes, people actually do age out of criminal activity. Thieves tend to stop by their 20s; violent criminals tend to stop in their early 30s; people involved in drugs tend to stop in their late 30s. That's why people on both the right and the left are starting to push for prison and sentencing reforms.

Eternally warehousing people, in for-profit prisons, and stigmatizing them after completion of a sentence, is probably the worst possible solution to recidivism. They don't have any skills, it's difficult to get work, it's difficult to get housing. Blaming the individual makes no sense, when the system is all but designed to send them back to prison as fast as possible.

None of this has anything to do with voting, of course, but don't let that stop you from making yet more factually inaccurate statements....

Moderate Right · Mar 14, 2019

soylentgreen said:
You have no success in stopping recidivism because jails do nothing to prevent it, they are in fact the opposite. They are a breeding ground for creating criminals. They are where the organised gangs initiate new members.

If the aim is to reduce recidivism then stop building more jails and stop sending people to jails when their crime does not involve violence.

You call people in jail criminals on the simple logic that the law is such that many activities classed as crime are actually a mental health issue. To get back to the topic of abortion it is classed in the law as a criminal act. Where as in fact it should be classed as a medical issue.

If jails are a breeding ground for criminals then the best solution is to never let them out.

Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

Crusader13

Well-known member

Crusader13

Well-known member

Moderate Right

soylentgreen

soylentgreen

Moderate Right

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

veritas1

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Moderate Right

soylentgreen

Moderate Right

Thoreau72

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

soylentgreen

SonOfDaedalus

Moderate Right

SonOfDaedalus

Moderate Right

soylentgreen

soylentgreen

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Moderate Right