• 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!

Bernie wants to give prisoners the right to vote

trouble13

trouble13

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
58,827
Reaction score
17,437
Seems like Sanders is getting dog piled by both the left and the right for suggesting people in prison should be allowed to vote. I do not understand why. I agree with him.

If legislators pass an unfair law that puts 15% of the population in jail, shouldn't they be allowed to vote them out of office?

What purpose does it serve to exclude them from voting? Is it just punitive or does it benefit society in some way?

I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees with Sanders on this issue

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
The right to vote should be held as sacred and never be stripped from any Citizen for any reason.
 
trouble13 said:
Seems like Sanders is getting dog piled by both the left and the right for suggesting people in prison should be allowed to vote. I do not understand why. I agree with him.

If legislators pass an unfair law that puts 15% of the population in jail, shouldn't they be allowed to vote them out of office?

What purpose does it serve to exclude them from voting? Is it just punitive or does it benefit society in some way?

I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees with Sanders on this issue

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Because people who betray their duty to society and break the social contract by consciously harming society and breaking the law should not have a say in how society is run while they are repaying their debt to it.
 
Im not opposed to people who have already paid their debt being eligible to vote.
 
Jetboogieman said:
The right to vote should be held as sacred and never be stripped from any Citizen for any reason.
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment is available for all citizens, so felons should be allowed to purchase firearms?
 
Felis Leo said:
Because people who betray their duty to society and break the social contract by consciously harming society and breaking the law should not have a say in how society is run while they are repaying their debt to it.
Click to expand...

Yes, why do we abide by laws? It's a social contract that if I GIVE UP some freedoms, I get safety, culture and a civil society in return. There should be punishment for breaking that contract.
 
Jetboogieman said:
The right to vote should be held as sacred and never be stripped from any Citizen for any reason.
Click to expand...

This. Incarceration is your punishment, not being arbitrarily stripped of the right to vote above and beyond that.
 
Airyaman said:
The 2nd amendment is available for all citizens, so felons should be allowed to purchase firearms?
Click to expand...

Retaining 2nd amendment rights in jail is obviously not remotely comparable to retaining the right to vote.

Incarceration's impacts on rights should be at all times minimized and within the bounds of reason; not having access to guns in jail is clearly within the bounds of reason, whereas there isn't a particularly compelling case to deny inmates the right to vote.
 
Surrealistik said:
This. Incarceration is your punishment, not being arbitrarily stripped of the right to vote above and beyond that.
Click to expand...

Felons have the right to arm themselves too, right?
 
Surrealistik said:
Retaining 2nd amendment rights in jail is obviously not remotely comparable to retaining the right to vote.

Incarceration's impacts on rights should be at all times minimized and within the bounds of reason; not having access to guns in jail is clearly within the bounds of reason, whereas there isn't a particularly compelling case to deny inmates the right to vote.
Click to expand...

Both are constitutionally guaranteed for citizens. Why apply the Constitution unequally?
 
Felis Leo said:
Because people who betray their duty to society and break the social contract by consciously harming society and breaking the law should not have a say in how society is run while they are repaying their debt to it.
Click to expand...

So I understand you correctly. Your view is that it's strictly a punitive measure against the individual but really serves no benefit to society beyond it possibly being a deterrent to an individual thinking of committing a crime. I'm not gonna drive drunk because if I get caught I won't be able to vote in the upcoming election type of thing. Do I have the general idea right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Airyaman said:
Both are constitutionally guaranteed for citizens. Why apply the Constitution unequally?
Click to expand...

Because certain constitutional rights, such as the second amendment, simply cannot be reasonably granted within incarceration, and if we're going to use incarceration as a tool of justice as we presently do, we must do so in a pragmatic way. Having said that, it is best to grant the maximum possible rights.
 
Airyaman said:
The 2nd amendment is available for all citizens, so felons should be allowed to purchase firearms?
Click to expand...
I get your point but please don't derail my thread into a 2nd amendment debate

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Acadia said:
Yes, why do we abide by laws? It's a social contract that if I GIVE UP some freedoms, I get safety, culture and a civil society in return. There should be punishment for breaking that contract.
Click to expand...
But....
Laws are written by the people we elect.
What I question is this.
Is it wise to allow the people writing them to create ones that remove individuals ability to vote them out of power?

That's the conundrum that I see with taking away in their right to vote.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I get your point but please don't derail my thread into a 2nd amendment debate

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This is not a debate about the 2A, it's a debate about Constitutionally granted rights. Yes? No?
 
Surrealistik said:
Because certain constitutional rights, such as the second amendment, simply cannot be reasonably granted within incarceration, and if we're going to use incarceration as a tool of justice as we presently do, we must do so in a pragmatic way. Having said that, it is best to grant the maximum possible rights.
Click to expand...

So this is about which rights can be granted in certain situations? Why should the right to vote supersede the right to protect one's self?
 
trouble13 said:
But....
Laws are written by the people we elect.
What I question is this.
Is it wise to allow the people writing them to create ones that remove individuals ability to vote them out of power?

That's the conundrum that I see with taking away in their right to vote.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Conversely, we can assume the counter argument, that politicians who write laws to allow prisoners to vote do so because those prisoners will most likely vote for them, which is to say, vote Democrat. Let's be real.
 
Surrealistik said:
Retaining 2nd amendment rights in jail is obviously not remotely comparable to retaining the right to vote.

Incarceration's impacts on rights should be at all times minimized and within the bounds of reason; not having access to guns in jail is clearly within the bounds of reason, whereas there isn't a particularly compelling case to deny inmates the right to vote.
Click to expand...
I think one could could reasonably argue that a blanket policy like this is cruel and unusual punishment.

Maybe there are times it's reasonable to remove a person's ability to vote but I'm that should be determined by a judge at sentencing and it must be included in the law that was violated.

There was a story here not too long ago about a guy being charged with a felony count of animal cruelty because he got evicted and left behind a fish in a fishtank. Should this guy be deprived of a say in our electoral system for this? Seems like a pretty steep penalty

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Airyaman said:
This is not a debate about the 2A, it's a debate about Constitutionally granted rights. Yes? No?
Click to expand...
No, it's about if you should be allowed to vote from jail

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Acadia said:
Conversely, we can assume the counter argument, that politicians who write laws to allow prisoners to vote do so because those prisoners will most likely vote for them, which is to say, vote Democrat. Let's be real.
Click to expand...
Well that's true. Politics can pander to them. Trump pandered to them with his reform bill. That's what politicians are suppose to do. They are suppose to represent the people that elected them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom