• 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 ex felons have the right to vote?

Should ex-felons have the right to vote?

  • yes

    Votes: 50 84.7%

  • no

    Votes: 6 10.2%

  • not sure

    Votes: 3 5.1%
  • Total voters
    59
Masterhawk said:
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
Click to expand...

Yes, they should be allowed to vote. Where does it say in the Constitution they can't? Even when incarcerated?
 
Masterhawk said:
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
Click to expand...

If one of the penalties for conviction of a felony is loss of voting rights, it is wrong to claim a felon has finished paying their debt to society for their actions when they have finished their sentences and parole.

Perhaps the correct way to address the voting issue is to either reconsider what constitutes a felony, or to identify which felonies should not include loss of voting rights once the other parts of their sentence have been completed.
 
ocean515 said:
If one of the penalties for conviction of a felony is loss of voting rights, it is wrong to claim a felon has finished paying their debt to society for their actions when they have finished their sentences and parole.

Perhaps the correct way to address the voting issue is to either reconsider what constitutes a felony, or to identify which felonies should not include loss of voting rights once the other parts of their sentence have been completed.
Click to expand...
A law could be passed to ban the inclusion of anything affecting voting rights into a sentence, so the topic is still legit for discussion.
 
radcen said:
A law could be passed to ban the inclusion of anything affecting voting rights into a sentence, so the topic is still legit for discussion.
Click to expand...

That is what I suggested.

However, the argument on this issue typically includes a statement that the felon has paid their debt to society, but still doesn't have the right to vote. The loss of the right to vote is part of that debt, so it's not accurate to claim they have finished paying it.

Once that can be honestly admitted to, the debate can center on whether a debt that includes loss of voting rights is too high, or whether it applies to a far too broad category of offences.
 
joG said:
We allowed Teddy Kennedy to be Senstor for the ret of his life.....
Click to expand...

True. But the rich and powerful are above the law. We still have a caste system to some degree in this country. The bias corruption of our judicial system is beyond pathetic but acceptable to those who it benefits.

The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor in this country is having a good lawyer (oh and most important never own up to your guilt or cooperate with authorities), as well as having friends and family in high places that can call in favors.
 
ocean515 said:
That is what I suggested.

However, the argument on this issue typically includes a statement that the felon has paid their debt to society, but still doesn't have the right to vote. The loss of the right to vote is part of that debt, so it's not accurate to claim they have finished paying it.

Once that can be honestly admitted to, the debate can center on whether a debt that includes loss of voting rights is too high, or whether it applies to a far too broad category of offences.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

My fear, should popular opinion ever sway lawmakers in this direction, is that judges would then start adding draconian fines to sentences that the vast majority of felons would never be able to pay, thus meaning the sentence is never truly "paid". They could be let out of prison at x-time, but they'd still have fines owed. We (lawmakers included) can never seem to leave things at face value, we have to find a way around the intent of something.
 
Of course. I don't know why anyone would say otherwise.
 
Ikari said:
Once all punishment has been completed, the full of a citizen's rights should be recognized once more.
Click to expand...

I agree.
The problem is we do not want to rehabilitate and bring people back into society. We are very vengeful people who enjoy stepping on and trampling those beneath us. Vengeance and retaliation are more important then rehabilitation and helping people to reenter society as productive member. Hopefully in another million years we will evolve into a species that forgives and works towards helping our fellow man. Hopefully we will evolve away from punishing those that make mistakes into helping them overcome their problem.

Spanking a child for bed wetting used to be acceptable even when I was a child. We are getting there just too slowly.
 
radcen said:
Fair enough.

My fear, should popular opinion ever sway lawmakers in this direction, is that judges would then start adding draconian fines to sentences that the vast majority of felons would never be able to pay, thus meaning the sentence is never truly "paid". They could be let out of prison at x-time, but they'd still have fines owed. We (lawmakers included) can never seem to leave things at face value, we have to find a way around the intent of something.
Click to expand...

I guess that is why they have, if I recall correctly, various categories of felonies.

The other thing is, if a felony involved money (drugs, etc.) the IRS is always there to apply unreported income standards and to levy tax/fines for failure to report the income. A person could serve time, and then upon release, the taxes, penalties, and accrued interest will be waiting, never to go away.

Sometimes those fines take many forms.

All the more reason to avoid qualifying for them in the first place.
 
Masterhawk said:
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
Click to expand...

I vote not sure. In theory at least, the punishment is expected to be both a deterrent and an example for other persons contemplating a similar act. In practice it is neither.

In the end for most people it comes down to which person and what crime. For many, possession of certain drugs is the real argument, forgetting that child molestation also fits the felon category.
 
ocean515 said:
I guess that is why they have, if I recall correctly, various categories of felonies.

The other thing is, if a felony involved money (drugs, etc.) the IRS is always there to apply unreported income standards and to levy tax/fines for failure to report the income. A person could serve time, and then upon release, the taxes, penalties, and accrued interest will be waiting, never to go away.

Sometimes those fines take many forms.

All the more reason to avoid qualifying for them in the first place.
Click to expand...
I have never understood how illegally-earned money can be legally taxable. In my mind the government's expectation of taxes legitimizes the illegal activity.

Actually, to me, this is a perfect example of a government "end-run".
 
radcen said:
I have never understood how illegally-earned money can be legally taxable. In my mind the government's expectation of taxes legitimizes the illegal activity.

Actually, to me, this is a perfect example of a government "end-run".
Click to expand...

No question. I remember watching a news report on a raid on a drug dealer, and I saw a guy in the background with a jacket on with IRS, or something like that, printed on the back. It dawned on me the unreported income would be of interest. The IRS doesn't have jurisdiction on legality of income, just the reporting of it.

As they say, death and taxes....
 
Masterhawk said:
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
Click to expand...

Of course. Once time is served, they should have all rights restored. I'd even give them back gun rights, with one exception: someone convicted of a violent gun crime. Those people proved they cannot be trusted with a gun. But, no one proves they cannot be trusted to vote.

Hell, if we used trust as a voting criteria, all the Trump voters would be banned for life :) j/k
 
In response to the poll: "Should ex-felons be allowed to vote?" My answer is yes. If former criminals have paid their debt to Society, why not? If they have served their time, then they don't owe us anything and the slate is wiped clean... discrimination should not be allowed to play a role.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Of course they should. They paid for their crimes.

It's this irrational drive to keep them under a permanent stigma that causes recidivism.

They should be granted full rights once they have fully completed their criminal sentence.
Click to expand...

Thats all it takes to stop recidivism? Just allow them a vote and drugs, lifestyle, gangs and psychological and emotional issues are no longer obstacles?
 
There should be some form of established standard and they should be able to petition the courts for the reinstatement of their rights. All of them. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.
 
Josie said:
Of course. I don't know why anyone would say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Well...SOCIETY would and has said that there are certain rights you forfeit when you willfully commit a felony. That HAS been the standard for pretty much...ever.
 
VanceMack said:
There should be some form of established standard and they should be able to petition the courts for the reinstatement of their rights. All of them. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.
Click to expand...

IMO, they should not even be required to petition. It should be a right that is automatically returned to them once they complete all sentencing obligations. But, like I said, I would make one exception: people convicted of gun crimes should never again be allowed to legally own a gun. Maybe, we can just add that lifetime ban directly to their sentence agreement.
 
VanceMack said:
There should be some form of established standard and they should be able to petition the courts for the reinstatement of their rights. All of them. The right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.
Click to expand...

I think it should be the other way around. If the government wants to continue punishment, they should be the ones to petition for the extension of force.
 
Masterhawk said:
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
Click to expand...

Taking away voting rights shouldnt be taken lightly. We should all fear that the government has the power to remove Constitutional rights. The right to vote, the right to bear arms (etc) should not be violable by our government. Yes I know some people say that voting is not a right, but what good is our Constitution if the government can dictate who can vote? Some States dictate that felons cannot vote. There is no federal law regarding voting rights of convicted felons. This is just another example of States trampling Americans rights.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Taking away voting rights shouldnt be taken lightly. We should all fear that the government has the power to remove Constitutional rights. The right to vote, the right to bear arms (etc) should not be violable by our government. Yes I know some people say that voting is not a right, but what good is our Constitution if the government can dictate who can vote? Some States dictate that felons cannot vote. There is no federal law regarding voting rights of convicted felons. This is just another example of States trampling Americans rights.
Click to expand...

In a similar vein I don't think it's right for the government to require the forfeiture of a right in order to obtain a privilege. Requiring the forfeiture of 4th/5th Amendment rights to get a driver's license, for example.
 
Ikari said:
I think it should be the other way around. If the government wants to continue punishment, they should be the ones to petition for the extension of force.
Click to expand...
When one has had their license revoked they have to go through the process of taking the written test and driving test as well as show compliance with judgements that caused them to loose their license in the first place. I dont think it is unreasonable to expect a felon to demonstrate to show cause for the reinstatement of their rights.
 
VanceMack said:
When one has had their license revoked they have to go through the process of taking the written test and driving test as well as show compliance with judgements that caused them to loose their license in the first place. I dont think it is unreasonable to expect a felon to demonstrate to show cause for the reinstatement of their rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but for rights (rather than license) I think it's the State that must make its case for continued force. This is due to my personal opinion that upon completion of punishment, rights should automatically be recognized again.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, but for rights (rather than license) I think it's the State that must make its case for continued force. This is due to my personal opinion that upon completion of punishment, rights should automatically be recognized again.
Click to expand...
Thats OK. We just disagree with procedure...not in the restoration of the rights. Im not comfortable with the blanket restoration of rights. Im not comfortable with automatically restoring the rights of a felon to keep and bear arms. Id like some sort of show of good faith.
 
Masterhawk said:
I'm not talking about inmates, parolees, or even probationers. I'm talking about people who have been convicted of a felony and have finished their sentences and any parole or probation.
Click to expand...

Right now it is left to the states. I am satisfied with that. I don't think we need a national policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom