Bernie Sanders says felons, even Boston Marathon bomber, should have right to vote in prison

[Checkerboard Strangler]

If the law stated whipping was part of the debt owed to society for conviction of the crime committed, and whipping was eliminated, that would be a partial pardon of the debt owed to society.

Try inventing a more intelligent analogy.

Forget analogies, the 8A is not your friend on this issue.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Giving concivted criminals the right to vote seems to conflict with constitutional intent - specifically Section 2 of the 14A:



14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Since it took further constitutional amendment(s) to grant women the right to vote and to change the voting age from 21 to 18 then it should require constituional amendment to grant convicted criminals the right to vote.

Which is why it probably will never amount to a hill of beans, but Bernie is guilty of bad optics.
When the media asks a question like this, it's loaded. Far better to ask why the question is being posed in such a way. It will be interesting to see if other candidates are asked the same question.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Shame on him pandering to the bleeding hearts in the Dem base.

His proposal is a horrible insult to the families of murder victims.

Because the death penalty is, for all intents and purposes, abolished in this country, murderers get to live out their lives at the taxpayers' expense. Now the Senator wants them to be able to vote, too.


Has he no decency?

I suppose we Dems should all be thankful that you were able to "parse" that not ALL the Dem base was bleeding hearts, or was that a momentary slip up on your part?

 

[Craig234]

There are a lot of people who are so simplistic, that their opinion on criminal justice is practically, ANYTHING against a criminal is good, and ANYTHING benefiting them is bad.

They're ALWAYS for longer sentences, fewer rights, worse conditions, and so on. It's pathetic, ignorant, rather evil.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And in 1776 we fought a war in part because the crown arbitrarily decided that we didn’t get a say in how we are governed.

Generally speaking you need a good reason to take someone’s rights away. Taking away a felon’s 2A rights (at least while in prison) serves an obvious governmental interest. What interest is served here besides just wanting to kick people in the ass a little more?

The interest served is that of convicted felons, particularly violent ones, voting their interests, which could conceivably be in conflict with security, tranquility and the general welfare of free people.

 

[OscarLevant]

Bernie Sanders: Boston bomber, felons in prison deserve right to vote

What a disgrace. Senator Sanders looking out for the rights of terrorists, pedophiles, murderers, and the worst of worst in our society. These are monsters that are not redeemable in life. They will stay in prison for the rest of their lives. He should be ashamed of himself.

Bernie blew it on this one.

 

[ocean515]

Forget analogies, the 8A is not your friend on this issue.

LOL

Perhaps you could show some case law that establishes loss of voting rights is cruel and unusual punishment for convicted felons.

Feelings don't fly very well when it comes to crimes and penalties.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Try listening to him explain it.

I believe I have at this point. But even if he's making a salient point, one must bear in mind that the optics on something this may outweigh the technical merits, particularly when it is obvious that it might become an albatross or even a bludgeon.

Choose one's battles carefully. When I hear a question as odd as that one, especially being framed as it was, what with the Boston Marathon Bomber being mentioned, my first instinct would be to ask why anyone would pose a question like that in the first place. It's a fair question but it is one of state law, not federal, and therefore it is more appropriate to ask a gubernatorial candidate a question like that, and I would make that point in my response:

"At this point in time many states automatically restore a convicted criminal's voting rights upon release from prison, but if there are any former governors in the race, it might be interesting to hear their take on it.
As a Senator from Vermont, my state legislature saw fit to keep voting rights intact for these people but it is still a question for the states unless we are going to consider amending the Constitution."

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

LOL

Perhaps you could show some case law that establishes loss of voting rights is cruel and unusual punishment for convicted felons.

Feelings don't fly very well when it comes to crimes and penalties.

You brought up whipping. I said that the 8A may not be your friend on that one.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I'd like to think that we have perhaps elevated ourselves above the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but I can see where many Trump conservatives get a big thrill imagining criminals being flogged daily while incarcerated.
After all, your hero loves to incite violence even before a person is formally charged with any crimes to begin with, he sees himself and his thug supporters as a kind of vigilante crew of judge, jury and executioners and he also believes that he should be granted the right to overrule by decree on settled court cases where people are found innocent, like the Central Park Five.

 

[JackA]

A Bernrumpeter?

Voting is the first franchise you give up when you break the law.

Bernie is so off, my vote has gone to opposition (practically).

Society gains nothing by depriving felons of their state voting rights. But it probably does help someone in and after release from prison feel less like a citizen if you think that’s a good idea.

 

[Port & Starboard]

There are a lot of people who are so simplistic, that their opinion on criminal justice is practically, ANYTHING against a criminal is good, and ANYTHING benefiting them is bad.

They're ALWAYS for longer sentences, fewer rights, worse conditions, and so on. It's pathetic, ignorant, rather evil.

Democrats are not innocent for this situation either.

Bill Clinton ring a bell?

Of course, the idiot liberals will always deflect from this.

 

[ocean515]

You brought up whipping. I said that the 8A may not be your friend on that one.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I'd like to think that we have perhaps elevated ourselves above the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but I can see where many Trump conservatives get a big thrill imagining criminals being flogged daily while incarcerated.
After all, your hero loves to incite violence even before a person is formally charged with any crimes to begin with, he sees himself and his thug supporters as a kind of vigilante crew of judge, jury and executioners and he also believes that he should be granted the right to overrule by decree on settled court cases where people are found innocent, like the Central Park Five.

View attachment 67255676

So you have nothing but the usual Progressive memes.

BTW, I didn't bring up whipping. Craig234 did in Post 120.

Oooops. LOL.

Since the issue is allowing Felons still paying their debt to society to vote, I'll ask you again to show some case law that establishes loss of voting rights is cruel and unusual punishment for convicted felons.

 

[Gaius46]

The interest served is that of convicted felons, particularly violent ones, voting their interests, which could conceivably be in conflict with security, tranquility and the general welfare of free people.

That argument could be made about virtually any large block of similarly situated voters. You could make that argument about gumn rights advocates except you don’t have a convienent wedge with which to disenfranchise them.

People vote their interest. That’s life. The fact that you might not like their interest doesn’t give you the right to disenfranchise them.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That argument could be made about virtually any large block of similarly situated voters. You could make that argument about gumn rights advocates except you don’t have a convienent wedge with which to disenfranchise them.

People vote their interest. That’s life. The fact that you might not like their interest doesn’t give you the right to disenfranchise them.

I think you are missing my point. We're not just talking about POTUS or national issues. Voting also means voting at the local level, where a seemingly miniscule person or issue might suddenly have enormous impact.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So you have nothing but the usual Progressive memes.

BTW, I didn't bring up whipping. Craig234 did in Post 120.

Oooops. LOL.

Since the issue is allowing Felons still paying their debt to society to vote, I'll ask you again to show some case law that establishes loss of voting rights is cruel and unusual punishment for convicted felons.

You must be sleepy this morning because it appears that you don't remember responding to it.

ocean515 on "whipping"

If the law stated whipping was part of the debt owed to society for conviction of the crime committed, and whipping was eliminated, that would be a partial pardon of the debt owed to society.

Try inventing a more intelligent analogy.

 

[Vidi]

Bernie Sanders: Boston bomber, felons in prison deserve right to vote

What a disgrace. Senator Sanders looking out for the rights of terrorists, pedophiles, murderers, and the worst of worst in our society. These are monsters that are not redeemable in life. They will stay in prison for the rest of their lives. He should be ashamed of himself.

I do not agree with Bernie on this. I do not believe anyone should vote while inprison. Once out, however, yes, they paid their debt, they should have their voting rights restored.

But, if you think about it, if the worst of us are protected, then you know the best of us are protected as well.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So you have nothing but the usual Progressive memes.

BTW, I didn't bring up whipping. Craig234 did in Post 120.

Oooops. LOL.

Since the issue is allowing Felons still paying their debt to society to vote, I'll ask you again to show some case law that establishes loss of voting rights is cruel and unusual punishment for convicted felons.

All I can do is point to the various state laws on the matter of criminal voting rights and state laws regarding whipping, but were either tied together as a national issue affecting all states, such as some kind of federal standard, the 8A may conceivably be called into play, not to mention that, if any case regarding whipping goes to SCOTUS, they will rely UPON the 8A, or are you disputing such a likelihood?

 

[Gaius46]

I think you are missing my point. We're not just talking about POTUS or national issues. Voting also means voting at the local level, where a seemingly miniscule person or issue might suddenly have enormous impact.

Understood but it doesn’t change my position. Felons are still citizens and are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else. The only rights we restrict for them are those that we need to in order to effectively manage the prison system.

I don’t see how taking away their voting rights makes us more able to effectively manage our prisons.

If we want to take away voting rights as part of their punishment, something I don’t agree with, then we should at least be leaving that up to the people who impose sentences - judges.

Taking away someone’s voting rights, even a prisoners, because we might not like the way they vote, strikes me as very dangerous thinking.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Understood but it doesn’t change my position. Felons are still citizens and are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else. The only rights we restrict for them are those that we need to in order to effectively manage the prison system.

I don’t see how taking away their voting rights makes us more able to effectively manage our prisons.

If we want to take away voting rights as part of their punishment, something I don’t agree with, then we should at least be leaving that up to the people who impose sentences - judges.

Taking away someone’s voting rights, even a prisoners, because we might not like the way they vote, strikes me as very dangerous thinking.

I never said "because we do not like the way they vote", that is your interpretation, so you may take ownership of it.

Clearly states, all but two, have decided to restrict felon voting rights. One may query their reason individually or collectively.
I surmise that my mention of "conflict with security, tranquility and the general welfare" may very well figure in at state or local level in the thoughts of at least some who were given over to make a ruling on it.

And before you leap to distort, mutilate, spindle or otherwise bowdlerize or mishandle anything further, I do not claim to have inspired any legislators at the state level. I am saying that I suspect others smarter than myself may have also ruminated on thoughts of "security, tranquility and the general welfare".

You may well disagree with them, as is your right. Some state houses meet every year, some meet ever other year.
Get on an airplane and do a tour, as your beef is with them and not me.

But since my post carried the odor, I am tempted to believe you'll keep sniffing my work boots anyway, the way a dog does when the owner comes in from the fields.

 

[Gaius46]

I never said "because we do not like the way they vote", that is your interpretation, so you may take ownership of it.

Clearly states, all but two, have decided to restrict felon voting rights. One may query their reason individually or collectively.
I surmise that my mention of "conflict with security, tranquility and the general welfare" may very well figure in at state or local level in the thoughts of at least some who were given over to make a ruling on it.

And before you leap to distort, mutilate, spindle or otherwise bowdlerize or mishandle anything further, I do not claim to have inspired any legislators at the state level. I am saying that I suspect others smarter than myself may have also ruminated on thoughts of "security, tranquility and the general welfare".

You may well disagree with them, as is your right. Some state houses meet every year, some meet ever other year.
Get on an airplane and do a tour, as your beef is with them and not me.

But since my post carried the odor, I am tempted to believe you'll keep sniffing my work boots anyway, the way a dog does when the owner comes in from the fields.

How can you reasonably read

conflict with security, tranquility and the general welfare"

In any other way than as a statement that we don’t want them to vote because we may disagree with their voting choices?

I have no beef with you, nor do I desire to sniff your boots - ain’t my thing.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

How can you reasonably read

conflict with security, tranquility and the general welfare"

In any other way than as a statement that we don’t want them to vote because we may disagree with their voting choices?

I have no beef with you, nor do I desire to sniff your boots - ain’t my thing.

Very simple. In a very small town, a coterie of corrupt and criminal individuals may consist not only of the foot soldiers on the street but of the capos in the high houses, some of whom may be vying for elected positions of power.

An organized group of incarcerated felons could conceivably influence a small town election sufficiently to put such a capo in power. Bhagwan Shree Rashneesh actually tried this first with homeless people whom he had scooped up off the streets and brought to Rashneeshpuram, which he hoped to use in an effort to annex the nearby towns in Oregon, with the idea of taking those towns over via the extra "imported" votes.

Now extrapolate that to a local prison and the nearby town. The felons may have just elected the man who will see them freed, and if not freed, granted extraordinary powers in the system which incarcerates them.

When one organizes criminals, one has organized crime. See Colombia, Mexico, and other cartel influenced narco states.

 

[Gaius46]

Very simple. In a very small town, a coterie of corrupt and criminal individuals may consist not only of the foot soldiers on the street but of the capos in the high houses, some of whom may be vying for elected positions of power.

An organized group of incarcerated felons could conceivably influence a small town election sufficiently to put such a capo in power. Bhagwan Shree Rashneesh actually tried this first with homeless people whom he had scooped up off the streets and brought to Rashneeshpuram, which he hoped to use in an effort to annex the nearby towns in Oregon, with the idea of taking those towns over via the extra "imported" votes.

Now extrapolate that to a local prison and the nearby town. The felons may have just elected the man who will see them freed, and if not freed, granted extraordinary powers in the system which incarcerates them.

When one organizes criminals, one has organized crime. See Colombia, Mexico, and other cartel influenced narco states.

In Vermont felons vote, via absentee ballot, in the towns they legally resided in when convicted, not the town where the prison is located. That would seem to address that issue.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In Vermont felons vote, via absentee ballot, in the towns they legally resided in when convicted, not the town where the prison is located. That would seem to address that issue.

I illustrated a hypothetical scenario where unintended consequences may have realistically moved state legislators to consider the concept of incarcerated felon voting to be a possible path to some rather unpleasant results. We're going to have to agree to disagree but again, your beef is primarily with state lawmakers and I again harken back to how I think Sanders might have better addressed such a loaded question.

And I do say "loaded" because this is clearly a state issue, that is, an issue decided by the various states all along, so the question, when put to a POTUS candidate, begs to know if that POTUS candidate either believes it is a constitutional amendment question, or is the candidate laboring under the impression that a POTUS has the power to summarily dismiss such state laws merely by his decree.

Therefore, it is not a serious question to ask of a POTUS candidate.
If asked of a gubernatorial candidate, it would indeed be a serious question.
Bernie's not running for Governor.

 

[Gaius46]

I illustrated a hypothetical scenario where unintended consequences may have realistically moved state legislators to consider the concept of incarcerated felon voting to be a possible path to some rather unpleasant results. We're going to have to agree to disagree but again, your beef is primarily with state lawmakers and I again harken back to how I think Sanders might have better addressed such a loaded question.

And I do say "loaded" because this is clearly a state issue, that is, an issue decided by the various states all along, so the question, when put to a POTUS candidate, begs to know if that POTUS candidate either believes it is a constitutional amendment question, or is the candidate laboring under the impression that a POTUS has the power to summarily dismiss such state laws merely by his decree.

Therefore, it is not a serious question to ask of a POTUS candidate.
If asked of a gubernatorial candidate, it would indeed be a serious question.
Bernie's not running for Governor.

Agree to disagree. I do think it’s a legit question to ask a potential POTUS since the Feds haven’t been shy about legislating voting rights in the past. Not that I’m saying they necessarily should but I do think it’s not purely academic from the federal standpoint.

 

[JustHanging]

The rational reason is breaking laws come with consequences. Among them are temporary suspension of certain rights. There actions have resulted in them being removed from society.

So far so good.

Voting has far reaching consequences on the society they have been determined unable to be a part of. I have seen no rational reason why they should be allowed to proticipate in the society they have been removed from.

You're the one who has made the assertion that society should take away their right to vote, so "I have seen no rational reason why they should be allowed to proticipate (vote) in the society they have been removed from. " isn't an acceptable answer.

You're the one who wants to take away a right, so you're the one who needs to provide rational reasons for doing so. So far you have not done that.