Why do some try so hard to keep people from voiting?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10059491.htm

I don't understand what committing a crime has to do with your voting rights. If you serve your sentence, you should have be able to vote immediately, not wait years and years (and often then denied, thanks to constantly shifting rules). That article above makes me angry that any government would go to such lengths to keep people from voting, and makes me sorry I voted for Jeb Bush. The net effect is that minorities especially are disproprortionately affected by this, since statistically they are far more likely to be convicted of the same offense than their white counterpart, for a variety of reasons. Less people voting in a Democracy cannot be a good thing.

There have always been sects of the American society denied voting privelages. First non-whites and women and now criminals. Most of the people who fall into this category are non violent criminals with drug charges or as in this case a felony theft to support a family. Yet another way to form some sort of caste system in America. America does not forgive. America does not allow you to change. America believes once a criminal always a criminal. Though in the mind of its people these mantras may not hold true, in the mind of the political machine the evidence speaks for itself.

This is extremely shocking to me. As far as our government is concerned, all portuguese citizens are created equal, no matter how long they have been in this country or how many little old ladies they tortured to death. Once you're out of prison, you have paid your debt to society and deserve a second chance with the same rights as everyone else.

I only wish that were true here, Eggy. I know of girls who were given felony sex offender charges, incarcerated, released and now cannot vote. They were strippers charged with indecent exposure and felony lude and lascivious under a now abolished SOB law.

This is not a Democracy. This is a Republic.

Remember that during the 2000 Supreme Court ruling when asked about the 85,000 absentee ballot that may not be counted, Justice Scalia clearly pointed out the the Constitution doesn't guarantee any citizen the right to vote for President. That job is reserved for the electors.

And the situation in Florida was very nearly worse.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml

If it weren't for the press, a lot of people with no felony convictions at all would have been excluded from voting.

What I find most frustrating about that article is that one person, Jeb Bush, gets to determine whether tens of thousands of people get their voting rights back or not. Although it is a panel of four (all Republican, it should be bipartisan) people, a negative vote from him overrides any other vote. I know lpeople who made mistakes when they were young - drug use, non violent crimes (ie.. bad checks), even someone who is now a registered sex offender because he was 18 and had sex with his 16 year old (he is 1.5 years older) girlfriend, and the parents found out and prosecuted. Most of them still cannot vote, even after serving whatever sentence they received. What a strange society we live in.

Contrary to what Eggy implied in his post, in most states (if not all) in the U.S., loss of voting rights, loss of 2nd amendment rights, and similar are part of the PUNISHMENT for being convicted of a felony.

My suggestion would be to not break the law in the first place, but heaven forbid we in the U.S. ever expect anyone to take responsibility for their own actions and live with the consequences.

Being gay used to make you lose your voting rights in several states until the Supreme Count finally overturned Crimes Against Nature laws (which were felonies, having sex with somebody of the same sex).

You mean like in '00. Good thing the press was there.

Not allowing felons to vote means that they will have less stake in the society into which they have been released and less motivation to live within it's laws. Carrying a criminal record is difficult enough as it severely limits a felon's legitimate job options, not being allowed a say in the future of their country, however small, further ostrasizes felons. It seems to me that removing someone's rights as a citizen also removes their responsibilities.

The supreme court of Canada agrees:

With respect to the first objective of promoting civic responsibility and respect for the law, denying penitentiary inmates the right to vote is more likely to send messages that undermine respect for the law and democracy than messages that enhance those values. The legitimacy of the law and the obligation to obey the law flow directly from the right of every citizen to vote. To deny prisoners the right to vote is to lose an important means of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility….

With respect to the second objective of imposing appropriate punishment, the government offered no credible theory about why it should be allowed to deny a fundamental democratic right as a form of state punishment. Denying the right to vote does not comply with the requirements for legitimate punishment -- namely, that punishment must not be arbitrary and must serve a valid criminal law purpose.

http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/HasenFelonDisenfranchisementPaper.pdf

Grim,

I believe most people realize that this is part of the punishment. But, that does not make it right. Part of what makes this country great is the fact that the citizens have (had) the right to change the laws and the punishments rendered when a law is broken. I do not see how denying a person their voice in society can be used to effect change and rehabilitate a criminal. These sort of life long punishments make former offenders feel alienated and without hope of leading a normal life. Many people are arrested and convicted for non-violent crimes, many are arrested on false or incorrect charges. They are usually the ones who cannot afford the same legal representation as the Bush's of the world. Letting someone out of prison and then telling them that they will forever be counted as less than a citizen is criminal in and of itself.

Shoulda read the post above me before responding I suppose...lol...we must have been typing at the same time.

The whole "Rehabilitation" system is borked.

So true...it is not about rehab it is about storing and controling. That is the main issue that I have with the penal system in the US. There is no idea of rehab or even re-emergance into society. There is only the system and once you are in it there is no getting out. Not letting felons vote proves that scenerio.

I'll just delete what i said here lol. Wasn't pretty.

If all criminals that have served their sentence should have 100% equal rights, should people convicted of gun crime have the right to purchase a gun after they get out of prison?

Currently it takes them a minimum of 8 years or so to gain that right back.


Should child molestors be allowed to keep their past private and get a job as a scout leader or school teacher?


When you commit a serious crime you give up your rights for a long while.

Somehow I am missing the buying a gun and voting equation...anyone wish to enlighten me.

So Sex offenders cannot vote because they cannot teach?

Maybe I am missing the logic...but you are really pushing against the minority of felonies in the US...as the majority of those convicted of felonies are non violent.

I really do not see how putting a sex offender in a school and letting someone convicted of a felony vote are equal or even on the same page...but please do go on.

It's about rights, Ishtar, and whether a convicted felon should get all of their rights back when they're released. If you're gonna give them back the right to vote, then what's the argument for refusing them the right to bear arms?

Do you really, honestly not see any problem with burglars, armed robbers, murderers, rapists, molesters, etc having input into the decision of who is legislating the law? :boggle:

Word! Why should we let criminals get involved in the affairs of our country, that's why we have politicians....no, wait a second....um...Doh! *Homer flinch*

The hard part would be seperating out which criminals would actually have the good of the country in mind and which are just sorry ass criminals and dont need to have a say.

Why should someone who makes a living of stealing be allowed to vote? Are they going to vote to get rid of things that impede their business?

What about criminally insane or sex offenders. Maybe groups members of NAMBLA need to have more say in the governement.

As a repeat victim of crime I must say that I dont believe these people need to be voting, they dont have their heads on straight.

Now, for me there are some greay areas like drug offenders, that I could be if I was ever caught, not getting say even though they committed no crime other than polluting their own bodies. This is a bit of a complicated issue though, because some drug offenders are also other types of criminals, like murderers and theives.

I believe more or less what Cris is getting at is that the court system, being racially bias, is convicting more minorities, whom are being targeted and are more prone to commit crimes based on thier economic situation, and then not allowing them to vote is further limiting thier ability to voice an opinion on the what the government deams are appropriate laws and whatnot. This is a systematic aproach to keep the economicly deprived, mostly minorities in thier current situstion or worse and allow those of higher up class system to basically rule the rest of us.

It is a big leap to go to a 100% equal rights argument. The question is why can they not vote? Your argument is about things that pertained to their crime. I think the only one who should not be able to vote would be those convicted of vote fraud It is an odd thing to take away, and Florida seems unusually harsh in this regard. Prevent them from holding office, fine, but to prevent them from voting? Why not prevent them from marrying, having a job, or even renting or owning a home, if you are going to carry it to a ridiculous extreme. The point is voting has NOTHING to do with the commission of a crime.