RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes

RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 5:22:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 It would be draconian if voting rights were permanently taken away but this isn't the case. Isn't that how the three strikes and you're out business works, though? There's a pretty big chunk of the American prison population who are only ever going to leave in a box. I'm not a great believer in the three strikes system. So it seems more apt to get rid of it rather than use the fact it adds significant numbers to the prison population to justify voting rights for prisoners. I'd go along with that. I was just observing that in a fair few cases voting rights are being permanently removed as the convicts are never going to be released.

eyesopened -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 5:47:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 It would be draconian if voting rights were permanently taken away but this isn't the case. Isn't that how the three strikes and you're out business works, though? There's a pretty big chunk of the American prison population who are only ever going to leave in a box. Oh shit that only gave them like what? *two* chances to quit being a criminal? How many chances should they have gotten to figure out they just aren't good at crime? Maybe once we give prisoners the right to vote they can get rid of that pesky little three strikes rule. And the use a gun go to jail thingy too. And heck, while we're at it, why even imprison citizens in the first place? I'm sure if you ask them, every one had a very legitimate reason for doing what they did. Or if you ask them, they were probably all wrongly convicted in the first place.

eyesopened -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 6:08:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Voting is the most basic right ? What, more basic than not being murdered by some thug ? To suggest people who would deny criminals the right to vote, and next the Jews, is beyond obnoxious to my way of thinking. Its quite simple, and I dont see why you cant see it either, if you want to take part of society, take part in all of it, including the law. As has been pointed out previously 70% of the people in prison are there on drug related charges...not rape, pillage,murder or plunder. What kind of logic says that you are no longer competent to vote because you got caught smoking marijuana? HST. HST Oh, if only the competent were allowed to vote! What a wonderful world this would be.

Moonhead -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 9:03:45 AM)
Most elitists hold out for voting being limited to the deeply superior* rather than the merely competent, I've noticed. You're setting your sights too low. *("Ubermensch" in German)

philosophy -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 1:49:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Oh, if only the competent were allowed to vote! What a wonderful world this would be. ...er.....so why not bring back a land ownership requirement before being alloowed to vote? Or why not restrict voting to those people who have served in the military? Hell, why not just do away with voting altogether and just set up a committee of competent people to decide who works where? Seriously......the point about democracry......the really important point....is that it allows everyone to be a stake holder. Preventing people having a stake in society is not a good idea.

NorthernGent -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 2:16:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Seriously......the point about democracry......the really important point....is that it allows everyone to be a stake holder. Preventing people having a stake in society is not a good idea. Yes in theory..... But in practice...... Democracy hasn't achieved the desired results. 1) 50% of people voted in the last general election - far less in local elections. Hardly the population exercising a collective stake in the nation. 2) Of the 50% a fair sized chunk don't have much of a clue - the majority of people in this country play and watch sports/go to bars/go shopping and are woefully lacking in political acumen. If anything universal enfranchisement has led to complacency and furnished the establishment with a docile population. Today's media is the 19th century standing army/police force. The unitended consequence of democracy of course is that people are looking around for something to believe in/a common cause - which could be dangerous given certain circumstances.

Icarys -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 2:18:17 PM)
I'm just curious what the reasoning would be behind taking away the right to vote anyway. Is it suppose to be a deterrent? How long does it last and should it last. I think it's just another way to keep a person down after they have paid their so called debt to society. Taking away guns for certain crimes I could understand but the right to vote? We wouldn't want them to feel like a part of society though because all of them have committed crimes and are certainly never going to stop. Might as well feel safe and protect ourselves.

Icarys -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 2:20:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Seriously......the point about democracry......the really important point....is that it allows everyone to be a stake holder. Preventing people having a stake in society is not a good idea. Yes in theory..... But in practice...... Democracy hasn't achieved the desired results. 1) 50% of people voted in the last general election - far less in local elections. Hardly the population exercising a collective stake in the nation. 2) Of the 50% a fair sized chunk don't have much of a clue - the majority of people in this country play and watch sports/go to bars/go shopping and are woefully lacking in political acumen. If anything universal enfranchisement has led to complacency and furnished the establishment with a docile population. Today's media is the 19th century standing army/police force. The unitended consequence of democracy of course is that people are looking around for something to believe in/a common cause - which could be dangerous given certain circumstances. Just because you don't choose to exercise a right doesn't mean we should take any away. That's another beautiful part of democracy and free choice. Another choice being not to participate if you don't want to.

nighthawk3569 -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 3:53:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus If you are convicted of a felony you lose certain rights. Some of them are returned after incarceration/supervision (voting) and some are not (firearms ownership). I think the system is fine the way it is. I agree with this...the system is fine, just as it is. However, all this is part of a bigger plan. First, they get their 'right to vote, even while in prison' restored. Then, they get their 'right to own firearms, after prison' restored. Finally, they get their 'right to own firearms, even while in prison' established. There's no end to it, once it starts. 'hawk Remember what Barney Phyfe said "Nip it. Nip it in the bud!!!"

cadenas -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 4:02:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Very interesting topic actually. While I have read the Constitution, I can't remember everything. I am unsure of it's position on this, mainly because their definition of a felony, or high crime differs than today. I think things were a bit more defined back then, when a crime actually meant creating a victim. I can take countless scenarios, but I'll just pick one or two for brevity's sake. \ The Constitution actually says very little about voting rights in the first place (a few Amendments do say something about voting). In fact, according to the US Constitution, Senators weren't supposed to be elected at all but rather appointed by the states. Representatives were supposed to be elected, but I don't think the Constitution spells that out. In practical terms, originally it was only wealthy male white landowners who could vote.

kittinSol -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 4:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas In practical terms, originally it was only wealthy male white landowners who could vote. And so it should be, goddammit! Get the lowlives out of the voting booths!

cadenas -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 4:07:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Personally I think if you break the rules of society you shouldn't be given a say as to how society progresses. It would be draconian if voting rights were permanently taken away but this isn't the case. Actually, in most states the right to vote is indeed taken away after release, and in quite a few states for life. That issue played a major role during the "hanging chad" issues in the 2004 Presidential election in Florida (Florida bans felons from voting for life). One of the dirty tricks was to "mistakenly" put Democratic voter onto the felony list to prevent them from voting.

cadenas -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/13/2010 4:33:52 PM)
There is another more subtle, yet far more important, issue, and it has nothing to do with prisoner's rights. Prisoners are already counted in the census. Representation in Congress is based on the census. So tiny towns with huge prisons often get their own Representatives, who can then push through porkbarrel spending for an inordinately small population. In one extreme case in Iowa, somebody was voted into the city council with only two votes (one of them his wife) because the remaining 1300 "residents" of his district are prisoners.

eyesopened -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/14/2010 4:36:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Oh, if only the competent were allowed to vote! What a wonderful world this would be. ...er.....so why not bring back a land ownership requirement before being alloowed to vote? Or why not restrict voting to those people who have served in the military? Hell, why not just do away with voting altogether and just set up a committee of competent people to decide who works where? Seriously......the point about democracry......the really important point....is that it allows everyone to be a stake holder. Preventing people having a stake in society is not a good idea. I was responding to Thompsonx who said: ORIGINAL: thompsonx As has been pointed out previously 70% of the people in prison are there on drug related charges...not rape, pillage,murder or plunder. What kind of logic says that you are no longer competent to vote because you got caught smoking marijuana? HST. So I was being sarcastic to the idea that people have the right to vote based on competency. If that were the case about 99% of the stoners I know who are not in jail wouldn't be able to vote either. Voting is denied to prisoners because they made the choice to live outside a society of laws. By making that choice they freely gave up their rights under those laws. You don't think smoking pot should be illegal, then do all you can to change those laws. I happen to be one who thinks it silly for marijuana to be illegal. But I don't smoke because it is illegal. You don't want to lose your right to liberty then don't commit crimes. It's a pretty simple system.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/14/2010 7:42:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Actually, in most states the right to vote is indeed taken away after release, and in quite a few states for life. That issue played a major role during the "hanging chad" issues in the 2004 Presidential election in Florida (Florida bans felons from voting for life). One of the dirty tricks was to "mistakenly" put Democratic voter onto the felony list to prevent them from voting. Well that's obviously quite wrong if so and not recognising the rehabilitation aspect that imprisonment for crimes is aimed at achieving. I have to confess I didn’t know the US was so backwards in this respect.

thompsonx -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/14/2010 7:52:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569 quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus If you are convicted of a felony you lose certain rights. Some of them are returned after incarceration/supervision (voting) and some are not (firearms ownership). I think the system is fine the way it is. I agree with this...the system is fine, just as it is. However, all this is part of a bigger plan. First, they get their 'right to vote, even while in prison' restored. Then, they get their 'right to own firearms, after prison' restored. Finally, they get their 'right to own firearms, even while in prison' established. There's no end to it, once it starts. 'hawk Remember what Barney Phyfe said "Nip it. Nip it in the bud!!!" You are the only person in my life who has ever listed Barney Phyfe as a source of ntellectual supremacy...which speaks directly to your credibility. HST.

NorthernGent -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/14/2010 1:21:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Seriously......the point about democracry......the really important point....is that it allows everyone to be a stake holder. Preventing people having a stake in society is not a good idea. Yes in theory..... But in practice...... Democracy hasn't achieved the desired results. 1) 50% of people voted in the last general election - far less in local elections. Hardly the population exercising a collective stake in the nation. 2) Of the 50% a fair sized chunk don't have much of a clue - the majority of people in this country play and watch sports/go to bars/go shopping and are woefully lacking in political acumen. If anything universal enfranchisement has led to complacency and furnished the establishment with a docile population. Today's media is the 19th century standing army/police force. The unitended consequence of democracy of course is that people are looking around for something to believe in/a common cause - which could be dangerous given certain circumstances. Just because you don't choose to exercise a right doesn't mean we should take any away. That's another beautiful part of democracy and free choice. Another choice being not to participate if you don't want to. Democracy evolved from an uneven distribution of power and wealth. It was always envisaged that people would exercise their power (that is the whole pointof democracy). Choosing to be passive and effectively disenfranchising yourself is not democracy.

mnottertail -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/14/2010 1:26:19 PM)
I wonder if the right to vote will be achieved in time to vote for the legalization of marihuana? Seems like a good voting block, there. BobMArleyMaster

thompsonx -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/14/2010 1:45:56 PM)
quote: I was responding to Thompsonx who said: ORIGINAL: thompsonx As has been pointed out previously 70% of the people in prison are there on drug related charges...not rape, pillage,murder or plunder. What kind of logic says that you are no longer competent to vote because you got caught smoking marijuana? HST. So I was being sarcastic to the idea that people have the right to vote based on competency. If that were the case about 99% of the stoners I know who are not in jail wouldn't be able to vote either. Voting is denied to prisoners because they made the choice to live outside a society of laws. By making that choice they freely gave up their rights under those laws. You don't think smoking pot should be illegal, then do all you can to change those laws. I happen to be one who thinks it silly for marijuana to be illegal. But I don't smoke because it is illegal. You don't want to lose your right to liberty then don't commit crimes. It's a pretty simple system. There are competency requirements for voting in the U.S. HST.

Icarys -> RE: Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes (1/14/2010 4:17:35 PM)
quote: Democracy evolved from an uneven distribution of power and wealth. It was always envisaged that people would exercise their power (that is the whole pointof democracy). Choosing to be passive and effectively disenfranchising yourself is not democracy. Freedom of choice is a part of my democracy. You make a good point but that in no way translates to take it away if you don't use it. My ideal democacy is the protection from persecution and the protection of the rights that we all as humans have or in my book deserve. I could understand as I said before if someone was violent or had a history of continuous crimes... taking away some of those right would be acceptable even then it makes absolutely no sense why they would take voting away. Even some of the rights that were taken away in my eyes should return once the debt to society is paid. I believe unfortunately so that our society as a whole doesn't believe your debt is done once your sentence is completed.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625