Ex-convicts should be allowed to vote

[Corki]

Being hostile to one religion is not the same as being hostile to religion or to religious expression.

The US was founded primarily by Protestants. It was illegal to practice Catholicism in most of the colonies. The religious freedom granted in the Constitution was a huge deal in that time. It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

 

[nodito]

On another note, most victims want to prevent anyone else from suffering as they did. Making ex-convicts and parolees second-class citizens greatly increases recidivism.

BornInMarch, is there evidence to suggest that restoring voting rights reduces recidivism rates? I’ve never seen anything about that.

I disagree that with your premise that revoking voting rights is “cruel and unusual”; it strikes me as neither. Ex-cons are able to address grievances with fellow neighbors and the government the same way as everyone else - using the court systems. I also don’t buy the argument that voting is an inalienable right. I agree that it’s a right of being an American citizen in good standing, but I have no problem denying this right to non-citizens or those who revoke their citizenship (whereas I would absolutely agree that these classes of people do not lose other inalienable rights, such like freedom of religion, freedom to form a family and bear children, etc).

Like renouncing one’s citizenship, committing a crime is a deliberate choice with known consequences. The criminal should realize that some of these consequences are permanent. They may lose a certain number of years of liberty. They may be fined and permanently lose their property. They may experience lifelong guilt. And they lose a privilege/right that is reserved for all Americans who do not commit crimes.

We have a flawed judicial system, an economic system that seems to favor certain classes of people, and an embarrassingly high proportion of our population in prison. I agree that we need to examine why this is and how we can improve our society so that we don’t discriminate unfairly against people who should never be convicted. I don’t see restoring voting rights as an essential component of this analysis.

 

[BornInMarch]

In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 (*Richard Sauvé v The Attorney General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the Solicitor General of Canada; Sheldon McCorrister, Chairman, Lloyd Knezacek, Vice Chairman, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Stony Mountain Institution Inmate Welfare Committee, and Clair Woodhouse, Chairman, Aaron Spence, Vice Chairman, and Serge Bélanger, Emile A. Bear and Randy Opoonechaw v. The Attorney General of Canada) *that denying prisoners the right to vote was unconstitutional.

Polling stations are set up in prisons.

Treatment of prisoners is yet another thing America has fallen behind of the International Community on.

Kudos to Canada for knowing what “unalienable rights” are.

 

[BornInMarch]

BornInMarch, is there evidence to suggest that restoring voting rights reduces recidivism rates? I’ve never seen anything about that.

I disagree that with your premise that revoking voting rights is “cruel and unusual”; it strikes me as neither. Ex-cons are able to address grievances with fellow neighbors and the government the same way as everyone else - using the court systems. I also don’t buy the argument that voting is an inalienable right. I agree that it’s a right of being an American citizen in good standing, but I have no problem denying this right to non-citizens or those who revoke their citizenship (whereas I would absolutely agree that these classes of people do not lose other inalienable rights, such like freedom of religion, freedom to form a family and bear children, etc).

Like renouncing one’s citizenship, committing a crime is a deliberate choice with known consequences. The criminal should realize that some of these consequences are permanent. They may lose a certain number of years of liberty. They may be fined and permanently lose their property. They may experience lifelong guilt. And they lose a privilege/right that is reserved for all Americans who do not commit crimes.

We have a flawed judicial system, an economic system that seems to favor certain classes of people, and an embarrassingly high proportion of our population in prison. I agree that we need to examine why this is and how we can improve our society so that we don’t discriminate unfairly against people who should never be convicted. I don’t see restoring voting rights as an essential component of this analysis.

If the punishment for a crime is permanent, then rehabilitating the offender becomes impossible.

If Prisoners were allowed to vote, then politicians would no longer kick them around so as to look better (“I made it so an eighteen year old caught possessing a certain drug will get locked up until he’s at retirement age. Vote for me because I’m hard on time”).
Ex-convicts would be able to take part in the political system, and would be able to demand changes to fix the broken prison system. Did a presidential candidate promise to abolish the death penalty? An enfranchised ex-convict can do more to support him than cross his fingers and hope for the best. Want to pass a measure to increase spending on prison medical care? Now you can gather votes for it from people who know first-hand how awful it is.
Voting gives ex-convicts a tool with which to make it so people like them have realistic opportunities to take up honest trades, as well as investment in the system (you’re less likely to lash out against a system you’re invested in).

The fact is that if you treat ex-convicts as animals, then don’t be surprised when they act like animals.

 

[nodito]

If the punishment for a crime is permanent, then rehabilitating the offender becomes impossible.

You can call it a punishment. I’d argue it’s a consequence. Either way, permanent consequences don’t preclude rehabilitation. How could they? Lots of our decisions have permanent consequences and yet don’t determine how well we can function in the future or how productive we can be in the future.

BornInMarch:

Voting gives ex-convicts a tool with which to make it so people like them have realistic opportunities to take up honest trades, as well as investment in the system (you’re less likely to lash out against a system you’re invested in).

You’re clearly passionate about voting rights, but do you honestly see it as the main investment or tie a person has to their community, to their government? I never miss an election, but I feel invested in my community because I have a family and pay taxes and have to live in the community I do, not because last November I voted John Doe for vice president.

I don’t mean to belittle the right to vote, which I think is very important. But I fail to see how it could reduce recidivism rates as you seem to conclude. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’ll explore it with an open mind.

BornInMarch:

The fact is that if you treat ex-convicts as animals, then don’t be surprised when they act like animals.

I think what you’ve failed to convince me of is how making as permanent consequence of committing a crime the loss of voting rights is akin to treating ex-cons as animals. There are foreigners here on student visas who are unable to vote. Are we treating them as animals? Why not?

 

[Jake21]

Not only do we need to worry about convicts rights out of prison, but also in prison. I believe that there are multiple prions in the U.S that don’t grant prisoners the right of decent protection from violence. The tragedies that occur in these prisons is disgusting and preventable. I strongly believe that if prisoners were to have the level of security that I suggest, horrible instances like this vice.com/read/how-to-prot…-in-prison-722
would not occur as often as it does now.

This protection I suggest would keep our correction officers and inmates who want to mind their own business and follow the rules safe from violence. I don’t believe the correction officers should be armed with a variety of less than lethal weapons. That simply wouldn’t be necessary. The people who should be armed with a variety of less than lethal weapons are guards that stand against the walls or above the inmate’s heads on watch towers. Multiple guards should be in every area in the prison where inmates are present. Any inmate who makes the horrible mistake of trying to harm another would instantly be shot at with less than lethal rubber bullets. I strongly believe the intimidating presence of these guards would make several inmates think twice before trying to harm another inmate or correction officer.

Would if an inmate tries to snatch the firearm from the guard, aren’t these guards being armed with firearms a disaster waiting to happen?

It would not be the end of the world in the unlikely event that an inmate successfully snatches a firearm from a guard. This is because technology like this exist.

theverge.com/2014/5/5/568…mart-guns-away

Similar to the pistol in the link, all the guard would have to do is move a short distance of at least ten inches away from the inmate and deactivate his wrist watch that’s connected to the firearm. The guard would have to type in a code to turn the watch back on. The watch would also be extremely sturdy and would require a code to detach from his wrist.

Why would a whole group of inmates trying to attack these guards be a rare occurrence?

Because any one with common sense knows that they have a 99 percent chance of instantly being shot multiple times if they try something that stupid. All it takes is a split second reaction and the pull of a trigger to fire rubber bullets that cause a substantial amount of pain. Are inmates really willing to experience that excruciating amount of pain just too successfully beat up a guard? Keep in mind that these guards would also be able to press a button on their waist that instantly sends in an emergency team of people in riot gear to help handle the situation. These waist buttons are currently used by some COs in the U.S.

Wouldn’t guards being armed with these weapons give the inmates an even greater incentive to attack?

I think there fear of receiving wounds from rubber bullets would almost always be stronger then their desire to steal their weapons. Plus you have the waist button in case rare emergencies like that occur.

**Every prisoner, regardless of how horrible their crime was, does not deserve to live in an environment with a ridiculous lack of security!
**

We need to spend a decent amount of taxpayer dollars to make this a reality in our prisons.

 

[nodito]

Just as an FYI, this is the information I found about voting rights in the US following a felony conviction. Apparently there are only three states that permanently disbar felons from voting (Iowa, Kentucky, Florida). In most states, anyone who has completed their sentence is permitted to vote. This surprised me and I thought it might contribute to our discussion.

aclu.org/map/state-criminal-re-enfranchisement-laws-map

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If the punishment for a crime is permanent, then rehabilitating the offender becomes impossible.

Excellent point.

I think that society can choose to grant ex-convicts the right to vote or not. Either way society is within its rights to decide how to handle that. But on a purely practical level, it is a really stupid idea to deny them the vote. If they have been returned to live in regular society, it is to our advantage that they succeed in doing that. Inviting them to take part in the voting process - a process which as much a duty as it is a right - tells them that we want them to be a functioning part of society. The cost to society of recidivism is so high that we have an economic interest in their success. If we tell them that their participation in elections is not wanted, they are much more likely to be motivated to return to crime.

The risk, I suppose, is that those with proven criminal leanings, if given the vote, might constitute enough of a “voting block” to bring about “crime-friendly” legislation. But any society that has to imprison such a substantial fraction of their own population is already seriously disfunctional, and that disfunctionality ought to be addressed instead of worrying about how ex-cons might vote.

 

[BornInMarch]

Just as an FYI, this is the information I found about voting rights in the US following a felony conviction. Apparently there are only three states that permanently disbar felons from voting (Iowa, Kentucky, Florida). In most states, anyone who has completed their sentence is permitted to vote. This surprised me and I thought it might contribute to our discussion.

aclu.org/map/state-criminal-re-enfranchisement-laws-map

You shouldn’t have to apply: an ideal situation in my mind is if all 50 states had a policy similar to what Maine has (prisoners are automatically enfranchised upon release) or what Canada has (prisoners can vote while in prison).

 

[BornInMarch]

You can call it a punishment. I’d argue it’s a consequence. Either way, permanent consequences don’t preclude rehabilitation. How could they? Lots of our decisions have permanent consequences and yet don’t determine how well we can function in the future or how productive we can be in the future.

You’re clearly passionate about voting rights, but do you honestly see it as the main investment or tie a person has to their community, to their government? I never miss an election, but I feel invested in my community because I have a family and pay taxes and have to live in the community I do, not because last November I voted John Doe for vice president.

I don’t mean to belittle the right to vote, which I think is very important. But I fail to see how it could reduce recidivism rates as you seem to conclude. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’ll explore it with an open mind.

I think what you’ve failed to convince me of is how making as permanent consequence of committing a crime the loss of voting rights is akin to treating ex-cons as animals. There are foreigners here on student visas who are unable to vote. Are we treating them as animals? Why not?

I’m not going to talk to you anymore, you obviously just want to be able to discriminate against ex-convicts.

I will say as a warning to everyone though; if you take the anti-human-rights stance and act to deny people a basic and unalienable right they are entitled to (like democratic representation in their own government) then history will not be kind to you. There are no postal stamps of George Wallace At The Schoolhouse Door, and nobody is praising Captain Henry Wirz for his management of the Andersonville prison camp.

 

[nodito]

I’m not going to talk to you anymore, you obviously just want to be able to discriminate against ex-convicts.

I understand. It’s easier to just dismiss me than to engage with and address my arguments.

 

[pnewton]

If someone has committed a crime, then they need to face some form of punishment. If it is a severe crime, then that punishment should be being sent to prison until their debt to society is repaid and a parole board decides they are fit to re-enter society.

But then after a convict is paroled, he/she (depending on the jurisdiction) might not be able to vote.

On one hand, this is just one in a long line of cruel and unusual punishments American Prisoners face (a list which includes underfunded prison healthcare which results in prisoners dying, rampant prison rape which guards turn a blind eye to, and disproportionately long sentences).

In light of the lie of rampant prison rape of which guards turn a blind eye, I am disinclined to be believe anything. “Cruel and unusual” is also false, in that the right to vote has never extended to convicted felons, making it common, not unusual, as a factual matter based on what those two word mean. The idea of cruelty, if applied, would also mean that we in America treat all children under eighteen years of age cruelly.

I have no problem restoring voting rights to convicted felons after a time, say, completion of parole, but this line of reasoning is not something I could believe on my most gullible of days.

 

[CatholicFireman]

My, how easy it is to judge and decide (or voice your opinion) as to how ex-cons should be treated…until it happens to someone you love very much. Every case is unique and different regardless of the broadbrush charge. Some people try but miserably fail to justify that ex-cons should still be punished even after they have paid their debt to society as handed down by the court of law. How “Christian” (not).

The OP had good intentions creating this thread, but now it’s heading down “the usual” path. Time to unsubscribe. Have fun…

 

[Church_Militant]

The people “who committed such crimes” usually have to spend years or decades, parts of their lives they can never get back, in prison.

Criminals and Convicts pay restitution to their victims by spending time in prison. If a parole board tells a convict he is fit to re-enter society, then the convict’s debt to society is repaid and at this point he doesn’t owe his victim a damn thing more.

On another note, most victims want to prevent anyone else from suffering as they did. Making ex-convicts and parolees second-class citizens greatly increases recidivism.

A very good point.

 

[Church_Militant]

To the bolded, in the US, at least, that is simply not true. Prison is generally only the first part of the prepayment of the debt to society. Most convicts are released long before their original sentence is served and are on parole for an extended period of time. Many **never **complete the restitution portion of their punishment.

You’ll have to provide some substantive stats in support of that.

Moreover, without return of voting rights not to mention companies that will not hire ex-cons…restitution (and even gainful employment) is near impossible.

I would not have an issue with restoring voting privileges after parole and restitution are complete. It would be an administrative headache to track but would be just. The one exception is voter fraud. Once convicted of that crime, a person should forever lose the right to vote.

My, how easy it is to judge and decide (or voice your opinion) as to how ex-cons should be treated…until it happens to someone you love very much. Every case is unique and different regardless of the broadbrush charge. Some people try but miserably fail to justify that ex-cons should still be punished even after they have paid their debt to society as handed down by the court of law. How “Christian” (not).

The OP had good intentions creating this thread, but now it’s heading down “the usual” path. Time to unsubscribe. Have fun…

Sounds like the voice of personal experience…having a loved one sent to prison. You make a fine point that many people forget. "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/7#48007012-i”) This is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)*

You shouldn’t have to apply: an ideal situation in my mind is if all 50 states had a policy similar to what Maine has (prisoners are automatically enfranchised upon release) or what Canada has (prisoners can vote while in prison).

Completely agree!

 

[pnewton]

Some people try but miserably fail to justify that ex-cons should still be punished even after they have paid their debt to society as handed down by the court of law. How “Christian” (not)…

Just to clarify, parole is part of the punishment. It is time spent outside of prison, but it is time that is also part of the prison sentence, not tacked on after the prison time has expire.

Also, you do not get to decide what is “Christian” outside of what Jesus said and what the Church teaches. If anyone has any information on Church teaching on whether prisoners should be voting, or when they should be allowed to vote again, I would be very much surprised.

 

[BornInMarch]

You’ll have to provide some substantive stats in support of that.

Moreover, without return of voting rights not to mention companies that will not hire ex-cons…restitution (and even gainful employment) is near impossible.:shrug:Sounds like the voice of personal experience…having a loved one sent to prison. You make a fine point that many people forget. “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/7#48007012-i”)* This is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)Completely agree!

Thanks for the support: it is good to see at least some people who still believe in the inherent nature of human rights. The whole point of unalienable rights (I keep repeating this term because it’s important) is that such rights should never be taken away. No matter what. Period.

 

[BornInMarch]

Just to clarify, parole is part of the punishment. It is time spent outside of prison, but it is time that is also part of the prison sentence, not tacked on after the prison time has expire.

Also, you do not get to decide what is “Christian” outside of what Jesus said and what the Church teaches. If anyone has any information on Church teaching on whether prisoners should be voting, or when they should be allowed to vote again, I would be very much surprised.

Matthew 25:41-45, part of the reason why Jesus tells the people on his left to depart from him was that they didn’t look after those in prison. Below is the passage in question.

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

 

[pnewton]

Matthew 25:41-45, part of the reason why Jesus tells the people on his left to depart from him was that they didn’t look after those in prison. Below is the passage in question.

Yes, visiting prisoners is an important ministry.

 

[mikekle]

You can call it a punishment. I’d argue it’s a consequence. Either way, permanent consequences don’t preclude rehabilitation. How could they? Lots of our decisions have permanent consequences and yet don’t determine how well we can function in the future or how productive we can be in the future.

You’re clearly passionate about voting rights, but do you honestly see it as the main investment or tie a person has to their community, to their government? I never miss an election, but I feel invested in my community because I have a family and pay taxes and have to live in the community I do, not because last November I voted John Doe for vice president.

I don’t mean to belittle the right to vote, which I think is very important. But I fail to see how it could reduce recidivism rates as you seem to conclude. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’ll explore it with an open mind.

I think what you’ve failed to convince me of is how making as permanent consequence of committing a crime the loss of voting rights is akin to treating ex-cons as animals. There are foreigners here on student visas who are unable to vote. Are we treating them as animals? Why not?

The ONLY way to drastically reduce recidivism rates is to ensure ex-convicts are able to get good jobs and/or training.

If you release a person from prison after 10 or 20 years and then put up barriers of all kinds so they cant even find a place to live or a job, what do you think they are going to do…what other choice do they have?

Widespread background checks are the main problem imo, I can understand BG checks for certain jobs (banks, child care, hospitals, etc), but when almost every industry requires them, thats going a bit overboard. Ive recently seen nearly all these temp/ factory type jobs now REQUIRE a BG check and will not hire anyone with a conviction…Im sorry, but a BG check to work in a warehouse or stuff boxes? LOL

My company is the same, they require no convictions to be hired, even at the lowest cashier level (this is actually causing serious staffing problems) only about 10% of applicants qualify to be hired, thankfully my company is likely going to lower their standards, but most will not.