-
Features
Voting rights for prisoners
- Thread starter PyramidHead
- Start date
Suppose it never occurred to anyone that imprisoned felons should not be allowed to vote. Inmates regularly vote by mail in ballot. What argument could be made to disenfranchise these convicted criminals?
It is a strange kind of punishment. If you've already deprived a person of their liberty, it seems that taking away their voter registration card is of little significance.
Imagine a new version of the "Prisoner's Dilemma." A prisoner is offered a choice. He can have his voting rights restored, or he can have a piece of cake. We better have a lot of cake on hand.
So, if gaining or losing voting rights matters little to the prisoner, what's the point?
It is a strange kind of punishment. If you've already deprived a person of their liberty, it seems that taking away their voter registration card is of little significance.
Imagine a new version of the "Prisoner's Dilemma." A prisoner is offered a choice. He can have his voting rights restored, or he can have a piece of cake. We better have a lot of cake on hand.
So, if gaining or losing voting rights matters little to the prisoner, what's the point?
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!!
Fair point. Millions of people who are eligible to vote and are not in prison don't vote.
ronburgundy
Contributor
The right to vote should not be used as a reward or punishment for violating the law. An individual person gets almost no tangible personal benefit from the act of voting. Therefore, granting or withholding that action has no meaningful function as a reward or punishment and cannot be used to rehabilitate or control behavior. Therefore, society is in no way benefited by withholding the right to vote in this manner.
The value of each person being able to vote is not to the voter themselves, but to the whole of society and it's efforts to prevent tyranny and to ensure representation. Putting people into prison is among if not THE primary method a government engages in tyranny. Stripping prisoners or there right to vote can only increase the odds of this method of tyranny. If many people are being unjustly imprisoned, then stripping prisoners ability to vote helps ensure the unjust practice will continue. In contrast, justly imprisoned people would not have sufficient numbers to impact elections, because they would be voting opposite the self interests of the majority of society who benefit from just law enforcement. Also, just laws do not target particular political segments of society, which means the votes of prisoners are not heterogeneous and would not alter election outcomes under a just government. However, if an unjust government does target a political segment of society, then the votes of prisoners would be more homogeneous in that regard and thus serve as a stalwart against such unjust government. IOW, allowing prisoners to vote poses no danger to a just society, but does serve a societal benefit of reducing tyranny and unjust use of the law.
The value of each person being able to vote is not to the voter themselves, but to the whole of society and it's efforts to prevent tyranny and to ensure representation. Putting people into prison is among if not THE primary method a government engages in tyranny. Stripping prisoners or there right to vote can only increase the odds of this method of tyranny. If many people are being unjustly imprisoned, then stripping prisoners ability to vote helps ensure the unjust practice will continue. In contrast, justly imprisoned people would not have sufficient numbers to impact elections, because they would be voting opposite the self interests of the majority of society who benefit from just law enforcement. Also, just laws do not target particular political segments of society, which means the votes of prisoners are not heterogeneous and would not alter election outcomes under a just government. However, if an unjust government does target a political segment of society, then the votes of prisoners would be more homogeneous in that regard and thus serve as a stalwart against such unjust government. IOW, allowing prisoners to vote poses no danger to a just society, but does serve a societal benefit of reducing tyranny and unjust use of the law.
As far as I an determine, disenfranchising convicts is another example of that social phenomena known as "piling on."
When we consider the reality that we seldom send privileged people to prison, it looks like just another way to kick someone who has no effective way to respond.
Other than the old "Because we can" trope, I haven't heard a rational argument to justify denying the right to vote to convicted criminals. Other than demanding we maintain the status quo, no one has said why it should be maintained.
Derec
Contributor
It's not that much about being a punishment but about not allowing felons in prison from having a say in choosing the government. Imagine a prison town. Prisoners could have deciding vote in who is the mayor or on the county commission.
Who's the jailer? GlaDOS?
Way to miss the point. Let me put you on the spot; do you believe that if you were once in prison, you are never, ever allowed to vote again?
Ooooh, that's a tough spot to be in.
In my state, a convicted felon has to apply for clemency after he/she has served their sentence, and then it's up to the Governor if you will be allowed back into the club.
I haven't seen anyone yet give a rational reason for disenfranchising prisoners.
Considering you could have been in jail for public indecency, that's kinda fucked up.
repoman
Contributor
No one is talking about scumbag CNN possibly vetting question askers, look at the Donna Brazille debacle, to fuck Bernie over?
This is Malaysian airplane mega coverage CNN that has almost no ethics at all.
That audience member looked smug as fuck, and no I am not saying that because of sexism. If you traced her bio...
Also, did anyone mention that Maine and Vermont never strip prisoners of voting rights?
However, can you imagine what kind of ballot fraud Corrections Corporation of America would attempt? Those fuckers.
This is Malaysian airplane mega coverage CNN that has almost no ethics at all.
That audience member looked smug as fuck, and no I am not saying that because of sexism. If you traced her bio...
Also, did anyone mention that Maine and Vermont never strip prisoners of voting rights?
However, can you imagine what kind of ballot fraud Corrections Corporation of America would attempt? Those fuckers.
Terrell
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,182
- Location
- DMV
- Basic Beliefs
- socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
In prison, no, finished sentence yes.
I think part of the problem is we incarcerate too many people to begin with. I'm not sure which laws should be repealed, or at the very least having the sentences reduced greatly. I'd put soft drugs (weed) into the legalize it category. Harder drugs, I do think changes need to be made, but I'm not sure how exactly to do it. I would support the idea that if it's a case of possession/use but there are no other crimes involved, then there generally shouldn't be a prison sentence. I think "intent to distribute" should require that the state prove BARD that the accused has taken some affirmative steps to actually distribute the drugs, to non-consenting others.
I think part of the problem is we incarcerate too many people to begin with. I'm not sure which laws should be repealed, or at the very least having the sentences reduced greatly. I'd put soft drugs (weed) into the legalize it category. Harder drugs, I do think changes need to be made, but I'm not sure how exactly to do it. I would support the idea that if it's a case of possession/use but there are no other crimes involved, then there generally shouldn't be a prison sentence. I think "intent to distribute" should require that the state prove BARD that the accused has taken some affirmative steps to actually distribute the drugs, to non-consenting others.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,285
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Possibly vetted? Absolutely. All questions were pre-screened by and chosen by CNN/Comcast.
Maine and Vermont? Why those places must surely be dystopian apocalyptic hell holes by now. Prisoners voting...
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
This is a topic that truthfully I never even gave a thought to until Florida put it on the ballot to allow convicted felons who had served their time to have their voting rights restored. The measure passed with overwhelming voter support, yet the Republicans in office are still coming up with excuses not to implement it.
Allowing people that have served their time to having their voting rights restored should be a no-brainer, yet apparently Republicans are against it... which made me look into it a little bit more.
What I've found is that I pretty much agree with everything Pyramid said in the OP. I understand the emotional position of not wanting a murderer or terrorist to have a voting say in our (rapidly disappearing) democracy... but it doesn't actually make any rational sense.
They may lose their freedom while serving their sentences, but they don't lose their citizenship.
An interesting resource, for those inclined: https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000289
Allowing people that have served their time to having their voting rights restored should be a no-brainer, yet apparently Republicans are against it... which made me look into it a little bit more.
What I've found is that I pretty much agree with everything Pyramid said in the OP. I understand the emotional position of not wanting a murderer or terrorist to have a voting say in our (rapidly disappearing) democracy... but it doesn't actually make any rational sense.
They may lose their freedom while serving their sentences, but they don't lose their citizenship.
An interesting resource, for those inclined: https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000289
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
The issue I have with your argument is that the criteria of "your opinion probably shouldn't be trusted" to vote could be applied with just as solid a support as, for instance, revoking the right to vote for anyone who voted for Trump the last time. Or anyone who is still an NRA member. Or anyone who didn't finish high school. Or anyone with a low I.Q., or...
In other words, where do you draw the line?
The line is supposed to be at citizenship & age of majority.
Okay, are you advocating that men who walk around with their pants unzipped should be given special consideration?
I just want someone to explain the rationale which supports denying prisoners the right to vote.
ronburgundy
Contributor
The entire debate is being wrongly framed around whether we should punish prisoners by stripping them of their right to vote. This frames it as "You are either want to be nice or mean to prisoners, and if you want to be nice to pedophiles then you are evil."
Stripping someone of their far more basic right of free movement is so much worse and cruel to them than their right to vote, that it is neither rationally or morally meaningful to discuss the minuscule amount of additional "cruelty" to them of not voting.
That isn't the concern. The concern is the harm or benefit to society, democracy, and checks on tyranny that is done by allowing a government that imprisons people to also strip them of their rights to vote to impact the laws that affect them, including the laws that imprison people.
In my prior post, I laid out why from a "benefit to society" perspective, there is no benefit and only possible harm to stripping from prisoners their right to vote, in part but not limited to it allowing a sitting government to imprison it's political enemies and ensure they cannot vote to change the government that did so, even if they are a majority of the society.
What we have yet to hear is any plausible harm to society and democracy and the interests of the majority in allowing prisoners to retain their voting rights. Every argument for doing so amounts to nothing more than "They are bad people, so let's take away anything that sounds good." That short sighted, infantile emotionalism, and self-destructive.
Stripping someone of their far more basic right of free movement is so much worse and cruel to them than their right to vote, that it is neither rationally or morally meaningful to discuss the minuscule amount of additional "cruelty" to them of not voting.
That isn't the concern. The concern is the harm or benefit to society, democracy, and checks on tyranny that is done by allowing a government that imprisons people to also strip them of their rights to vote to impact the laws that affect them, including the laws that imprison people.
In my prior post, I laid out why from a "benefit to society" perspective, there is no benefit and only possible harm to stripping from prisoners their right to vote, in part but not limited to it allowing a sitting government to imprison it's political enemies and ensure they cannot vote to change the government that did so, even if they are a majority of the society.
What we have yet to hear is any plausible harm to society and democracy and the interests of the majority in allowing prisoners to retain their voting rights. Every argument for doing so amounts to nothing more than "They are bad people, so let's take away anything that sounds good." That short sighted, infantile emotionalism, and self-destructive.
Indeed, I carry an absentee ballot to my mother in a nursing home for every election. The state has agreed that I can do this, and that there’s no check or balance to the fact that the ONLY election information she hears is from me. Luckily for democracy, I read to her a statement from each candidate whether or not she tells me to just mark all the democrats and shut up.
But is that really “a more trustworthy vote” than an imprisoned drug dealer?
I saw people tossing about ratios of violent offenders in jails/prisons, so I thought I’d add some data to the discussion:
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html
Lots of detail here with graphs you can zoom. Here’s a snapshot:
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html
Lots of detail here with graphs you can zoom. Here’s a snapshot:
repoman
Contributor
Lock up and strip of voting rights
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/03/23/nixons-drug-war-an-excuse-to-lock-up-blacks-and-protesters-continues/#4272f09a42c8
Too bad Bernie did not have this handy in his mind.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/03/23/nixons-drug-war-an-excuse-to-lock-up-blacks-and-protesters-continues/#4272f09a42c8
Too bad Bernie did not have this handy in his mind.