Voting rights for prisoners

[ruby sparks]

As far as I am aware, prisoners in Britain are not generally allowed to vote. There is currently some ongoing debate, I believe, and suggestions that the ban should only extend to those serving sentences of more than a year.

France, I believe, does not allow some prisoners to vote, while allowing others. Ditto Italy, as far as I know.

Several other western European countries are less punitive, including the Scandinavians.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I asked a question that seems a reasonable POV: If you committed a serious crime against society, then your opinion probably shouldn't be trusted until such time as you are rehabilitated...

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.

There is a difference there in that one group is guilty of crimes and the other group are brainwashed but not guilty of crimes. In civil societies, one expects that some rights get removed temporarily when one commits criminal acts. Persons demonstrated to be serious criminal sociopaths maybe ought not be able to vote because their vote is untrustworthy, just like their ability to be part of normal society is untrustworthy. So in the same sense they ought not work at a school with children or be free of movement at night when it is dark, maybe they ought not be trusted to vote for candidates who espouse views that are best for the electorate. The serious sociopathic criminals' sense of what is best for society is warped. Persons who have committed no major crimes against society ought not be included because removing rights of individuals who have not committed serious crimes ought not be a thing in civil, democratic society.

Or anyone who is still an NRA member. Or anyone who didn't finish high school. Or anyone with a low I.Q., or...

see above. I would like to add something here, though: I don't support mandatory voting for exactly this reason. I also don't support initiatives like "Rock the Vote" or whatever else because I don't think that uninformed people should vote. I am being serious. Mind you, I am not talking about people with low I.Q., but instead those who are uninformed. A good many people are still getting info from facebook. The citizenship ought to learn how to get information from reliable sources, mostly primary sources and to think critically. I don't believe any uninformed or stupid people should be stopped from voting but we need to stop telling them their vote is just as important as everyone else's through these public service announcement campaigns. Instead, we should spend time teaching the electorate on how to figure out when they receive propaganda. How to see through it.

In other words, where do you draw the line?

The line is supposed to be at citizenship & age of majority.

First, in answer to your question, take a look at what ronburgundy has posted: "Stripping someone of their far more basic right of free movement is so much worse and cruel to them than their right to vote..." So, we already remove rights temporarily of prisoners, and we already draw lines. It has never stopped us before. Moreover, stripping someone of voting rights is far less punitive, far less impactful, far less of a thing than stripping them of freedom of movement. One ought to expect that when one commits criminal actions that as a consequence there are rights that are temporarily removed. And so removing temporarily the right to vote is in line with removal of other rights for serious crimes and even less of a thing.

Now some other points...

Second, we are discussing ideal society and what ought to be. In an ideal society, jail/prison--I don't care what term is used--ought to be a deterrent and a rehabilitation. I personally don't believe in using the word punishment: that is for authoritarians and Republicans. The reality is many people view it as a punishment and often when people get out of prison they are worse off. I am ignoring that for now. I just think that if a person has done their time, a parole board has granted them some latitude, that it is time for them to rejoin society and give them a benefit of the doubt. That means to me that legally we ought to trust them with the vote. They very well might only be as trustworthy as a Trump voter, but the consequence of their crimes is over and the temporary removal of their rights is over. Society is then supposed to treat them as an innocent person who has a right to not be considered guilty unless proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Third, what I suggested is actually an improvement over what we have now:
1. We have too many people removed of voting rights and need it to make more sense. Someone guilty of marijuana possession ought not have voting taken away. You have to really show an extreme disregard to other people, like through murder, for example, to not be trusted to vote in society's interest.
2. We remove voting rights for too long and that also needs to make more sense. Giving back voting rights when we consider a person to be innocent again makes more sense than to continue to assume they are unfit in society while they roam the streets at the same time.

Fourth, my ancillary concern with allowing the most sociopathic persons to vote, i.e.; rapists; murderers; molesters, isn't merely what an individual may do, but the forming of voting blocs and special interest groups of known unrehabilitated persons. So, imagine NAMBLA, but now imagine JAILEDPEDOPHILES, and now imagine JAILEDPEDOPHILE PAC. Or for that matter FELON PAC...comprised of unrehabilitated persons. So, like I posted before, the danger, i.e. harm to society is to have these people who haven't been rehabilitated participate equally in democracy. The average influence on representatives in government ought not be tainted by such special interests. Now, on the other hand, once these people are considered to be innocent until proven guilty, they could still create a FELON PAC, but it would be comprised of persons who are more trustworthy, who did not get stuck in jail, and so I would expect them to have a more pure interest (on average) in societal issues like prison reform and I would welcome that.

Lastly, as I stated before I don't have an extreme opinion. On the other side of the coin, I could imagine an America where political dissidents are jailed and then stripped of the right to vote because they are considered felons or whatever. Or I can imagine how the US is now where people are labeled as felons when often they ought not be and that prison is difficult to get out of. To be clear, I am not including such persons as serious criminals against society, and would include only murderers, rapists, molesters.

 

[ronburgundy]

First, in answer to your question, take a look at what ronburgundy has posted: "Stripping someone of their far more basic right of free movement is so much worse and cruel to them than their right to vote..." So, we already remove rights temporarily of prisoners, and we already draw lines. It has never stopped us before. Moreover, stripping someone of voting rights is far less punitive, far less impactful, far less of a thing than stripping them of freedom of movement. One ought to expect that when one commits criminal actions that as a consequence there are rights that are temporarily removed. And so removing temporarily the right to vote is in line with removal of other rights for serious crimes and even less of a thing.

But that point I made actually works against stripping them of the right to vote as a punitive measure. It favors making a decision that is best for protecting the principles of democracy, and preventing tyranny.

The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their vote doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to vote. Most people vote irrationally. Second, they can only vote for the options that are put before them, so "trust" becomes largely irrelevant. Third, if they are that out of step with the rest of society, then their vote will be countered by the rest of society and have no practical impact on election outcomes.

my ancillary concern with allowing the most sociopathic persons to vote, i.e.; rapists; murderers; molesters, isn't merely what an individual may do, but the forming of voting blocs and special interest groups of known unrehabilitated persons. So, imagine NAMBLA, but now imagine JAILEDPEDOPHILES, and now imagine JAILEDPEDOPHILE PAC. Or for that matter FELON PAC...comprised of unrehabilitated persons.

The notion of JailedPedophile PAC is implausible. The influence of PACs is via $ and holding meetings with representatives, etc.. They wouldn't be able to do any of that. They would be able to do nothing but punch a ballot. Besides, if they wanted to form a PAC, they can already do that. Being able to individually vote has nothing to do with PACs and how they have their impact. IF a state has so many of it's population in prison that those prisoners could collectively alter election outcomes, then something is severely wrong with that state already.

While we might consider specifying a clear-cut subset of extreme crimes that doesn't get to vote, that would require creating a whole new categorization scheme for crimes, and unless those specifications are written into the Constitution, it would be easy for a sitting government to arbitrarily expand which crimes get moved into the "no vote" category. Unless vote-removable can be confined to a very clear, narrow, and largely unrevisable list of extreme crimes, then there should not be a "no vote" category. The lack of plausible danger to society from allowing criminals to vote combined with the plausible dangers of allowing government to decide what actions get one's voting rights removed favors erring on the side of allowing criminals to vote.

 

[ruby sparks]

My view (not having considered the matter in depth, it must be said) is that a nice, in some ways stereotypically-British compromise might be best. Voting rights retained by prisoners, but not after a certain degree of wrongdoing. During any sentence served.

I do think it's possible to draw a distinction, in other words, both between prisoners and those in open society, and indeed between types of prisoner.

 

[ruby sparks]

The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their vote doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to vote. Most people vote irrationally.

That doesn't work for me.

Because the alternative, "The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their behaviour doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to behave. Most people behave irrationally" points up that it is deemed reasonable to restrict their freedoms, because (amongst other things) they can't, in fact, be trusted. The distinction, the restriction on freedoms, is already established in principle.

 

[Gun Nut]

The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their vote doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to vote. Most people vote irrationally.

That doesn't work for me.

Because the alternative, "The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their behaviour doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to behave. Most people behave irrationally" points up that it is deemed reasonable to restrict their freedoms, because (amongst other things) they can't, in fact, be trusted. The distinction, the restriction on freedoms, is already established in principle.

following that logic, it makes no sense to put anyone in jail, because everyone has lapses in judgement from time to time.

 

[ruby sparks]

...following that logic, it makes no sense to put anyone in jail, because everyone has lapses in judgement from time to time.

I don't see how that follows. It would only be a matter of setting deemed-appropriate limits. I don't see how any system could function otherwise.

At some point, removal from society and loss of freedoms is deemed better than the offender remaining free.

Not sending anyone to prison may indeed be a good idea. But a case would have to be made for it. What matters here is that it does not necessarily follow from the fact that everyone behaves badly to some extent.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The influence of PACs is via $ and holding meetings with representatives, etc.. They wouldn't be able to do any of that.

They are in prison with lots of time and talk to one another. That means they can organize their votes at a minimum within a prison.

While we might consider specifying a clear-cut subset of extreme crimes that doesn't get to vote, that would require creating a whole new categorization scheme for crimes, and unless those specifications are written into the Constitution...

There are already classifications of crimes in US federal Law such as crimes against property, crimes against persons, etc. There are also categorizations of felonies, such as class A, B, C, D, and E. So there are already categorizations that are not in the Constitution. They perhaps have history in case law or English law that was accepted as a starting point in the Constitution.

The lack of plausible danger to society from allowing criminals to vote combined with the plausible dangers of allowing government to decide what actions get one's voting rights removed favors erring on the side of allowing criminals to vote.

How plausible is that exactly? Give a probability objectively. From experience over many years of disallowing felons the vote, we can see that tyranny is not here and what I have suggested is more restrictive on government than how things currently are. So please explain how that would be even more plausible to have tyranny when we don't have it now. Give some numbers.

 

[PyramidHead]

The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their vote doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to vote. Most people vote irrationally.

That doesn't work for me.

Because the alternative, "The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their behaviour doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to behave. Most people behave irrationally" points up that it is deemed reasonable to restrict their freedoms, because (amongst other things) they can't, in fact, be trusted. The distinction, the restriction on freedoms, is already established in principle.

following that logic, it makes no sense to put anyone in jail, because everyone has lapses in judgement from time to time.

This, but unironically

 

[PyramidHead]

So what's the worst-case scenario here if we let all citizens vote in elections? I invite any opponents of Bernie's statement to indulge their slipperiest slopes. If all prisoners without exception could vote, the following catastrophic outcome might occur: ________________________.

 

[ronburgundy]

The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their vote doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to vote. Most people vote irrationally.

That doesn't work for me.

Because the alternative, "The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their behaviour doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to behave. Most people behave irrationally" points up that it is deemed reasonable to restrict their freedoms, because (amongst other things) they can't, in fact, be trusted. The distinction, the restriction on freedoms, is already established in principle.

IF most people cannot be "trusted" to vote rationally (an objective fact), that doesn't mean that most people should not be allowed to vote. It just means that reliable rationality in how one votes should not be considered a basis for voting or the value of a democracy over other systems.

 

[PyramidHead]

The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their vote doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to vote. Most people vote irrationally.

That doesn't work for me.

Because the alternative, "The notion that they cannot be "trusted" with their behaviour doesn't fly. First, almost no one can be trusted to behave. Most people behave irrationally" points up that it is deemed reasonable to restrict their freedoms, because (amongst other things) they can't, in fact, be trusted. The distinction, the restriction on freedoms, is already established in principle.

IF most people cannot be "trusted" to vote rationally (an objective fact), that doesn't mean that most people should not be allowed to vote. It just means that reliable rationality in how one votes should not be considered a basis for voting or the value of a democracy over other systems.

Rationality is highly overrated and has become the codeword for "I lack human empathy and will justify its absence by portraying myself as very intelligent". Politics is not about rationality, nor should it be; it's about anger, frustration, struggle, and mutual solidarity to overcome hardship.

 

[ronburgundy]

They are in prison with lots of time and talk to one another. That means they can organize their votes at a minimum within a prison.

But they can only vote for the options created by the non-prison population. They don't have access to the means to put measures on the ballot, etc. IF prisoners exist in such large numbers that they could win against the interests of the general population, then society is already lost. IF they cannot have any impact on their own and only can impact the success of efforts by a large segment of the non-prison population, then that means they are not doing anything that is out of step with the interest of larger society.
IOW, there is an inherent constraint on their ability to do anything that isn't aligned with interests of the non-prison population.

There are already classifications of crimes in US federal Law such as crimes against property, crimes against persons, etc. There are also categorizations of felonies, such as class A, B, C, D, and E. So there are already categorizations that are not in the Constitution. They perhaps have history in case law or English law that was accepted as a starting point in the Constitution.

Then specify, using existing classifications, exactly which categories would and would not result in no voting rights. My concern is that existing classifications are not sufficient for the purpose. And one's you start tethering voting rights to those classification, there is a far greater need to ensure that those delineations cannot be easily revised to suit a political agenda (thus the need to integrate them into the constitution so simple majorities cannot change them).

The lack of plausible danger to society from allowing criminals to vote combined with the plausible dangers of allowing government to decide what actions get one's voting rights removed favors erring on the side of allowing criminals to vote.

How plausible is that exactly? Give a probability objectively. From experience over many years of disallowing felons the vote, we can see that tyranny is not here and what I have suggested is more restrictive on government than how things currently are. So please explain how that would be even more plausible to have tyranny when we don't have it now. Give some numbers.

Tyranny is not an all or nothing thing. Every drug user in prison is an act of tyranny by the government. So, we do have it now. And prisoners getting to vote would help reduce that tyranny. Every innocent person being jailed because of racist assumptions is an act of tyranny targeting a particular subgroup. In fact other racial injustices that lead to poverty and exposure to toxins and stressors that contribute to blacks engaging in more crime would be more likely to be remedied politically, if so many of the victims of those injustices were not stripped of their right to vote.

There have been several organized efforts to jail people based on political views in the US, including the Palmer Raids of the 1920s and the McArthy era of the 1950s, plus efforts to incarcerate particular ethnic groups (e.g., Japanese internment camps).

Our current presidents has threatened to jail members of the press and his political opponents.

It's incredibly naive to think the US does not engage in tyranny against political factions or that it could not easily and quickly get much worse than it is. And clearly a government being able to strip voting rights from anyone it prosecutes makes it far easier for a government to sustain a practice of unjustly prosecuting people.

I agree that what you are suggesting is better than now. But if it is not practical to create clear objective distinctions that are established and not easily revised based on political winds, then allowing all prisoners to vote is better for society than allowing none to vote. Also, we should start with the assumption that prisoners generally get to vote, and then only eliminate voting based upon clear cut justifications for objectively specified groups.

 

[ronburgundy]

IF most people cannot be "trusted" to vote rationally (an objective fact), that doesn't mean that most people should not be allowed to vote. It just means that reliable rationality in how one votes should not be considered a basis for voting or the value of a democracy over other systems.

Rationality is highly overrated and has become the codeword for "I lack human empathy and will justify its absence by portraying myself as very intelligent". Politics is not about rationality, nor should it be; it's about anger, frustration, struggle, and mutual solidarity to overcome hardship.

You cannot overcome hardship without rationality. Rationality is what allows us to conclude what is causing the hardships and what actions to solve the problem. In the absence of rationality, anger and frustration are as likely to worsen any problem than fix it.
In addition, laws that are not rationally defensible means that the basis for laws becomes coercion and emotional manipulation. It shields laws from being revised when new facts make it clear (to rational minds) that the existing laws are incapable of achieving their intended goals.

 

[Gun Nut]

So what's the worst-case scenario here if we let all citizens vote in elections? I invite any opponents of Bernie's statement to indulge their slipperiest slopes. If all prisoners without exception could vote, the following catastrophic outcome might occur: ________________________.

Wardens of Prisons get to have 10,000+ votes each (by way of usurping the votes of their inmates).

 

[PyramidHead]

So what's the worst-case scenario here if we let all citizens vote in elections? I invite any opponents of Bernie's statement to indulge their slipperiest slopes. If all prisoners without exception could vote, the following catastrophic outcome might occur: ________________________.

Wardens of Prisons get to have 10,000+ votes each (by way of usurping the votes of their inmates).

Prisoners vote to make crime legal and non-crime illegal, the prison population is swapped with the civilian population, and crime rules the land

 

[ruby sparks]

IF most people cannot be "trusted" to vote rationally (an objective fact), that doesn't mean that most people should not be allowed to vote.

Ok.

It just means that reliable rationality in how one votes should not be considered a basis for voting or the value of a democracy over other systems.

Ok.





But what does this have to do with whether convicted criminals (or if you prefer, some convicted criminals, by my recently chosen stance) should be allowed to vote?

 

[KeepTalking]

IF most people cannot be "trusted" to vote rationally (an objective fact), that doesn't mean that most people should not be allowed to vote.

Ok.

It just means that reliable rationality in how one votes should not be considered a basis for voting or the value of a democracy over other systems.

Ok.





But what does this have to do with whether convicted criminals (or if you prefer, some convicted criminals, by my recently chosen stance) should be allowed to vote?

It became an issue in this thread because another poster used the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of the prison population as a rationale for not allowing them to vote.

 

[ruby sparks]

It became an issue in this thread because another poster used the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of the prison population as a rationale for not allowing them to vote.

Ok. Which I'm saying I think is reasonable, for a certain degree of seriousness of crime.

 

[KeepTalking]

It became an issue in this thread because another poster used the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of the prison population as a rationale for not allowing them to vote.

Ok. Which I'm saying I think is reasonable, for a certain degree of seriousness of crime.

So now we are back to ronburgandy's rebuttal that a significant portion of the non-incarcerated public is untrustworthy when it comes to voting rationally, so it should not be used as a criteria for disenfranchising voters.