Voting rights for prisoners

[PyramidHead]

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.

And there is enough of a blur between people who do bad things but don't get incarcerated (for instance, this guy) and people who do nothing harmful to anyone but end up in prison anyway that the bar should be set very high to deny someone a right as fundamental as voting.

Meritocracy in social policy is a bad thing. Nobody should have to prove their worthiness of the basics, or even the comforts, of living in a wealthy first-world nation.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

Is rebuttal the right word? I'm not persuaded it's an adequate one yet, for reasons given.

 

[ruby sparks]

Meritocracy in social policy is a bad thing. Nobody should have to prove their worthiness of the basics, or even the comforts, of living in a wealthy first-world nation.

Long live unworkable idealism!

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

Is rebuttal the right word?

It was a rebuttal to a previous post by another poster, so yes, it's the right word.

I'm not persuaded it's an adequate one yet, for reasons given.

You did not give any reasons. First you asked what it had to do with whether convicted criminals should be allowed to vote, then, after I informed you of what it had to do with the topic, you simply said you thought it was reasonable with no explanation given it. If you would care to now provide reasons why untrustworthy people in general should be allowed to vote, but prisoners should not be allowed to vote simply because they are untrustworthy, please do so.

 

[ruby sparks]

It was a rebuttal to a previous post by another poster, so yes, it's the right word.

I'm not persuaded it's an adequate one yet, for reasons given.

You did not give any reasons. First you asked what it had to do with whether convicted criminals should be allowed to vote, then, after I informed you of what it had to do with the topic, you simply said you thought it was reasonable with no explanation given it. If you would care to now provide reasons why untrustworthy people in general should be allowed to vote, but prisoners should not be allowed to vote simply because they are untrustworthy, please do so.

Unless we are talking about a 'rebuttal' that I have missed or are talking about different 'rebuttals' I believe I did give reasons, yes. I stand to be corrected on that. Maybe I am mistaken.

 

[KeepTalking]

It was a rebuttal to a previous post by another poster, so yes, it's the right word.

I'm not persuaded it's an adequate one yet, for reasons given.

You did not give any reasons. First you asked what it had to do with whether convicted criminals should be allowed to vote, then, after I informed you of what it had to do with the topic, you simply said you thought it was reasonable with no explanation given it. If you would care to now provide reasons why untrustworthy people in general should be allowed to vote, but prisoners should not be allowed to vote simply because they are untrustworthy, please do so.

Unless we are talking about a 'rebuttal' that I have missed or are talking about different 'rebuttals' I believe I did give reasons, yes. I stand to be corrected on that. Maybe I am mistaken.

Now that I have reviewed your participation in this thread, I do see that you provided a reason as to why prisoners should not be allowed to vote. That reasoning was that they cannot be trusted. This is the very reasoning to which ronburgandy was responding previously (it was in response both to your post and a post from another poster). You were confused by what his rebuttal had to do with the topic at hand, even though it was actually in response to the reasoning you provided. That confusion has hopefully been cleared up at this point, however, you have yet to offer any reasoning as to why roburgandy's rebuttal is inadequate. If you would like to do so, please do so now.

 

[ruby sparks]

Unless we are talking about a 'rebuttal' that I have missed or are talking about different 'rebuttals' I believe I did give reasons, yes. I stand to be corrected on that. Maybe I am mistaken.

Now that I have reviewed your participation in this thread, I do see that you provided a reason as to why prisoners should not be allowed to vote. That reasoning was that they cannot be trusted. This is the very reasoning to which ronburgandy was responding previously (it was in response both to your post and a post from another poster). You were confused by what his rebuttal had to do with the topic at hand, even though it was actually in response to the reasoning you provided. That confusion has hopefully been cleared up at this point, however, you have yet to offer any reasoning as to why roburgandy's rebuttal is inadequate. If you would like to do so, please do so now.

If you want me to say more, please quote the specific post number (ron's). Otherwise, we could be talking at cross purposes.

 

[ruby sparks]

Also, or in any case , why is 'they can't be trusted' not a good reason?

Not that it has to be that reason. There could be other reasons, such as 'you have, by your actions, forfeited certain rights given to non-criminals, and in this case voting is one of them'. If this is made explicit in laws, then criminals either know before they commit a crime, or, lack of knowledge of the law is not an adequate defence.

Just for clarity, I am suggesting that losing voting rights would only be applicable for serious crimes above a certain threshold. Length of sentence might be an imperfect measure of this, but it's the first option that springs to mind nonetheless, partly because it seems relatively uncomplicated as a threshold (ie is pragmatic).

 

[RavenSky]

Meritocracy in social policy is a bad thing. Nobody should have to prove their worthiness of the basics, or even the comforts, of living in a wealthy first-world nation.

Long live unworkable idealism!

What is "unworkable" about NOT disenfranchising U.S. citizens from their right to vote?

 

[laughing dog]

Also, or in any case , why is 'they can't be trusted' not a good reason?

I can think of at least threer easons. First, what can't they be trusted to do? Second, what does "trust" have to do with voting? Third, if "trustability" is an important attribute for voting, why shouldn't everyone's voting eligibility be evaluated on that principle?

 

[ruby sparks]

Meritocracy in social policy is a bad thing. Nobody should have to prove their worthiness of the basics, or even the comforts, of living in a wealthy first-world nation.

Long live unworkable idealism!

What is "unworkable" about NOT disenfranchising U.S. citizens from their right to vote?

That's not what I said was unworkable. What I was referring to was what Pyramidhead said.

Giving prisoners a vote is workable. Not giving prisoners a vote is workable. Giving some but not others a vote is workable. I understand that one of the 3 situations currently pertain, in various democracies.

The justification in New Zealand for example (I read) is based on social contract theory. In other words "the idea that prisoners have breached the contract with the state and therefore, some of their rights can be validly restricted".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_of_prisoners_in_New_Zealand

Now, we can all disagree with any rules or laws that we disagree with, but it essentially boils down to having different views based on different justifications. These may differ from country to country. There might, for example, be more reasons to allow prisoners the vote in the USA than in say New Zealand. Such a reason might be, for example and hypothetically, that certain groups of people are being put in prison in very high numbers as part of a systemic policy of disenfranchising that group. That, if it were the case (and involved unfair discrimination) would be a salient consideration.

 

[ruby sparks]

First, what can't they be trusted to do? Second, what does "trust" have to do with voting?

The principle that voting is at least partly based on trust (trust that the voter will not vote in a way that risks undermining social values) is not controversial. You can't vote until you are a certain age, for example. It's not the equivalent, but it's analogous. Now, people might not use the words 'you can't be trusted to vote sensibly because you're deemed too young to understand the issues' but it amounts to much the same.

Taken to extreme, for example, children might vote for a candidate who was promising 'more free sweets' or a fraudster might vote for a candidate promising lax rules on fraud or its detection. I'm not saying that's a realistic scenario in either case, but it illustrates how trust can be argued to be a relevant issue.

Third, if "trustability" is an important attribute for voting, why shouldn't everyone's voting eligibility be evaluated on that principle?

In a way, it is. See above.

In broad terms, society is arguably based on the idea that people can be trusted (albeit not blindly, in other words it also needs to be policed) to behave in certain ways to maintain the cohesion and proper functioning of society. It can be argued that prisoners have been caught breaching that trust.

 

[repoman]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nixon-drug-war-racist_n_56f16a0ae4b03a640a6bbda1

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

And what about voting?

 

[PyramidHead]

Meritocracy in social policy is a bad thing. Nobody should have to prove their worthiness of the basics, or even the comforts, of living in a wealthy first-world nation.

Long live unworkable idealism!

When it lives long enough it stops being unworkable.

 

[laughing dog]

First, what can't they be trusted to do? Second, what does "trust" have to do with voting?

The principle that voting is at least partly based on trust (trust that the voter will not vote in a way that risks undermining social values) is not controversial. You can't vote until you are a certain age, for example. It's not the equivalent, but it's analogous. Now, people might not use the words 'you can't be trusted to vote sensibly because you're deemed too young to understand the issues' but it amounts to much the same.

Taken to extreme, for example, children might vote for a candidate who was promising 'more free sweets' or a fraudster might vote for a candidate promising lax rules on fraud or its detection. I'm not saying that's a realistic scenario in either case, but it illustrates how trust can be argued to be a relevant issue.

Third, if "trustability" is an important attribute for voting, why shouldn't everyone's voting eligibility be evaluated on that principle?

In a way, it is. See above.

In broad terms, society is arguably based on the idea that people can be trusted (albeit not blindly, in other words it also needs to be policed) to behave in certain ways to maintain the cohesion and proper functioning of society. It can be argued that prisoners have been caught breaching that trust.

Then why would it be okay to allow prisoners who have served their sentence to vote? Certainly there is no reason to think that waiting out a sentence makes a person more "trustworthy" in the voting sense. And, why stop at prisoners. I think a much better case can be made that anyone who believes the son of God rose from the dead and can insure one's afterlife in heaven is not trustworthy either.

 

[ruby sparks]

Then why would it be okay to allow prisoners who have served their sentence to vote? Certainly there is no reason to think that waiting out a sentence makes a person more "trustworthy" in the voting sense.

Well why is it ok to let them out after they have served their sentence? Because they have served their time and are given another chance at having all the freedoms non-prisoners have, so they get all the rights back that they were deprived of while they were in prison.

And, why stop at prisoners. I think a much better case can be made that anyone who believes the son of God rose from the dead and can insure one's afterlife in heaven is not trustworthy either.

Would you call such things crimes or put people in prison for them? Probably not, so it can be considered as being slightly different.

I don't understand your line of questioning, actually.

Loss of voting rights can be seen as just one of a number of rights that prisoners (or in my preferred option some of them, the serious offenders) are deprived of, while in prison. For broadly the same reasons they are deprived of any of them. Unless you want to make a case that the right to vote is somehow fundamental or inviolable compared to the freedom to go from place to place, for example. Which I don't think it should necessarily be considered as. At least I can't think of a good reason for it. For example, I would consider other things as more fundamental, such as bodily rights (eg not getting your hand chopped off for stealing).

 

[RavenSky]

Also, or in any case , why is 'they can't be trusted' not a good reason?

I can think of at least threer easons. First, what can't they be trusted to do? Second, what does "trust" have to do with voting? Third, if "trustability" is an important attribute for voting, why shouldn't everyone's voting eligibility be evaluated on that principle?

Fourth, who gets to decide what passes as "trustworthy"?

 

[ruby sparks]

Meritocracy in social policy is a bad thing. Nobody should have to prove their worthiness of the basics, or even the comforts, of living in a wealthy first-world nation.

Long live unworkable idealism!

When it lives long enough it stops being unworkable.

You're trying to support idealism using more idealism.

 

[ruby sparks]

Also, or in any case , why is 'they can't be trusted' not a good reason?

I can think of at least threer easons. First, what can't they be trusted to do? Second, what does "trust" have to do with voting? Third, if "trustability" is an important attribute for voting, why shouldn't everyone's voting eligibility be evaluated on that principle?

Fourth, who gets to decide what passes as "trustworthy"?

No one necessarily has to assess something like trustworthiness on an individual basis for something like voting. That would be far too complicated, in or out of prison. Actions/behaviour can be used as a guide. Seriousness of crime (ie seriousness of breach of social contract) can be approximately measured by length of sentence, so length of sentence is arguably one reasonable yardstick.

In fact, the word 'responsible' is arguably close enough to 'trustworthy' to be considered an alternative term for much the same thing, imo. Socially, rights tend to come with responsibilities. Breach some of the latter (show that you are not a responsible citizen) and you may (temporarily) forfeit some of the former. It can be seen as a deal, between individuals and the state. You've done a bad thing and you have to sit on the naughty step and while you're there you can't do some of the things you could beforehand.

 

[RavenSky]

Then why would it be okay to allow prisoners who have served their sentence to vote? Certainly there is no reason to think that waiting out a sentence makes a person more "trustworthy" in the voting sense.

Well why is it ok to let them out after they have served their sentence? Because they have served their time and are given another chance at having all the freedoms non-prisoners have, so they get all the rights back that they were deprived of while they were in prison.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with "trustworthiness".

So, in actuality, you think depriving people of their right to vote is a punitive measure, rather than anything to do with their trustworthiness.

And, why stop at prisoners. I think a much better case can be made that anyone who believes the son of God rose from the dead and can insure one's afterlife in heaven is not trustworthy either.

Would you call such things crimes or put people in prison for them? Probably not, so it can be considered as being slightly different.

So again - your preference to be punitive, not any lack of "trustworthiness" on their part.