Voting rights for prisoners

[Gun Nut]

Amendment XV - Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870) ...
Amendment XVII - Election of Senators (1913) ...
Amendment XIX - Women's Right to Vote (1920) ...
Amendment XXIII - Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961) ...
Amendment XXIV - Poll Tax (1964) ...
Amendment XXVI - Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971) ...

 

[fast]

Amendment XV - Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870) ...

Interesting wording. The problem is in how it pertains. It’s almost illusory. Consider the following snippet:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Let me give an analogy (a pretty good one) to help explain my different view. Anyone with a ticket may enter. A bunch of tickets are given out. Then, a rule is written that says no one with a ticket will be denied entry because of race. Based on that, if you show up, then white or not, you may enter if and only if you have a ticket. You may not enter (white or not) if you don’t have a ticket.

That passage (be it interpreted to allow non whites to vote or not) does not create the right for whites to vote. According to this link, https://a.s.kqed.net/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf , it has been granted (in 1776) that certain people have the right to vote, so the right predates the amendment. In analogy, they were already given a ticket. The wording of the snippet leaves a lot to be desired because on one interpretation it simply will not deny or curtail anyone’s already given right based on race.

At any rate, it’s been established that we have a right to vote, so onto my next adventure:

What obligation do we have to prisoners? We don’t really (and truly) have a right to a phone call when arrested. That is a myth popularized by films. But, what if (just what if, I say) it was a right. Can we put on our asshole hat and say, “yes, you have a right to a phone call, and I hope it brings you great luck.”

Where is it?

“Where’s what?”

The telephone

“My telephone?”

“Yes or any other phone I can use. I have a right to make a phone call.”

Yes, you do, but I have no obligation, responsibility, or duty to provide you one.

“You’re violating my constitutional rights!”

No, you’re just not exercising your right.

“I don’t have a phone”

Not my problem.

So, do we indeed have a responsibility? If we grant prisoners the right to vote, must we also take on the responsibility of them having the ability to exercise their rights? Or, can we put on our asshole hat and say, when you can legally vote, do so; hence, when you can legally leave our prison, you can vote like the rest of those not incarcerated.

See, what I’m asking is how are things going to be painted? As trampling the rights of others who cannot otherwise do what the rest of us lawbiding citizens can legally do? I’m for prisoners having the right to vote so long as that doesn’t create a responsibility to ensure they can exercise it; otherwise, consequences for our actions sometimes exceed the crime and life’s a bitch.

The strong fisted judge says, “I don’t give a damn about right and wrong; all I care about is what’s legal and what’s not.” There may be some disadvantages to acquiescing to such a view, but it’s a hell of a lot better than dealing with whatever fly by night shade of moral gray others may argue for and want to hold me to.

 

[KeepTalking]

So, do we indeed have a responsibility? If we grant prisoners the right to vote, must we also take on the responsibility of them having the ability to exercise their rights? Or, can we put on our asshole hat and say, when you can legally vote, do so; hence, when you can legally leave our prison, you can vote like the rest of those not incarcerated.

People who are not incarcerated can vote via absentee ballot if they will not be able to get to their polling place on the day of the election. Why shouldn't this apply to the incarcerated as well?

 

[fast]

So, do we indeed have a responsibility? If we grant prisoners the right to vote, must we also take on the responsibility of them having the ability to exercise their rights? Or, can we put on our asshole hat and say, when you can legally vote, do so; hence, when you can legally leave our prison, you can vote like the rest of those not incarcerated.

People who are not incarcerated can vote via absentee ballot if they will not be able to get to their polling place on the day of the election. Why shouldn't this apply to the incarcerated as well?

If (if) they can, fine. But, don’t confuse an obligation to provide food as being on par to providing ballots, and that’s whether they have the right to vote or not.

The right to act and the ability to act are not one and the same. I have the ability to needlessly shoot people, but I do not have the right to. It’s the inverted of the old grade school distinction between whether one can vs may go to the bathroom. If it’s impermissable, you may not—independent of whether you can.

In your scenario, the free person has both: the ability and right, but what happens when the incarcerated is given the right to vote but lacks the ability (because oh say) the warden chooses to deny absentee ballots in the prison?

The right to do something ought not create an obligation on others to provide for those who cannot do as the unincarerated can.

Granting a right doesn’t create an ability to exercise the right. Are we going to create and impose an obligation for prisons to guarentee a platform for prisoners to exercise their rights? I have a problem with that.

If you choose to break the law, you may find your abilities to do as once done hindered quite inconveniently. Keep your rights, or if you don’t have them, may you succeed in getting them, but don’t impose on others to cater to them.

 

[laughing dog]

So, do we indeed have a responsibility? If we grant prisoners the right to vote, must we also take on the responsibility of them having the ability to exercise their rights? Or, can we put on our asshole hat and say, when you can legally vote, do so; hence, when you can legally leave our prison, you can vote like the rest of those not incarcerated.

People who are not incarcerated can vote via absentee ballot if they will not be able to get to their polling place on the day of the election. Why shouldn't this apply to the incarcerated as well?

If (if) they can, fine. But, don’t confuse an obligation to provide food as being on par to providing ballots, and that’s whether they have the right to vote or not.

The right to act and the ability to act are not one and the same. I have the ability to needlessly shoot people, but I do not have the right to. It’s the inverted of the old grade school distinction between whether one can vs may go to the bathroom. If it’s impermissable, you may not—independent of whether you can.

In your scenario, the free person has both: the ability and right, but what happens when the incarcerated is given the right to vote but lacks the ability (because oh say) the warden chooses to deny absentee ballots in the prison?

The right to do something ought not create an obligation on others to provide for those who cannot do as the unincarerated can.

Granting a right doesn’t create an ability to exercise the right. Are we going to create and impose an obligation for prisons to guarentee a platform for prisoners to exercise their rights? I have a problem with that.

If you choose to break the law, you may find your abilities to do as once done hindered quite inconveniently. Keep your rights, or if you don’t have them, may you succeed in getting them, but don’t impose on others to cater to them.

You think providing ballots to incarcerated (against their will) prisoners in order for them to exercise their right to vote is "catering"? Wow.

 

[fast]

If (if) they can, fine. But, don’t confuse an obligation to provide food as being on par to providing ballots, and that’s whether they have the right to vote or not.

The right to act and the ability to act are not one and the same. I have the ability to needlessly shoot people, but I do not have the right to. It’s the inverted of the old grade school distinction between whether one can vs may go to the bathroom. If it’s impermissable, you may not—independent of whether you can.

In your scenario, the free person has both: the ability and right, but what happens when the incarcerated is given the right to vote but lacks the ability (because oh say) the warden chooses to deny absentee ballots in the prison?

The right to do something ought not create an obligation on others to provide for those who cannot do as the unincarerated can.

Granting a right doesn’t create an ability to exercise the right. Are we going to create and impose an obligation for prisons to guarentee a platform for prisoners to exercise their rights? I have a problem with that.

If you choose to break the law, you may find your abilities to do as once done hindered quite inconveniently. Keep your rights, or if you don’t have them, may you succeed in getting them, but don’t impose on others to cater to them.

You think providing ballots to incarcerated (against their will) prisoners in order for them to exercise their right to vote is "catering"? Wow.

Yes.

I am not legally obligated to adhere to any one individuals distorted moral perspective. Regardless of whatever logically based rational and reasonable view one can muster the strength to posit, I (just like everyone else in my jurisdictional reach) am legally bound only to the laws of the land—morality be damned.

There most certainly is a difference between what is legal and what is just. Sometimes they match; sometimes they don’t, and sometimes, many even disagree when they do or don’t, but regardless of the case, the legal consequences of my actions are limited not to the thoughts of the purportedly moral elite but rather rule of law that I’m legally expected to obey.

If you want to lift a finger to help secure voting opportunities for those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully, fine, but if you want to play the role of a wizard and conjure up some unseen obligation, how about relegate it solely to the moral sphere where neither the hard handed judge nor myself give a shit about it since they are not legally enforceable; however, if you’re going to impose an obligation on others because of your particular shade of moral insight, then wow is right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Civil rights and all... is this the time to be making this​ argument?

 

[fast]

Civil rights and all... is this the time to be making this​ argument?

You mean like in person and on public display? Hell no! I’m not that far gone, lol.

If I were to put on my serious hat, while I wouldn’t readily accept the notion that there are not at least semi-decent reasons for curbing the exercising of voting rights by the incarcerated, I’m no way near prepared to confidently argue that the rights of the prisoners don’t trump those reasons.

 

[KeepTalking]

So, do we indeed have a responsibility? If we grant prisoners the right to vote, must we also take on the responsibility of them having the ability to exercise their rights? Or, can we put on our asshole hat and say, when you can legally vote, do so; hence, when you can legally leave our prison, you can vote like the rest of those not incarcerated.

People who are not incarcerated can vote via absentee ballot if they will not be able to get to their polling place on the day of the election. Why shouldn't this apply to the incarcerated as well?

If (if) they can, fine. But, don’t confuse an obligation to provide food as being on par to providing ballots, and that’s whether they have the right to vote or not.

The right to act and the ability to act are not one and the same. I have the ability to needlessly shoot people, but I do not have the right to. It’s the inverted of the old grade school distinction between whether one can vs may go to the bathroom. If it’s impermissable, you may not—independent of whether you can.

In your scenario, the free person has both: the ability and right, but what happens when the incarcerated is given the right to vote but lacks the ability (because oh say) the warden chooses to deny absentee ballots in the prison?

The right to do something ought not create an obligation on others to provide for those who cannot do as the unincarerated can.

Granting a right doesn’t create an ability to exercise the right. Are we going to create and impose an obligation for prisons to guarentee a platform for prisoners to exercise their rights? I have a problem with that.

If you choose to break the law, you may find your abilities to do as once done hindered quite inconveniently. Keep your rights, or if you don’t have them, may you succeed in getting them, but don’t impose on others to cater to them.

The warden does not have an obligation to do anything not already done. Prisoners are already allowed to receive mail, so there is no extra obligation to provide absentee ballots, as those ballots are provided by mail. In fact, the warden would have to take extra steps to specifically remove absentee ballots from prisoner mail delivery. That seems to me a like an action to deny a right, as opposed to simply not taking action because there is no obligation.

 

[Gun Nut]

Prisoners pay federal income tax on any income they earn, with a prison job or otherwise. Therefore, I have changed my mind on the topic. Prisoners should either have the right to vote (and prisons the obligation to make that available), or not pay income tax.

 

[fast]

If (if) they can, fine. But, don’t confuse an obligation to provide food as being on par to providing ballots, and that’s whether they have the right to vote or not.

The right to act and the ability to act are not one and the same. I have the ability to needlessly shoot people, but I do not have the right to. It’s the inverted of the old grade school distinction between whether one can vs may go to the bathroom. If it’s impermissable, you may not—independent of whether you can.

In your scenario, the free person has both: the ability and right, but what happens when the incarcerated is given the right to vote but lacks the ability (because oh say) the warden chooses to deny absentee ballots in the prison?

The right to do something ought not create an obligation on others to provide for those who cannot do as the unincarerated can.

Granting a right doesn’t create an ability to exercise the right. Are we going to create and impose an obligation for prisons to guarentee a platform for prisoners to exercise their rights? I have a problem with that.

If you choose to break the law, you may find your abilities to do as once done hindered quite inconveniently. Keep your rights, or if you don’t have them, may you succeed in getting them, but don’t impose on others to cater to them.

The warden does not have an obligation to do anything not already done. Prisoners are already allowed to receive mail, so there is no extra obligation to provide absentee ballots, as those ballots are provided by mail. In fact, the warden would have to take extra steps to specifically remove absentee ballots from prisoner mail delivery. That seems to me a like an action to deny a right, as opposed to simply not taking action because there is no obligation.

That makes sense.

 

[ZiprHead]

Prisoners pay federal income tax on any income they earn, with a prison job or otherwise. Therefore, I have changed my mind on the topic. Prisoners should either have the right to vote (and prisons the obligation to make that available), or not pay income tax.

Hadn't thought about that. Good point.

 

[laughing dog]

If (if) they can, fine. But, don’t confuse an obligation to provide food as being on par to providing ballots, and that’s whether they have the right to vote or not.

The right to act and the ability to act are not one and the same. I have the ability to needlessly shoot people, but I do not have the right to. It’s the inverted of the old grade school distinction between whether one can vs may go to the bathroom. If it’s impermissable, you may not—independent of whether you can.

In your scenario, the free person has both: the ability and right, but what happens when the incarcerated is given the right to vote but lacks the ability (because oh say) the warden chooses to deny absentee ballots in the prison?

The right to do something ought not create an obligation on others to provide for those who cannot do as the unincarerated can.

Granting a right doesn’t create an ability to exercise the right. Are we going to create and impose an obligation for prisons to guarentee a platform for prisoners to exercise their rights? I have a problem with that.

If you choose to break the law, you may find your abilities to do as once done hindered quite inconveniently. Keep your rights, or if you don’t have them, may you succeed in getting them, but don’t impose on others to cater to them.

You think providing ballots to incarcerated (against their will) prisoners in order for them to exercise their right to vote is "catering"? Wow.

Yes.

I am not legally obligated to adhere to any one individuals distorted moral perspective.

No is asking you to cater to anyone. So what prompted that non-sequitur.

Regardless of whatever logically based rational and reasonable view one can muster the strength to posit, I (just like everyone else in my jurisdictional reach) am legally bound only to the laws of the land—morality be damned.

There most certainly is a difference between what is legal and what is just. Sometimes they match; sometimes they don’t, and sometimes, many even disagree when they do or don’t, but regardless of the case, the legal consequences of my actions are limited not to the thoughts of the purportedly moral elite but rather rule of law that I’m legally expected to obey.

Completely irrelevant.

If you want to lift a finger to help secure voting opportunities for those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully, fine, but if you want to play the role of a wizard and conjure up some unseen obligation, how about relegate it solely to the moral sphere where neither the hard handed judge nor myself give a shit about it since they are not legally enforceable; however, if you’re going to impose an obligation on others because of your particular shade of moral insight, then wow is right.

I am perplexed as to what in the world you are babbling on about. In many jurisdictions, absentee ballots are available on request and are MAILED to the requester. Is that catering as well?

Apparently, you have a real problem with people exercising the constitutional rights - a truly morally twisted view.
In addition, the phrase "those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully" is literally idiotic, because no one breaks the law continuously. My brother - a two time felon - obeys the law almost all of the time since he finished his last sentence (I suspect he speeds a bit during his long distance hauls).

Finally , if you really believed that "those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully" should not be permitted to exercise their constitutional right, then no felon (incarcerated or not) nor anyone found guilty of committing a misdemeanor should be permitted to vote.

 

[fast]

Yes.

I am not legally obligated to adhere to any one individuals distorted moral perspective.

No is asking you to cater to anyone. So what prompted that non-sequitur.

Regardless of whatever logically based rational and reasonable view one can muster the strength to posit, I (just like everyone else in my jurisdictional reach) am legally bound only to the laws of the land—morality be damned.

There most certainly is a difference between what is legal and what is just. Sometimes they match; sometimes they don’t, and sometimes, many even disagree when they do or don’t, but regardless of the case, the legal consequences of my actions are limited not to the thoughts of the purportedly moral elite but rather rule of law that I’m legally expected to obey.

Completely irrelevant.

If you want to lift a finger to help secure voting opportunities for those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully, fine, but if you want to play the role of a wizard and conjure up some unseen obligation, how about relegate it solely to the moral sphere where neither the hard handed judge nor myself give a shit about it since they are not legally enforceable; however, if you’re going to impose an obligation on others because of your particular shade of moral insight, then wow is right.

I am perplexed as to what in the world you are babbling on about. In many jurisdictions, absentee ballots are available on request and are MAILED to the requester. Is that catering as well?

Apparently, you have a real problem with people exercising the constitutional rights - a truly morally twisted view.
In addition, the phrase "those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully" is literally idiotic, because no one breaks the law continuously. My brother - a two time felon - obeys the law almost all of the time since he finished his last sentence (I suspect he speeds a bit during his long distance hauls).

Finally , if you really believed that "those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully" should not be permitted to exercise their constitutional right, then no felon (incarcerated or not) nor anyone found guilty of committing a misdemeanor should be permitted to vote.

Let’s try this a different way.

Slow: should incarcerated adults have the right to vote?
Fast: no comment

Slow: if all adults are granted the right to vote, should those incarcerated be free to exercise their rights?
Fast: no comment

If you are free to vote and have the ability to exercise your right, then I have nothing whatsoever to comment on.

It’s when one has the right to vote but for whatever reason lacks the ability to exercise their rights that gain my attention. Still, even at this juncture, no comment. An eye open, but nothing quite yet to say.

Let’s say convicts who are in solitary confinement lose their mail privileges. Or, if you don’t like that example, suppose violent convicts may not have pencils. I suppose there can be a multitude of examples that might ultimately explain what I’m driving at. Whatever example helps, the issue I have isn’t even an issue until people start making certain accusations.

If you dig a hole and inadvertently fall into it and can’t get out and reach your gun, you still have the right to bare arms, but if you can’t claw your way out the hole without assistence, it’s not that you are being stripped of rights but instead find yourself in the predicament of not being able to exercise your right.

I told KeepTalking that what he said makes sense. But, what if a prisoner loses his only pencil to cast a ballot and finds himself in the unfortunate position of A) having a right to vote but also B) no ability to exercise his right? Will the refusal to issue another pencil be regarded as stripping him of his right to vote or will it be regarded as him still having the right to vote yet the prison be regarded as failing to ensure prisoners can exercise their rights? Either one, my mouth opens and I have a lot to say.

 

[laughing dog]

No is asking you to cater to anyone. So what prompted that non-sequitur.
Completely irrelevant.

If you want to lift a finger to help secure voting opportunities for those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully, fine, but if you want to play the role of a wizard and conjure up some unseen obligation, how about relegate it solely to the moral sphere where neither the hard handed judge nor myself give a shit about it since they are not legally enforceable; however, if you’re going to impose an obligation on others because of your particular shade of moral insight, then wow is right.

I am perplexed as to what in the world you are babbling on about. In many jurisdictions, absentee ballots are available on request and are MAILED to the requester. Is that catering as well?

Apparently, you have a real problem with people exercising the constitutional rights - a truly morally twisted view.
In addition, the phrase "those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully" is literally idiotic, because no one breaks the law continuously. My brother - a two time felon - obeys the law almost all of the time since he finished his last sentence (I suspect he speeds a bit during his long distance hauls).

Finally , if you really believed that "those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully" should not be permitted to exercise their constitutional right, then no felon (incarcerated or not) nor anyone found guilty of committing a misdemeanor should be permitted to vote.

Let’s try this a different way.

Slow: should incarcerated adults have the right to vote?
Fast: no comment

Slow: if all adults are granted the right to vote, should those incarcerated be free to exercise their rights?
Fast: no comment

If you are free to vote and have the ability to exercise your right, then I have nothing whatsoever to comment on.

It’s when one has the right to vote but for whatever reason lacks the ability to exercise their rights that gain my attention. Still, even at this juncture, no comment. An eye open, but nothing quite yet to say.

Let’s say convicts who are in solitary confinement lose their mail privileges. Or, if you don’t like that example, suppose violent convicts may not have pencils. I suppose there can be a multitude of examples that might ultimately explain what I’m driving at. Whatever example helps, the issue I have isn’t even an issue until people start making certain accusations.

If you dig a hole and inadvertently fall into it and can’t get out and reach your gun, you still have the right to bare arms, but if you can’t claw your way out the hole without assistence, it’s not that you are being stripped of rights but instead find yourself in the predicament of not being able to exercise your right.

I told KeepTalking that what he said makes sense. But, what if a prisoner loses his only pencil to cast a ballot and finds himself in the unfortunate position of A) having a right to vote but also B) no ability to exercise his right? Will the refusal to issue another pencil be regarded as stripping him of his right to vote or will it be regarded as him still having the right to vote yet the prison be regarded as failing to ensure prisoners can exercise their rights? Either one, my mouth opens and I have a lot to say.

Unfortunately, most of what you choose to say is irrelevant. Next time, try taking a short cut to where you are driving to.

Either one agrees incarcerated persons should be allowed to vote or not. If they think they should be allowed to vote while they are incarcerated, then clearly a consistent and rational person would acknowledge that the prison authorities (you know, the people making sure these people are not at large) have some work to do in order to allow the prisoners to exercise their right to vote.

As to your pedantic question, since in the outside world, when someone goes to the polls, they provide the pencils it would seem the obvious answer is the prison would make sure there was a set up to allow the prisoners wishing to exercise their voting rights to actually exercise that right.

But since you claim to have no comment on whether prisoners should have the right to vote, one wonders why all of this bloviation on your part?

 

[fast]

Unfortunately, most of what you choose to say is irrelevant. Next time, try taking a short cut to where you are driving to.

I am a bit long winded, and being concise to a fault is rarely if ever a criticism, but there’s a real need for all the slicing, dicing, and distinctions I’m making, and keeping an eye on the ball is imperative to grasp the basis for the views I’m expounding upon.

People. They have a way of twisting things. We should say of what is that it is and not what it isn’t. Once we get past that hurdle, there’s still the need to untangle the confusion that stems from realizing that certain things have the same net effect.

Either one agrees incarcerated persons should be allowed to vote or not.

It sounds to me like you’re speaking of permissibility. Okay, fine. Let’s go with yes.

If they think they should be allowed to vote while they are incarcerated, then clearly a consistent and rational person would acknowledge that the prison authorities [...] have some work to do in order to allow the prisoners to exercise their right to vote.

Bullshit.

That’s like saying because I think people in a wheelchair should be allowed to eat in a restaurant that I must also think restaurant owners must accommodate them by providing specialized accessibility.

There is a difference (a meaningful difference) between “you may” and “you must.” While I don’t want to tell the prisoners they “may not ...”, I don’t want to tell the prison keepers “they must ....”

While I might be in favor of accommodating those who abide by the law like the law expects me to, I don’t feel so inclined to be so accommodating to those who have chosen to disobey the laws the rest of us are legally obliged to, so while I may be more supportive of wheelchair ramps, I’m not so much in favor of proving pencils to prisoners.

So, if prisoners want to secure a right to vote, I wish them luck in their endeavors, and if they secure their right to vote, may they be successful in exercising their rights, and that is consistent with my view to not disallow them either the right to vote nor disallow their incarcerated exercise of it.

 

[laughing dog]

I am a bit long winded, and being concise to a fault is rarely if ever a criticism, but there’s a real need for all the slicing, dicing, and distinctions I’m making, and keeping an eye on the ball is imperative to grasp the basis for the views I’m expounding upon.

No, there is no need for any of that "slicing, dicing and distinctions" you are making.

That’s like saying because I think people in a wheelchair should be allowed to eat in a restaurant that I must also think restaurant owners must accommodate them by providing specialized accessibility....

Eating in a restaurant is not a constitutional right so your entire line argument is based on terrible analogy.

 

[KeepTalking]

No is asking you to cater to anyone. So what prompted that non-sequitur.
Completely irrelevant.

If you want to lift a finger to help secure voting opportunities for those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully, fine, but if you want to play the role of a wizard and conjure up some unseen obligation, how about relegate it solely to the moral sphere where neither the hard handed judge nor myself give a shit about it since they are not legally enforceable; however, if you’re going to impose an obligation on others because of your particular shade of moral insight, then wow is right.

I am perplexed as to what in the world you are babbling on about. In many jurisdictions, absentee ballots are available on request and are MAILED to the requester. Is that catering as well?

Apparently, you have a real problem with people exercising the constitutional rights - a truly morally twisted view.
In addition, the phrase "those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully" is literally idiotic, because no one breaks the law continuously. My brother - a two time felon - obeys the law almost all of the time since he finished his last sentence (I suspect he speeds a bit during his long distance hauls).

Finally , if you really believed that "those who have proven themselves incapable of acting lawfully" should not be permitted to exercise their constitutional right, then no felon (incarcerated or not) nor anyone found guilty of committing a misdemeanor should be permitted to vote.

Let’s try this a different way.

Slow: should incarcerated adults have the right to vote?
Fast: no comment

Slow: if all adults are granted the right to vote, should those incarcerated be free to exercise their rights?
Fast: no comment

If you are free to vote and have the ability to exercise your right, then I have nothing whatsoever to comment on.

It’s when one has the right to vote but for whatever reason lacks the ability to exercise their rights that gain my attention. Still, even at this juncture, no comment. An eye open, but nothing quite yet to say.

Let’s say convicts who are in solitary confinement lose their mail privileges. Or, if you don’t like that example, suppose violent convicts may not have pencils. I suppose there can be a multitude of examples that might ultimately explain what I’m driving at. Whatever example helps, the issue I have isn’t even an issue until people start making certain accusations.

If you dig a hole and inadvertently fall into it and can’t get out and reach your gun, you still have the right to bare arms, but if you can’t claw your way out the hole without assistence, it’s not that you are being stripped of rights but instead find yourself in the predicament of not being able to exercise your right.

I told KeepTalking that what he said makes sense. But, what if a prisoner loses his only pencil to cast a ballot and finds himself in the unfortunate position of A) having a right to vote but also B) no ability to exercise his right? Will the refusal to issue another pencil be regarded as stripping him of his right to vote or will it be regarded as him still having the right to vote yet the prison be regarded as failing to ensure prisoners can exercise their rights? Either one, my mouth opens and I have a lot to say.

Some good points made here regarding losing mail privileges, or having pointy items like pencils taken away in cases of extremely violent prisoners. I would not think that either would be the norm, and with regard to mail privileges I think exceptions would likely be made for communication with lawyers, or the like, and could certainly be made for absentee ballots as well. It is the latter situation where pointy items like pencils are not allowed to a particularly violent prisoner where I think we might not be able to accommodate the right to vote for that prisoner. On the other hand, a prison denying the use of pencils entirely to all prisoners who are convicted of violent offenses should rightly be seen as an attempt to disenfranchise those prisoners. Of course, this all hinges on whether or not a No. 2 pencil is required to fill out an absentee ballot. If that is not the case, and a crayon or felt tip marker would do just as well when filling out an absentee ballot, then there really is no issue here. I have no idea if that is the case as I have never voted absentee, but I will note that at my polling place felt tip markers are provided to use for marking ballots, which then go into an optical scanner.

 

[fast]

Eating in a restaurant is not a constitutional right so your entire line argument is based on terrible analogy.

Say what? That doesn’t remotely make it a bad analogy. At any rate, to hell with the mighty fine analogy. I can want one thing but not be willing to pay the costs for it. That doesn’t mean I don’t want it. Why can I not be perfectly fine with you having the right to do something despite doing nothing to foster your ability to act on your rights? I might want better roads, but the idea that a vote against a tax bill designed for securing the very thing I want is some indication that I don’t truly want what I say I do is ridiculous. That I want a pair of steps and put no initiative in getting them doesn’t miraculously cancel out that it’s still the case I want what I say I do. Time, energy, know-how, anger, other issues ... there could be any number of reasons for what you judge to be a disconnect.

 

[fast]

Let’s try this a different way.

Slow: should incarcerated adults have the right to vote?
Fast: no comment

Slow: if all adults are granted the right to vote, should those incarcerated be free to exercise their rights?
Fast: no comment

If you are free to vote and have the ability to exercise your right, then I have nothing whatsoever to comment on.

It’s when one has the right to vote but for whatever reason lacks the ability to exercise their rights that gain my attention. Still, even at this juncture, no comment. An eye open, but nothing quite yet to say.

Let’s say convicts who are in solitary confinement lose their mail privileges. Or, if you don’t like that example, suppose violent convicts may not have pencils. I suppose there can be a multitude of examples that might ultimately explain what I’m driving at. Whatever example helps, the issue I have isn’t even an issue until people start making certain accusations.

If you dig a hole and inadvertently fall into it and can’t get out and reach your gun, you still have the right to bare arms, but if you can’t claw your way out the hole without assistence, it’s not that you are being stripped of rights but instead find yourself in the predicament of not being able to exercise your right.

I told KeepTalking that what he said makes sense. But, what if a prisoner loses his only pencil to cast a ballot and finds himself in the unfortunate position of A) having a right to vote but also B) no ability to exercise his right? Will the refusal to issue another pencil be regarded as stripping him of his right to vote or will it be regarded as him still having the right to vote yet the prison be regarded as failing to ensure prisoners can exercise their rights? Either one, my mouth opens and I have a lot to say.

Some good points made here regarding losing mail privileges, or having pointy items like pencils taken away in cases of extremely violent prisoners. I would not think that either would be the norm, and with regard to mail privileges I think exceptions would likely be made for communication with lawyers, or the like, and could certainly be made for absentee ballots as well. It is the latter situation where pointy items like pencils are not allowed to a particularly violent prisoner where I think we might not be able to accommodate the right to vote for that prisoner. On the other hand, a prison denying the use of pencils entirely to all prisoners who are convicted of violent offenses should rightly be seen as an attempt to disenfranchise those prisoners. Of course, this all hinges on whether or not a No. 2 pencil is required to fill out an absentee ballot. If that is not the case, and a crayon or felt tip marker would do just as well when filling out an absentee ballot, then there really is no issue here. I have no idea if that is the case as I have never voted absentee, but I will note that at my polling place felt tip markers are provided to use for marking ballots, which then go into an optical scanner.

You seem to be dead on my heals and taking in what I’m throwing down, so let me throw a curve ball and see what plays out. Let’s consider two prisons. The first prison is state run and headed up by government personnel. The second prison is a privately run prison and headed up by people in the private sector.

Two rules: neither may be broken for either prison:
1) prisoners have the right to vote. Period. No exceptions. That means, violent or not, every prisoner has the governmentally granted right to vote. Just like that, they have the right and that right may not be taken away.

2) No one has a duty to facilitate any prisoner in the exercise of their right to vote. No duty to lift a finger is imposed on anyone to help anyone. So, if a prisoner finds himself in a position whereby he can cast a vote, then he may do so. If he may do so (hence, there is permissibility) but cannot secure a ballot (hence, no ability to do what is permissible), then per rule 1, he maintains his right to vote and rule 2) no person has been derelict in his duty.

Now for the fun part: rule 3. However, it pertains only to one of the two prisons, the state run prison.
3) no one may purposefully act in any manner whereby a prisoner’s right to vote will be disenfranchised.

That means, if the state run prison chooses to deny ballots’ entry into the prison, that will disenfranchise prisoners from being able to exercise their right to vote.

The rule (rule 3), however, pertains only to state run prisons, not privately run prisons. Let’s say (for the sake of argument) that someone in a privately run prison purposefully forbids ballot entry into its prison. What’s true, and what isn’t true? This is where the good stuff is at.

Has that person taken away the prisoners right to vote? People may say yes because the net effect is the same: no prisoner can vote. Of course, I scream they’re crazy as hell. They may vote. No, they cannot, but they may. Permissibility hasn’t changed. The warden can walk in and explain that all prisons may do so —if they can.

May the prisoner exercise their right? Yes, yes, yes! Again, neither rule 1 nor rule 2 has been broken. The state run prison hasn’t disenfranchised anyone whereas the the privately run prison has, but notice something else, for neither prison, rule 1 and rule 2 haven’t been broken.

So, what’s this thread really about? Whether they should have the right to vote? What does that entail? Where I have this by the balls is in the wording of rule 2: no duty.

People who want prisoners to have a right to vote also want something else. They want prisoners to be able to exercise their rights, but prisoners cannot even do that without mandating that officials take on the obligation necessary to facilitate it.

What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with that is they’re wanting the public to support helping them do what they cannot do on their own. What’s wrong with that? Generally, nothing. Generally, there’s nothing wrong with giving a little assistance where it’s needed, but remember, they broke rules. They hurt our society, and they hurt it so badly that it has led to their incarceration and freedoms being taken away. And now, they want something; they want something from me.