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.
