Should prisoners have the right to vote

I would agree with you overdue spy, but the government has federalized many crimes that should have never been made federal and those unrelated crimes are used to revoke such a priveledge like voting. These actions are often the result of emotional people pushing the majority to rational decisions and a stupid law is born. I take bballads argument that they have "served" their sentence if let out and should be free to regain other rights due. I can see the reason, since a felony is basically a crime against the state, as in government. Or a crime against the people, to look at it in another light. And once the trust of the state is breached, the state may reserve a right to not let that distrust come back on them later. I see that point, and in some crimes it's rational, but I also see the point that they are set free to become a member of the people once again. Debt repaid?

You realize a theft of a computer is a felony here? Anything over a few hundred dollars. I am not supporting crime, just a rational payback system. I have to admit the system isn't black and white. States can deside on what constitutes a felony. For instance, an amount of blunt in one state may be ok, but in another it's a felony. Bottom line, incarcerated prisoners can't vote and perhaps perps with small degree felony charges should be able too after incarceration. I am not sure where the side who wants to let everyone vote, no matter what is coming from. Yes let's let Charles Manson and all his followers vote. :rolleyes: That makes sense.

RoadClosed. Yes I agree that the United States needs to look at it's criminal Justice system and re-evaluate what constitutes a "Federal Offense," and redefine these offenses accordingly. In general though I agree with not allowing Federally convicted individuals to vote. Whether they are deemed "rehabilitated" or not. Call it prejudice towards the formally imprisoned if you must, but I believe that people are defined by their words and their actions, and people have to live with the definitions they create good or bad.

One could make the point that:-

It doesn't make a halfpenny's worth of difference. For the most part we are all voting for persons that are of a questionable background. So criminals voting for criminals, (as yet undiscovered), is hardly a big deal..... ;)

Quote:

---

All men are created equal

---

:rolleyes: :( Guess not in this case. As much as I agree to bballad's post:

Quote:

---

Umm if you have commeited a crime you have forfited you standard civil rights, now they are replaced by prisioners rights but the right to vote is not one of those....nor should they be included.

---

They are still human, no matter whether they committed a crime or not. Beside's, it's not as if they're going across the prison building to the Burger King and getting a whopper or some ish then going to the mayor's office to shake hands. It's nothing that can harm the community or do any significant damage to it. All human's should be allowed to vote, point blank. Yes, they committed a crime and have forfeited their civil right's. CIVIL right's though, not human right's. And yes, there is a difference. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
One could make the point that:-

It doesn't make a halfpenny's worth of difference. For the most part we are all voting for persons that are of a questionable background. So criminals voting for criminals, (as yet undiscovered), is hardly a big deal..... ;)

---

Heh, kinda what I was thinking. We dunno the true backgrounds of half the people we vote for anyways, and a prisoner voting isn't much a big deal. It certainly isn't one that would make a difference to them. Hell, half of them probably wouldn't wanna vote, who know's. They might be more fixtiated on when they're coming out for recreation or whatever. ;) :D

From a UK view I say that there is no problem.............there are only about 100,000 out of 62Million,
OK make that 32 million voters?

Problem is they are all grouped together in their incarceration centres?

I guess that it is just not cost effective to organise..........and they cannot go down the bar and get a beer, which is what a lot of us "free" people would prefer to do anyway?

:D

when you have paid your debt t osociety and are released you get your full rights back...if you fell otherwise start pushing for life imprisnoment for any offense...Personaly I feel that most people deserve a second chance (or third or fourth). and that forgivness is necesary for society....some book writen centuries ago seems to agree with that beleif.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Spyder32
:rolleyes: :( Guess not in this case. As much as I agree to bballad's post:



They are still human, no matter whether they committed a crime or not. Beside's, it's not as if they're going across the prison building to the Burger King and getting a whopper or some ish then going to the mayor's office to shake hands. It's nothing that can harm the community or do any significant damage to it. All human's should be allowed to vote, point blank. Yes, they committed a crime and have forfeited their civil right's. CIVIL right's though, not human right's. And yes, there is a difference. :)

---

Umm why is it a human right to vote? that confuses me a bit...seems to me that goverment is not something intrinsic to human society or nature, but insted it is a civil institution, that would fall under ones civil rights.

I agree with bballad on this. The right to vote in my opinion is not a humain right. I would feel that a humain right applies to everyone regardless of sex, age, or colour. This does not apply to voting.

I agree also that voting is a Civil Right, but voting is also a privelege that has to be earned. It is a right/privelege that you earn first by demonstrating that you were smart enough to stay alive until you reached the legal voting age of 18, at which point you are deemed trustworthy enough to vote according to your belief system; and second by demonstrating your ability to make sound and rational decisions. If an individual violates that trust by committing an illegal act offensive enough to be considered a felony, then that trust is invalidated, thus the loss of the individual's privelege to vote.

BBallad - I'm shocked that you of all people would reference the "ancient book!" Wouldn't this violate your stance on separation of church and state if this critera was applied? :) However, you do have a valid point that I had not considered. Christians are called upon to minister to those in and recently out of prison. Although, I can't seem to remember any reference to Christians allowing these same criminals to determine the direction and course of the church, by giving them a voice via democratic vote. I'll have to think about it some.