Many states make it illegal for ex-felons to vote. Even if they did their time, became good citizens, paid their debts. Is this fair? Why should anyone be punished for life without a lifetime sentence? Especially for non-violent non-drug related crimes, why take away their right to vote, for life? seems cruel and unusual, and it should be removed. what say you?
Maybe instead of a lifetime ban on voting, felons are just prohibited from voting while serving their sentence, whether that be prison, house arrest, community service, or probation. But then, I haven't ever really seen a compelling reason on why felons shouldn't vote. Not to say there isn't one, but I've just never heard one.
It's up to the individual states. IMO, if it was a non-violent offense, let them vote after they've served their time/completed their sentence.
They pay taxes. Why should they not vote? how can you justify sentencing someone to five years in prison but banning them from voting for the rest of their life??? Seems Cruel & Unusual,
Historically, I believe these laws were enacted to disenfranchise certain demographics (and I'm not trying to debate if that is a valid reason or not); however, that shouldn't be a reason they cannot vote. Maybe there should be an upper limit on incarcerations or something that indicates the person is simply not willing to turn their life around. Maybe those involved in election fraud shouldn't ever have their voting privileges reinstated. P.S. I have worked with ex-felons through a prison ministry and I don't believe the average person realizes how much ex-cons have to go through to return to free society. I don't dismiss it, but I have a better understanding of why the recidivism rate is so high. What hope do they have if they can NEVER be given a second chance?
How about we pass certain rules as to when felons can regain their voting rights. Like a thousand hours of community service. Or they must get an associates or bachelor's degree. simply banning all ex-felons regardless of their crime from ever voting again is just ridiculous and is obviously an attempt to keep certain groups of people from voting
I know I'll get my teeth kicked in, but, I don't think that most felons should be allowed to vote, and the same goes for people who are collecting welfare from the government in the calendar year that they are collecting it. However, I would allow felons to vote who had taken several serious courses in American civics while in prison! Voting is far more important than most of us even realize! It is the very act of controlling the government itself, and expressing our preferences and desires -- as citizens AND taxpayers! Which is why I don't think people on welfare should be allowed to vote in the same year that they are collecting it. People on the dole don't adequately assume responsibility for anything -- they live what are essentially parasitic existences (partially or completely) when they depend on the taxpayers to support them. Why should they be allowed to have an equal 'say' in how the government works, or what it DOES?
Anyone who ever pays taxes or tolls or any fees ordered by the government should have the right to vote. Otherwise they are slaves
And I would counter that if you expect to vote in the year 2020, you should not (NOT) have ever collected any government welfare of any kind during the calendar year of 2020! Felons should not vote at all, unless they have been educated in what it means to be a law-abiding American citizen!
What if you collected unemployment should you also be banned from voting?? Why are you guys so interested in keeping citizens from voting???
No, Ron -- unemployment benefits are typically paid for in the form of taxes on employers (called "FUTA"). Here's a fairly good article on the topic: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...-it-changing-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic/ . Thus, unemployment checks are an EARNED benefit, paid for ultimately by employers and employees alike! It's somewhat related to the way that Social Security and Medicare are EARNED benefits, paid for by FICA taxes. At retirement, you get paid your SS benefit based on what you EARNED. For Medicare, when you turn 65, AND, assuming that you have worked, and paid FICA taxes for 40 quarters (10 years), you are eligible for that EARNED benefit also. No, when I say that people on government handout welfare should not be allowed to vote during the calendar year(s) they collect it, I mean those are simply taking UNEARNED goodies from the government which they didn't pay for! There are many such "programs" by which people suck-up UNEARNED benefits of all kinds -- from EBT 'credit cards' to Obamacare "subsidies" (another word for welfare) to TANF, Medicaid, etc., etc. Felons don't necessarily become welfare recipients, and so their ability to vote in future elections should be based on thorough education provided to them while they are in prison. If they absorb the material, and pass the resultant stringent tests, they should probably be allowed to vote AFTER they serve their 'time'. Restrictions on voting by people on welfare should be for the year in which welfare is taken by the recipient. Example: if you take any UNEARNED income or "services" in 2019, you DON'T get to vote -- in 2019! But, if you don't take any such welfare in 2020, then you can vote in 2020. We would be a far better nation if we would put restrictions like that in place -- and on a calendar-year basis!
Punishment comes during sentencing, once the sentence is complete, constitutional rights should be restored as their debt has been repaid to society want longer punishments, give longer sentences - simple
Good logic, and I'd also suggest that maybe instead of issuing longer sentences, convicts should serve the full term of their sentences, with 'parole' or other 'early-release' mechanisms being used on very rarely, in very special circumstances. As it is, unless a convict commits some kind of really horrible, spectacular crime, he only serves about half of his sentence -- AT MOST.
loss of voting rights as a punishment for a crime, should be decided by the jury and judge. not hateful politicians looking to limit the rights of the poor and minorities.
Once their sentence is over I think they should get their rights back. If they are so bad that they should not have their rights then why are they not sentenced to more time?
Exactly if there is such bad people shouldn't they be in prison for the rest of their lives???? there is something very fishy about suspending someone's right to vote for the rest of their life with no recourse. If they are such bad people they should be in jail forever
You never lose your right to vote in Maine. And why the hell should you. That came out of Jim Crow and has never had a rational justification.
Why does violent/non-violent matter in whether one could vote or not? I would be more worried about fraud and such when it comes to elections. Either way, it shouldn't be a poll tax like they have in FL, where one's economic status determines the right to vote or not. Seems they are either eligible or not, regardless of money...
You have miscast me, and probably a lot of other people on the Right, that's for sure! We are more than happy to fund them intelligently! There's LOTS of ways we can build prisons so that we can make substantial cuts in costs for both the building and operation of them! Prisoners actually NEED very little besides enough food and water to live, enough medical care in order to live, and -- CONFINEMENT! Hint: We don't need committees of high-priced, liberal social workers with MBA's to figure out ways to provide exactly that -- and NO MORE -- for a prisoner population! Afterthought: If that sounds pretty grim, then maybe there would be far fewer people committing acts that get them INTO prison in the first place!
Interesting fantasy. Is there some state you actually know of that has well paid social workers? In this country? Most places pay crap, and most prisons have next to nothing for social services. You know, if you look at a country that is actually civilised, they have good education and such, so they have a lot fewer going to prison. They take good care of them, and when they get out, they are a lot less likely to wind up back in prison. Maybe that's why we have more prisoners than anybody. Cause we're so intelligent...
It was a price you paid for committing a very serious crime against law abiding society. You knew it before you commited the crime. Most states enfranchise after the sentence is complete some require that the probation be served and 11 require a petition for serious offenses which can be denied. Someone who engaged in felony bribery of a government official, or were the official being bribed. YEP you forfeit your vote IMO. A violent felony especially repeat, file a petition to get it back showing the court the outstanding citizen you have become.
States had felony disenfranchisement LONG before Jim Crow and it was never only applied to blacks. You forfeit it because you committed a serious offense against law abiding society, sorta like you can forfeit your right to own a gun. A sex offender can lost the right to live in some areas. A lawyer can lose their right to practice law. It's a consequence of the illegal act against society.
