Democratic Party Boosted in WA; Jailed Felons can Vote [Archive]

Crazed Rabbit

01-07-2010, 19:17

Thanks a lot, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Thanks to some bad lawyering by the State, and lack of analytical thinking by Judges, incarcerated criminals in Washington state can now vote because to prevent them is discriminatory against minorities, due to the Voting Rights Act.
Washington prisoners entitled to vote, federal court rules (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/413851_vote05.html)

In a move that could see Washington inmates voting from prison, a federal appeals court has thrown out the state's restrictions on felon voting due to civil rights concerns.

Under the Washington law at issue, citizens convicted of a felony lose the right to vote until they are released from custody and off of Department of Corrections supervision. The 2-1 ruling by a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel puts those restrictions in doubt, the majority reviewing the voting rights lawsuit found that the state restrictions unfairly penalize minorities.

Attorneys for six Washington state prisoners, Circuit Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote, "have demonstrated that police practices, searches, arrests, detention practices, and plea bargaining practices lead to a greater burden on minorities that cannot be explained in race-neutral ways."

Joined by Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion, Tashima found no "race neutral" explanation for the higher incarceration rates and reversed a U.S. District Court decision in favor of the felons.

From a blog: (http://patterico.com/2010/01/06/more-on-that-ninth-circuit-decision-granting-voting-rights-to-felons-in-washington-state/#more-39167)

You can see how dangerous it is to allow sociology professors to have their reports given the force of law by liberal Circuit judges — especially when they don’t appear to understand what they’re reading. For example, Judge Tashima writes in his opinion:

Dr. Crutchfield’s report states that criminal justice practices disproportionately affect minorities beyond what can be explained by non-racial means. For example . . . [a] study of the Washington State Patrol shows that Native Americans were more than twice as likely to be searched as Whites; African Americans were more than 70 percent more likely to be searched than Whites; and Latinos were more than 50 percent more likely to be searched.

Yet this very study, Prof. Crutchfield explains, rejects the idea that its data shows racial profiling. Contrary to Judge Tashima’s conclusion that “criminal justice practices disproportionately affect minorities beyond what can be explained by non-racial means,” the authors of the study cited by Tashima wrote:

There are simply too many remaining problems in the databases and possible effects from variables not considered in these analyses to support a statement that the statistical disparities witnessed in these data are the result of discrimination in the use of law enforcement authority.

Indeed, a later study by the same researchers found no evidence of racial profiling at all.

When I first read this in the paper I thought the Onion had somehow gotten column space. :wall:

At least it's likely to be overturned on appeal.

CR

HoreTore

01-07-2010, 19:19

What's so hard to understand about the phrase universal suffrage?

Crazed Rabbit

01-07-2010, 19:21

Vladimir

01-07-2010, 19:23

What's so hard to understand about the phrase universal suffrage?

I think all he is saying is give peace a chance. :hippie:

HoreTore

01-07-2010, 19:33

What is so hard to understand about certain unlawful actions leading to the forfeit of certain rights?

After all; being held against your will is against a person's rights, but we still throw criminals in jail.

CR

Freedom of movement? Sure.

But the right to vote is far greater than the freedom of movement in a democracy. That you have the right to vote means that you are part of the society, that you are not a sub-human.

Life and voting rights, two things you should never be allowed to take from another human. IMO.

Crazed Rabbit

01-07-2010, 19:41

Well I think if you rob someone at gunpoint or assault someone you lose your right to determine how the nation is governed until you pay your debt to society.

And being jailed takes away far more than just freedom of movement.

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

01-07-2010, 19:46

Who cares if prisoners can vote or not?

Louis VI the Fat

01-07-2010, 19:57

I'm with the Rabbit.

What a load of liberal bollocks.

(But what of that Arizona sheriff from the police brutality thread and his crusade against minorities?)

HoreTore

01-07-2010, 20:03

Who cares if prisoners can vote or not?

Like it or not, even a prisoner has valid views on how to run a country.

They even have a load of experiences you don't have. They should have the same right to raise their voice as everyone else, and yes, it is in our own interest.

What are people afraid of, really? That they'll vote for incompetent crimefighters, or what? :dizzy2:

Sasaki Kojiro

01-07-2010, 20:12

Yes, I think I agree with HoreTore, even if the reasoning the judge used was suspect.

What is so hard to understand about certain unlawful actions leading to the forfeit of certain rights?

After all; being held against your will is against a person's rights, but we still throw criminals in jail.

Why do we through people in jail? Isn't it to keep them from committing crimes and and as a deterrent? I don't believe taking away the voting rights is a deterrent.

We don't take all rights away, so you still have to give a reason why the right to vote should be taken away.

HoreTore

01-07-2010, 20:37

Yes, I think I agree with HoreTore, even if the reasoning the judge used was suspect.

Yes, the reasoning was bollox(to put it like tribesey), but hey, means to an end, eh? Would've loved to have a judge say that prisoners are a part of our society, even though they are temporarily paying for the mistakes they have made in their life, but I'll take this anyway.

Why do we through people in jail? Isn't it to keep them from committing crimes and and as a deterrent? I don't believe taking away the voting rights is a deterrent.

We don't take all rights away, so you still have to give a reason why the right to vote should be taken away.

Indeed.

Btw; only treason, attempted coup(the Nazi's) and election fraud will lose you voting rights here, and only for a maximum of 10 years.

Beskar

01-07-2010, 20:39

I find it amusing that the opening post believes all the prisoners will vote Democrat.

Vladimir

01-07-2010, 20:48

The majority do. That's been independently verified several times. Try Google. :yes:

HoreTore

01-07-2010, 20:51

The majority do. That's been independently verified several times. Try Google. :yes:

Then it's proven that criminals don't vote for their own kind, isn't it? ~;)

Lemur

01-07-2010, 20:52

Well I think if you rob someone at gunpoint or assault someone you lose your right to determine how the nation is governed until you pay your debt to society.
What creeps me out is the states where you lose your voting rights permanently (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/felon-voting-rights-issue-back-at-court/). In theory, a teen arrested for grand larceny will never vote again, even if he lives to be eighty. That's just messed up. Once you've paid your debt, you've paid your debt.

Two questions: (1) prisoners are often moved from other counties and/or states for incarceration. What counts as their residence? (2) How big of a prison population are we talking about? Would it make a measurable difference?

I find it amusing that the opening post believes all the prisoners will vote Democrat.
All criminals are Democrats, and all Democrats are criminals. However, not all criminal Democrats are gay; some are terrorists instead.

Vladimir

01-07-2010, 20:54

Then it's proven that criminals don't vote for their own kind, isn't it? ~;)

Democrats = open criminals

Republicans = closet criminals...pun intended.

:laugh4:

Skullheadhq

01-07-2010, 21:00

All criminals are Democrats, and all Democrats are criminals. However, not all criminal Democrats are gay; some are terrorists instead.

I love those convincing arguments you use to support your cause :clown:
And really, why care that they can vote, there not a huge amount of the population and thus wouldt make much of a change, and the prisoners get happy, so I cat see why it is wrong, and at least, when there voting, there not doing crime for a few minutes :)

HoreTore

01-07-2010, 21:12

Democrats = open criminals

Republicans = closet criminals...pun intended.

:laugh4:

Oh right, I forget. Democrats are the criminals, republicans are the sexual deviants.

Forgive me, american politics are easy to get mixed up :smash:

TinCow

01-07-2010, 21:15

there not a huge amount of the population and thus wouldt make much of a change

"In 2008, over 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend — 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults."

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=11

3.2 percent is actually pretty large, considering the margins of victory since 2000.

HoreTore

01-07-2010, 21:17

"In 2008, over 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend — 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults."

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=11

3.2 percent is actually pretty large, considering the margins of victory since 2000.

All the more reason for letting them vote, I say.

Reverend Joe

01-07-2010, 21:22

Like it or not, even a prisoner has valid views on how to run a country.
Actually, no, they don't. That's why they are in prison -- not so much as a deterrent, but because they are considered maladjusted individuals. The problem here is not so much what rights these people should have, but rather who should be considered maladjusted individuals. However, this is not relevant to the above problem, because it asks questions much larger than the concern posted, and for now I would suggest we focus on the problem with the understanding that we are working with a problematic system that is nevertheless the best we have, so for the purposes of this problem we need to work within its system, and deal with the bigger issues later. Otherwise we won't get a damn thing done.

The short and skinny of all this is, prisoners are supposed to be maladjusted individuals whom society has said must pay their debts to said society until they can be permitted to participate in society again; therefore, they are unfit to participate in society, part of which involves making group decisions, as in the case of voting. Therefore, they should not be allowed to vote. The problems of reform and who should be imprisoned are unrelated to this because, if the system works and only people who are unfit to participate in society until such time as they have paid their debts, then the problem becomes moot and there is no reason to question whether or not they should be returned certain rights.

I wish I had taken a logic class in college.

Lemur

01-07-2010, 21:29

our system of justice is based entirely on results and not on motivation. Therefore, we cannot distinguish between robbing because you need to eat and robbing because you want that which you did not earn, because the result is the same:
Um, not really. If this were the case we would not have any distinction between murder 1 and manslaughter. There would be no insanity plea. "Mitigating circumstances" would not exist.

Our system of justice takes motivation into account pretty much every time. Whether or not is has a bearing on the sentence is a matter for the judge and jury. We put human judgment as a buffer between the accused and the law every step of the way, because the law is a blunt instrument (http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/is_ricky_really_a_sex_offender/6726/).

The majority [of criminals vote Democrat]. That's been independently verified several times. Try Google.
Intrigued, I consulted with the Java Googles, and found that this is largely based on the Florida 2000 election, where several thousand felons attempted to vote (I believe this is another case of lifelong loss of voting privileges for convicts, which I have already said is questionable). 68% of those caught voted for Gore, 32% voted for Bush, which was pretty much in-line with what would be expected from the demographics (heavily minority and low-income). So the moral of the story is that convicts appear to vote exactly the way you would expect them to, based on their demographic and economic status. The fact that they're criminals does not have a measurable impact. Who knew?

-edit-

Note that the reason I'm referring to the Florida 2000 election is that by our system, votes are secret. There is no mechanism for releasing who voted how, and such a release would actually be, you know, illegal. So plenty of people are pushing "estimates" and "analysis" and other good guesses, but the FL2K election is one of the only cases where an actual count was made and released.

Reverend Joe

01-07-2010, 21:35

Um, not really. If this were the case we would not have any distinction between murder 1 and manslaughter. There would be no insanity plea. "Mitigating circumstances" would not exist.

Our system of justice takes motivation into account pretty much every time. Whether or not is has a bearing on the sentence is a matter for the judge and jury. We put human judgment as a buffer between the accused and the law every step of the way, because the law is a blunt instrument.

:shame: Forgot all about that. But nevertheless, this is still part of the larger but irrelevant (to this topic, anyway) problem.

Fisherking

01-07-2010, 21:48

The concept is that when you commit a felony you basically lose your citizenship.

I have never seen the courts insist that convicted felons have regained their right to arms.

I am afraid that CR is correct. It is a cynical move to promote one political party over another.

Lemur

01-07-2010, 21:57

The concept is that when you commit a felony you basically lose your citizenship.
Um, no. That's not the concept, even slightly, and there is zero legal precedent for "losing your citizenship." Can you still get a passport, once you've served your time? Yes. Are you entitled to protection by the courts and police? Yes. Are you allowed to seek employment? Yes. Do you still pay taxes as a U.S. citizen? Yes. Can you get a drivers license? Yes.

If you were to strip every felon of their citizenship, what would you do with them? You would have created a large class of people who cannot work, cannot use transportation, cannot support themselves legally ... sheesh. It would be the greatest boon to crime since prohibition. I'm trying to think of a more destructive policy for the U.S., and I'm coming up short.

We curtail the rights of felons, in very specific and targeted ways.

I have never seen the courts insist that convicted felons have regained their right to arms.
What do you mean by "courts insist"? Do you mean a ruling that the 2nd amendment extends to felons, or something like that? I find you argument very hard to follow. When you say "felons," do you mean people who are still in prison or on parole? Or are you talking about someone who has already done their time and is now a (somewhat) normal citizen again? Could you clarify, please?

Sasaki Kojiro

01-07-2010, 21:59

Actually, no, they don't. That's why they are in prison -- not so much as a deterrent, but because they are considered maladjusted individuals. The problem here is not so much what rights these people should have, but rather who should be considered maladjusted individuals. However, this is not relevant to the above problem, because it asks questions much larger than the concern posted, and for now I would suggest we focus on the problem with the understanding that we are working with a problematic system that is nevertheless the best we have, so for the purposes of this problem we need to work within its system, and deal with the bigger issues later. Otherwise we won't get a damn thing done.

The short and skinny of all this is, prisoners are supposed to be maladjusted individuals whom society has said must pay their debts to said society until they can be permitted to participate in society again; therefore, they are unfit to participate in society, part of which involves making group decisions, as in the case of voting. Therefore, they should not be allowed to vote. The problems of reform and who should be imprisoned are unrelated to this because, if the system works and only people who are unfit to participate in society until such time as they have paid their debts, then the problem becomes moot and there is no reason to question whether or not they should be returned certain rights.

I wish I had taken a logic class in college.

They aren't deem unfit to participate in all of society. They are allowed visitors, phone calls, social interaction with other inmates. These are parts of society. And unless they have a life sentence they will be released into society again, implying that they haven't been deemed unfit to participate in society, but rather are being punished. For example, if you get too many speeding tickets, they will take your license away for a year. But you can still vote on issues regarding traffic laws, yes?

So one must still have a particular reason for including voting in the list of things that they are not allowed to do. One would say that they don't have the right to bear arms because they have been shown to be violent or there is a good chance they would try and kill the guards and escape. That reason was easy to come up with. So what's the particular reason for not allowing them to vote?

I am afraid that CR is correct. It is a cynical move to promote one political party over another.

By the judges?

drone

01-07-2010, 22:01

By the judges?
It's the 9th District, so anything is possible.

Subotan

01-07-2010, 22:18

Don't a lot of democracies spend a lot of time and money complaining about low turnout? :dizzy2:

Punishment is meant to have four aspects: protection (of the public), deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation. Denying prisoners the vote has no impact whatsoever on the first two, is a pretty petty way of enforcing the third. However, granting them the vote may have some positive effects for rehabilitation. Making prisoners feel like they're members of society can only have positive effects when they are released.

What creeps me out is the states where you lose your voting rights permanently (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/felon-voting-rights-issue-back-at-court/). In theory, a teen arrested for grand larceny will never vote again, even if he lives to be eighty. That's just messed up. Once you've paid your debt, you've paid your debt.

IIRC 1/3 of all black men in Florida cannot vote.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-07-2010, 22:20

(But what of that Arizona sheriff from the police brutality thread and his crusade against minorities?)

I believe that Rabbit would agree that the best situation would be to take that sheriff, throw him in prison, and then take away his voting right.

Prisoners should lose their voting rights for the duration of their prison term. I am open to debate on allowing paroled individuals to vote, but I can't agree to letting criminals vote on the direction they want the country to go in - early release for themselves being one option, which is a big reason they do like to vote Democrat.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-07-2010, 22:24

I believe that Rabbit would agree that the best situation would be to take that sheriff, throw him in prison, and then take away his voting right.

Prisoners should lose their voting rights for the duration of their prison term. I am open to debate on allowing paroled individuals to vote, but I can't agree to letting criminals vote on the direction they want the country to go in - early release for themselves being one option, which is a big reason they do like to vote Democrat.

But if people who would vote to serve themselves can't vote, then who are we left with?

Lemur

01-07-2010, 22:26

I am open to debate on allowing paroled individuals to vote, but I can't agree to letting criminals vote on the direction they want the country to go in - early release for themselves being one option, which is a big reason they do like to vote Democrat.
You know, I'm often guilty of skimming myself, but if you're going to assert that there's a measurable difference in voting patterns of criminals, and this has already been addressed (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2410505&postcount=22), you might want to, I dunno, at least refute the earlier comment.

-edit-

In other words:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=37&pictureid=2109

Reverend Joe

01-07-2010, 22:34

They aren't deem unfit to participate in all of society. They are allowed visitors, phone calls, social interaction with other inmates. These are parts of society.
I would argue that visitors, phone calls and letters are not necessarily participating in society, but rather allowing them to maintain contact with the outside world. Social interaction with other inmates doesn't constitute participating in society because they are only interacting with other people who are isolated from society, and only in a strictly controlled environment where they cannot abuse this right. We give them these allowances because of the need for human interaction, which is much more fundamental than interacting with society; it's more like the need for food, water and shelter. I would also note that the rights to interaction are actually considered privileges as well -- look at solitary confinement and supermax prisons. These exist because we feel that there are people so maladjusted that they should not even be allowed to interact with other people, for fear of causing further damage.

And unless they have a life sentence they will be released into society again, implying that they haven't been deemed unfit to participate in society, but rather are being punished. For example, if you get too many speeding tickets, they will take your license away for a year. But you can still vote on issues regarding traffic laws, yes?
Losing your license indicates that you are unfit to drive, not participate in society. It's a bit less rigorous than doing something that is deemed worthy of isolation. And if you will reread my post (granted, it's not all that clear -- it went through a couple of rewrites) I'm not saying that they are unfit to participate is society permanently, unless, as you mentioned, they have a life sentence. They are only isolated so long as they are paying their debt to society via prison time, after which they are considered to be normal citizens again. Think of it like overdrawing your debit card -- you can't make any more purchases with the card until you repay your debt to the bank, after which you regain the use of your card. I agree that prison is punishment, but it is punishment under particular and extreme circumstances, and for the specific purpose of repenting for maladjustment.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-07-2010, 22:46

I would argue that visitors, phone calls and letters are not necessarily participating in society, but rather allowing them to maintain contact with the outside world. Social interaction with other inmates doesn't constitute participating in society because they are only interacting with other people who are isolated from society, and only in a strictly controlled environment where they cannot abuse this right. We give them these allowances because of the need for human interaction, which is much more fundamental than interacting with society; it's more like the need for food, water and shelter. I would also note that the rights to interaction are actually considered privileges as well -- look at solitary confinement and supermax prisons. These exist because we feel that there are people so maladjusted that they should not even be allowed to interact with other people, for fear of causing further damage.

Losing your license indicates that you are unfit to drive, not participate in society. It's a bit less rigorous than doing something that is deemed worthy of isolation. And if you will reread my post (granted, it's not all that clear -- it went through a couple of rewrites) I'm not saying that they are unfit to participate is society permanently, unless, as you mentioned, they have a life sentence. They are only isolated so long as they are paying their debt to society via prison time, after which they are considered to be normal citizens again. Think of it like overdrawing your debit card -- you can't make any more purchases with the card until you repay your debt to the bank, after which you regain the use of your card. I agree that prison is punishment, but it is punishment under particular and extreme circumstances, and for the specific purpose of repenting for maladjustment.

As I understood it your argument was this:

1) Criminals have been found unfit to participate in society
2) Voting is participating in society
3) Therefore, criminals are not fit to vote.

But to make the drivers license example fit this argument, you would have to say:

1) People who have lost their license are unfit to participate in driving
2) Voting on driving laws is participating in driving
3) Therefore people who have lost their license cannot vote on driving laws

Obviously, voting on driving laws is not driving. In other words, when we put someone in jail for grand theft it is so that they don't steal anymore, when we put a murderer in jail it is so that they don't kill anymore, and when we take away someone's license it is so that they don't drive dangerously anymore--not so that they can't participate in deciding who will be president.

Kralizec

01-07-2010, 22:50

Heh. I'm reminded of Lord Jeffrey Archer - who was convicted of perjury or somesuch crime- but afterwards would still be able to vote in the UK's House of Lords on legislation. He made it all look even worse by saying that he wouldn't return to active politics after release, except maybe if there's a debate about prison reform :laugh4:

Anyway, I personally don't see much merit in depriving inmates of voting rights. The reasoning used by the judges seems extremely dubious though.

TinCow

01-07-2010, 22:58

It's worth noting that felons can still be drafted. The 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18, was specifically based on the notion that it was unjust to draft citizens who could not vote. It's true that the US Military generally rejects people with felony records, but that's the choice if the military. If they desire to, they can ignore any criminal record for both volunteers and conscripts.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-07-2010, 23:28

You know, I'm often guilty of skimming myself, but if you're going to assert that there's a measurable difference in voting patterns of criminals, and this has already been addressed (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2410505&postcount=22), you might want to, I dunno, at least refute the earlier comment.

I didn't say why they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, I just stated that they do, which is true enough.

Lemur

01-07-2010, 23:35

I didn't say why they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, I just stated that they do, which is true enough.
Read your own statement. You claimed that it was "which is a big reason they do like to vote Democrat." So you did, in fact, claim a why, completely ignoring that the "why" had already been addressed.

C'mon, you can backpeddle more gracefully than that! Gimme a solid, "What the President meant to say" kinda thing.

Subotan

01-07-2010, 23:46

Obviously, voting on driving laws is not driving. In other words, when we put someone in jail for grand theft it is so that they don't steal anymore, when we put a murderer in jail it is so that they don't kill anymore, and when we take away someone's license it is so that they don't drive dangerously anymore--not so that they can't participate in deciding who will be president.
I repeat:

Punishment is meant to have four aspects: protection (of the public), deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation. Denying prisoners the vote has no impact whatsoever on the first two, is a pretty petty way of enforcing the third. However, granting them the vote may have some positive effects for rehabilitation. Making prisoners feel like they're members of society can only have positive effects when they are released.
The only exception I can think of that's justified for taking away a prisoners right to vote, is if the crime they committed was specifically related to election fraud.

I didn't say why they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, I just stated that they do, which is true enough.
Then in that case, we should ban all poor people from voting, as they are also statistically more likely to vote Democrat (As well as most prisoners being from poor backgrounds or black anyway.)

The 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18, was specifically based on the notion that it was unjust to draft citizens who could not vote.
And yet they still can't buy a beer in a bar. :shame:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-07-2010, 23:56

Then in that case, we should ban all poor people from voting, as they are also statistically more likely to vote Democrat (As well as most prisoners being from poor backgrounds or black anyway.)

Did I say that is why we should stop them from voting? I don't think so. If they voted Republican I would hardly be likely to believe that they should vote. :inquisitive:

Read your own statement. You claimed that it was "which is a big reason they do like to vote Democrat." So you did, in fact, claim a why, completely ignoring that the "why" had already been addressed.

Isn't it possible, then, that your poll works both ways? That in this specific election, these groups were more likely to vote Democrat because they had a higher proportion of convicted criminals?

Lemur

01-08-2010, 00:31

Isn't it possible, then, that your poll works both ways? That in this specific election, these groups were more likely to vote Democrat because they had a higher proportion of convicted criminals?
No, sorry, statistics don't work that way. If the population of criminals is somewhere around 3% of the nation, then they constitute a minority of a minority.

Let's put it this way; let's say you're a member of a law firm, Dewey, Chetum & Howe. There are twenty guys in the law firm. They vote 30% Dem, 70% Repub. As it happens, their demographic also votes 30% Dem, 70% Repub. The members of Dewey, Cheatum & Howe are not causal in their demographic; they're too small a part. The twenty lawyers do not "create" their demo's voting patterns.

In fact, if criminals were to create or cause a voting trend, they would need to vote overwhelmingly in a direction. Instead of sixty-some percent voting Dem, they would need to vote in the eightieth or ninetieth percentile, and their turnout would need to be well above the national average. Then they would create a statistical shift. But by voting in line with their demographic and ethnicity, they do nothing but pad out the Dem numbers in a not-terribly-helpful way.

Crazed Rabbit

01-08-2010, 01:50

A lot of debate. I'm to busy to get into it right now (and recovering from being offed in a mafia game), but I'll point out some things:

I don't know where the residency of felons would be. If at the address of the jail, it could sway some county politics.

Also, in 2004 we had a gubernatorial race decided by a couple hundred votes out of hundreds of thousands (for each candidate).

So the potential for impact is definitely there.

Also, being in jail doesn't take away your ability to write pamphlets and the like. Those people have demonstrated they would harm others for personal gain, though. Not the kind of person we (or me, at least) want voting for a government.

CR

Watchman

01-08-2010, 02:38

Uh, just checking, but don't people get to visit the Big House for quite a few non-violent offenses too ?

Proletariat

01-08-2010, 02:40

Watchman, I think most felonies are violent or at the least they're considered the more egregious crimes

Watchman

01-08-2010, 03:11

But not all the ones that earn you jail time are violent, are they ?

Beskar

01-08-2010, 03:40

Fraud is the next big out, outside Violence. (Sex crime goes under Violence as they both are usually occuring.)

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-08-2010, 03:50

No, sorry, statistics don't work that way. If the population of criminals is somewhere around 3% of the nation, then they constitute a minority of a minority.

Let's put it this way; let's say you're a member of a law firm, Dewey, Chetum & Howe. There are twenty guys in the law firm. They vote 30% Dem, 70% Repub. As it happens, their demographic also votes 30% Dem, 70% Repub. The members of Dewey, Cheatum & Howe are not causal in their demographic; they're too small a part. The twenty lawyers do not "create" their demo's voting patterns.

In fact, if criminals were to create or cause a voting trend, they would need to vote overwhelmingly in a direction. Instead of sixty-some percent voting Dem, they would need to vote in the eightieth or ninetieth percentile, and their turnout would need to be well above the national average. Then they would create a statistical shift. But by voting in line with their demographic and ethnicity, they do nothing but pad out the Dem numbers in a not-terribly-helpful way.

Given your statistics, that's fair enough, and I'm not keen at the moment to delve too deeply. Nonetheless, as I have stated, however they vote I strongly disagree with giving it to them. They could vote for conservative parties 100% of the time, they could all call me and ask me to fill out their ballots with my preference, but I still wouldn't let them vote (and I'd say no to the last one no matter who offered).

miotas

01-08-2010, 03:52

But to make the drivers license example fit this argument, you would have to say:

1) People who have lost their license are unfit to participate in driving
2) Voting on driving laws is participating in driving
3) Therefore people who have lost their license cannot vote on driving laws

You're argument is flawed since traffic laws effect pedestrians and you don't need a licence to walk, at least not where I live anyway.

But not all the ones that earn you jail time are violent, are they ?

The courts usually only put people in gaol if they are considered a danger to society, people not considered a danger to society usually get something like a fine or community service. The fact is that those who are in gaol are there because they have been deemed to be dangerous to society, and until they have finished their sentence I don't think they should vote. Of course the system isn't perfect and there are those who are in gaol but aren't a danger to society, but that is a different topic.

Proletariat

01-08-2010, 03:59

But not all the ones that earn you jail time are violent, are they ?

You can easily earn jail time without being violent in the US. Is that what you're asking?

Watchman

01-08-2010, 04:02

Pretty much yeah. Mainly 'cause Rabbits keeps talking like only violent criminals go behind bars.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-08-2010, 04:18

Given your statistics, that's fair enough, and I'm not keen at the moment to delve too deeply. Nonetheless, as I have stated, however they vote I strongly disagree with giving it to them. They could vote for conservative parties 100% of the time, they could all call me and ask me to fill out their ballots with my preference, but I still wouldn't let them vote (and I'd say no to the last one no matter who offered).

Well, you have reasons for your opinions don't you?

You're argument is flawed since traffic laws effect pedestrians and you don't need a licence to walk, at least not where I live anyway.

My point was that the people who lose their drivers license should still be able to vote...

Crazed Rabbit

01-08-2010, 04:23

Pretty much yeah. Mainly 'cause Rabbits keeps talking like only violent criminals go behind bars.

I'm saying those who go behind bars have harmed someone.

Case in point; Bernie Madoff never was violent, but he sure harmed a lot of people, and I don't think a Ponzi scheme operator like himself should be able to vote.

CR

Watchman

01-08-2010, 04:26

Sasaki Kojiro

01-08-2010, 04:27

I'm saying those who go behind bars have harmed someone.

Case in point; Bernie Madoff never was violent, but he sure harmed a lot of people, and I don't think a Ponzi scheme operator like himself should be able to vote.

CR

This is bugging me now, because I like to see both sides of the argument and I'm having trouble. Intuitively it makes sense that felons shouldn't be allowed to vote, but what are your actual reasons? Connect the dots for me. Is it a punishment? Are the not capable of making good voting choices? We don't have IQ tests.

Crazed Rabbit

01-08-2010, 04:29

That's not what you were saying back here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2410449&postcount=6).
So, fraud and whatnot is directly comparable to assault, robbery and worse ?

Well sorry I didn't include every example. :rolleyes:

And yes, fraud is comparable to violent crimes, depending on the scale of it of course. That's why we have the whole legal system with defined punishments for a wide variety of crimes.

CR

Watchman

01-08-2010, 04:36

Somehow your line of reasoning seems to me like equaling property with corporal inviolability...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-08-2010, 04:46

Well, you have reasons for your opinions don't you?

Of course. I never said we shouldn't allow them to vote because allowing them to will help the left, which is what Subotan suggested I believe.

Proletariat

01-08-2010, 04:50

CR, do you think felons losing voting rights is a punitive thing?

Gregoshi

01-08-2010, 05:09

CR, do you think felons losing voting rights is a punitive thing?
:laugh4: I was thinking the same thing, but you put it into words much better than I would have.

Reverend Joe

01-08-2010, 05:48

As I understood it your argument was this:

1) Criminals have been found unfit to participate in society
2) Voting is participating in society
3) Therefore, criminals are not fit to vote.

But to make the drivers license example fit this argument, you would have to say:

1) People who have lost their license are unfit to participate in driving
2) Voting on driving laws is participating[?!] in driving
3) Therefore people who have lost their license cannot vote on driving laws

Obviously, voting on driving laws is not driving. In other words, when we put someone in jail for grand theft it is so that they don't steal anymore, when we put a murderer in jail it is so that they don't kill anymore, and when we take away someone's license it is so that they don't drive dangerously anymore--not so that they can't participate in deciding who will be president.

I have read this several times and I can't connect the two arguments, because like you said, voting on driving laws is not participating in driving. In fact, that was the argument I made, so you basically pulled this out of your ass for no reason. What I am saying is, people who have been imprisoned are imprisoned because they have done a harm to society that is so egregious that they are not allowed to participate in society, and deciding who is president is a HUGE part of participating in society at large, which you agree with. But just because you can't randomly copy and paste parts of an argument onto another, totally irrelevant argument does not make the original argument invalid, it just means you can't understand how to construct an argument. And I see no support for your argument that we put people in jail so they don't repeat a crime. If that is the case, why do we release them, and why do we use the terminology of "paying their debt to society?"

Also, deductive arguments suck. I don't know why you would ever use one.

Crazed Rabbit

01-08-2010, 06:12

CR, do you think felons losing voting rights is a punitive thing?

I like to think so. :sweatdrop:

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

01-08-2010, 07:09

I have read this several times and I can't connect the two arguments, because like you said, voting on driving laws is not participating in driving. In fact, that was the argument I made, so you basically pulled this out of your ass for no reason. What I am saying is, people who have been imprisoned are imprisoned because they have done a harm to society that is so egregious that they are not allowed to participate in society, and deciding who is president is a HUGE part of participating in society at large, which you agree with. But just because you can't randomly copy and paste parts of an argument onto another, totally irrelevant argument does not make the original argument invalid, it just means you can't understand how to construct an argument. And I see no support for your argument that we put people in jail so they don't repeat a crime. If that is the case, why do we release them, and why do we use the terminology of "paying their debt to society?"

Also, deductive arguments suck. I don't know why you would ever use one.

You used what I felt was a faulty deductive argument, although you didn't state it explicitly:

they are unfit to participate in society, part of which involves making group decisions, as in the case of voting. Therefore, they should not be allowed to vote.

so I copied it to the driving argument, which I assumed you would disagree with.

I feel that rights should not be taken away without good reason. That is the premise of my argument. Mostly in this thread we have claims with no reasoning. I tried to think of a reason myself, but the best I can see is 1) taking away the right as part of the punishment, and 2) they are not fit to make voting decisions by nature of being criminals.

1) I disagree with because I don't see how it is a deterrent to crime, and don't see how it prevents crime. That should be the purpose of prison. We punish not to take pleasure in the suffering of others but to provide the kind of society we would like to live in. I base my claim for the superiority of the latter on human psychology, but that is a more technical discussion (and open for debate of course).

2) would logically lead one to support IQ and knowledge/morality testing before allowing someone to vote. Perhaps there would be room to work on that, and one could claim that we should have such testing if it were practical, and that disallowing prisoners is a practical measure. But I don't think felons are particularly incapable of making rational voting decisions, there isn't any evidence to support that as far as I know.

There may be more reasons of course, perhaps EMFM has one, he didn't state it however.

And I see no support for your argument that we put people in jail so they don't repeat a crime. If that is the case, why do we release them, and why do we use the terminology of "paying their debt to society?"

Well, that would be a claim not an argument. My argument for that claim would be that we don't want people to repeat a crime and that putting someone in prison prevents them from committing crime. We release them because they are supposed to have learned their lesson, the system doesn't work that well.

What terminology we use is inconsequential. We often use terminology that is inaccurate. In any case, I am talking about "should's" in addition to "do's".

-edit-

Apologies for rambling a bit. Anyway, I'd just like to clarify that I make tons of opinion only, unreasoned statements. I don't object to them per se, but they don't really work as arguments. I'm not particularly staking a claim here either, just pointing out what I feel is a scarcity of reasons. Often it is hard to find reasons to back up our moral intuitions, but that doesn't mean they are incorrect.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-08-2010, 07:22

As an argument for prisoners being allowed to vote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010703849.html

The Justice Department reported Thursday that 12 percent of incarcerated juveniles, or more than 3,200 young people, had been raped or sexually abused in the past year by fellow inmates or prison staff, quantifying for the first time a problem that has long troubled lawmakers and human rights advocates.

The report comes as those advocates say that the Obama administration is moving too slowly on reforms that would reduce rape in U.S. prisons and as corrections officials are pressing Justice to overhaul reform proposals it is reviewing.

Four former commissioners on a blue-ribbon prison rape panel that spent years studying the issue say they fear that authorities are deferring to concerns by corrections officials that reforms would cost too much, while not focusing enough on prison safety and the effects of abuse on inmates.

The study by the department's Bureau of Justice Statistics reported a "very high rate of staff sexual misconduct" against juvenile inmates. It cited two facilities in Virginia and one in Maryland, among others.

"These figures are appalling," said Pat Nolan, president of Justice Fellowship, a group that advocates for prison reform. "We stripped a prisoner of their ability to defend themselves. They can't control where they go; they can't control whether the shower has a light bulb in it."

Perhaps if votes were at stake, some things would have been improved?

HoreTore

01-08-2010, 10:33

I believe that Rabbit would agree that the best situation would be to take that sheriff, throw him in prison, and then take away his voting right.

Prisoners should lose their voting rights for the duration of their prison term. I am open to debate on allowing paroled individuals to vote, but I can't agree to letting criminals vote on the direction they want the country to go in - early release for themselves being one option, which is a big reason they do like to vote Democrat.

But it's still a-ok for everyone else to vote for every petty thing that will serve ourselves, right?

Beskar

01-08-2010, 10:43

Hosakawa Tito

01-08-2010, 11:56

Typically, jailed felons or those who have been paroled aren't really the civic minded voting type.

TinCow

01-08-2010, 14:55

I checked out the stats on this. Surprisingly, US states are all over the place on this issue. 2 states (Maine and Vermont) allow all felons to vote, even while they're in prison. 13 states (Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah) and DC allow all felons to vote once they've been released from prison. 5 states allow all felons to vote once they're no longer on parole. 18 states allow all felons to vote once released and no longer on parole or probation. Only 12 states will permanently prevent a felon from voting, and even then there are some exceptions based on the crime committed. Cite (http://felonvoting.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=000286).

Looking at the states involved, there are certainly some broad trends where 'blue' states tend to allow more voting rights for felons than 'red' states, but there's a lot of states that are not where you'd expect them to be. An interesting situation, to be sure.

KukriKhan

01-08-2010, 15:46

I wonder how many felons voted before they commited their crime. I'm guessing that number would be low. And then compare that number to how many ex-cons vote post-incarceration - which I'm guessing would be a higher number. If that's true, can we say that imprisonment leads to better civic participation?

Seamus Fermanagh

01-08-2010, 15:52

Politically:

Traditionally Democrat polities (Blue states) have a greater tendency to allow prisoners to vote and/or regain the suffrage because there is political pressure to do so.

Most of our typical racial "minority" components (Black, Hispanic, Native American/Amerind) tend to vote for Democrats, with Blacks typically voting at 85%+ for Dem candidates. NON-INCARCERATED members of these communities -- many almost perpetually angry over discrimination, including what they perceive to be a discriminatory incarceration likelihood* -- exert pressure on elected officials to make changes they view as favorable or fair to them. This is good old-fashioned constituency politics. So when the Rev. Jackson stops by your office and suggests that you vote FOR the voting rights of prisoners -- and implicitly suggests that you will lose much of that "easy" vote margin you received in the last election -- you listen.

* There are a number of factors that can be viewed as representing institutional discrimination resulting in a disproportionately "minority" prison population. Statistical analyses suggest (but have not definitively proven) that authorities DO profile by race when making decisions as to who will be searched, detained, etc.

Regarding Voting:

The Founding Fathers would have, almost without exception, viewed the idea of prisoners voting as ridiculous (note a (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s27.html), b (http://www1.cuny.edu/portal_ur/content/voting_cal/the_constitution.html)). Please note, however, that darned few of them were in favor of universal suffrage. They though in terms of a suffrage that was NOT based on birth, group affiliation, religious persuasion, or degree of wealth (beyond a basic level). They were NOT, for the most part, in favor of a suffrage that was universal based only the consumption of 18-plus years of oxygen.

I think we'd be better off if we restricted the suffrage MORE than we do, and in different fashions. We currently have states where a serial pederast who possesses an IQ of 85, who cannot remember who is the serving President, and who does nothing all day but knit whilst serving his life sentence has a vote while a 16-year old with an IQ of 210 who is deeply involved in reading up on the issues of the day when working at the local soup kitchen cannot vote.

That having been said, restriction of suffrage based solely on one's status as a prisoner may NOT be a valid reason for restricting suffrage, any more than was sex was up until the early 20th. You can make an argument that prisoners should lose that privilege until they have "re-paid society" in whatever fashion, but I think how we accord the suffrage has a host of other weaknesses that are more glaring.

HoreTore

01-08-2010, 16:01

I doubt there would be politicians trying to persuade the prisoner votes, due to the public backlash anyway.

Why do people think that prisoners only care about themselves getting shorter sentences?

Why shouldn't someone serving 5 years in prison for whatever have the right to an opinion about abortion, national security, the financial crisis, etc etc?

@Seamus: The founding fathers considered everyone who wasn't rich to be insignificant and sub-human, and thus not allowed to have a say in society. They are completely irrelevant to our modern society.

rory_20_uk

01-08-2010, 16:11

I agree that sufferage should be more restricted than it is, and that prisoners might not be the most relevant group, BUT they are the easiest - the ones in jail don't vote until they get out. As you point out, age is arbitrary, and one could make as good an argument against the under 18's as one can against the over 90's.

Other ways of discriminating are... discriminating, which in itself is Evil.
Then there's the methodology of deciding who can vote. That has the potential to blossom into a massive industry. whist possibly being no more fair.

~:smoking:

TinCow

01-08-2010, 16:13

Ironside

01-08-2010, 16:14

I am actually mixed opinions about this. especially when you start looking at Britain where there isn't a bias of "democrats = less time, republicans = more prison". Then again, as it is pointed out, that the prison population would vote along traditional/stereotypical lines anyway, so the ones who would most likely vote republican would still vote that way (if they even use their right to vote).

I doubt there would be politicians trying to persuade the prisoner votes, due to the public backlash anyway.

The US is rather "democrats = more prison, republicans = even more prison", considering their prison ratings.

I do find that losing your voting rights because you did something bad and got to jail is a bit lacking. Are prisoners incompetent voters? No more than a huge part of the population.
Do prisoners vote for selfish benefits? No more than a huge part of the population (rich voting for tax cuts, or poor voting for more social benefits ring any bells?).
The only risk would be them voting for a semi-criminal party in such amounts that it would make a difference and even then that party would require massive support from the non-felon population to be of notice. What's the odds of making rape legal?

And we also have the notice of making voting a priviledge and not a right. So what have you done for your country lately that made you deserve this priviledge?

I agree that sufferage should be more restricted than it is, and that prisoners might not be the most relevant group, BUT they are the easiest - the ones in jail don't vote until they get out. As you point out, age is arbitrary, and one could make as good an argument against the under 18's as one can against the over 90's.

Other ways of discriminating are... discriminating, which in itself is Evil.
Then there's the methodology of deciding who can vote. That has the potential to blossom into a massive industry. whist possibly being no more fair.

~:smoking:

The boon and bane of democracy.

Banquo's Ghost

01-08-2010, 17:03

TinCow

01-08-2010, 17:13

I didn't see this answered in the links: apparently then, some states allow felons to vote, and some do not. Does this apply to federal elections as well as state elections? In other words, some people are allowed by their state to vote for a president, whereas some, by dint of their geography and record are not?

That is correct. Keep in mind that the US does not actually have any federal election independent of state elections. When Americans vote for the president, they are actually voting for which candidate gets to pick their state's representatives to the electoral college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29). The actual vote for the President is then done by the electors themselves. So for legal purposes depriving a person of a vote for the president is no different than depriving them of a vote for any State position or issue.

Lemur

01-08-2010, 17:36

[S]ome people are allowed by their state to vote for a president, whereas some, by dint of their geography and record are not?

If this is the case, it is surely unjust.
Weeeeeell, this is one of those inherent paradoxes of our system. You're right, of course, that a mixed system of franchise restriction creates deep unfairness at the Federal level when election time comes. However, we as a nation still cling to the notion of states' rights, and the Founders' vision of fifty little laboratories where different ideas are tried out.

What this means in practice is that we never achieve fairness and we never really get the states' rights sorted out. And yet it works somehow.

That said, lifetime restrictions on voting rights for criminals who have served their time make zero sense to this lemur. I can't even formulate a coherent argument in favor. It just seems like an idiot's idea of social engineering.

rory_20_uk

01-08-2010, 18:28

I think that this is the great strength of the USA as opposed to the EU - even though the European countries have more obvious differences as they were not started carte blanche but have been at each others throats interacting for hundreds of years.

If you don't like the laws - move state. No one's stopping you.

~:smoking:

Seamus Fermanagh

01-08-2010, 21:22

@Seamus: The founding fathers considered everyone who wasn't rich to be insignificant and sub-human, and thus not allowed to have a say in society. They are completely irrelevant to our modern society.

Not quite. Typical property restrictions on voting were based on someone who owned land, generated profits/jobs, or paid a moderate rent. Think in terms of upper "lower class" through the highest economic echelons having the franchise and you're probably in the right ballpark.

TinCow:

A good point sir. Political pressure takes many forms and I was guilty of over-simplifying.

HoreTore

01-08-2010, 22:15

Prisoners cannot vote in UK elections either, whilst incarcerated. Equally, in a ruling no doubt to be cherished by HoreTore, neither could the aristocracy (until recently, when most hereditary peers were barred from the House of Lords).

Why on earth would you believe that would be "cherished" by me....?

Major Robert Dump

01-09-2010, 03:54

We are a nation governed by criminals, why not be one elected by criminals, too?

I could care less. Aside from the obvious well-timed Gerrymandering of how some of these laws come into play, the prison population is going to have a negligible effect on the democratic process when you factor in how many of them will actually take the pantyhose of their head in order to go vote. If anything, it may have a long-term effect on how some of our non-violent offenders are treated and charged and incarcerated and may help pave the way to certain changes in law, like reforming the war on drugs.

From a punitive perspective, I can see where denying them a certain right is just another nail in their coffin. From a purely principled standpoint it makes sense to me, but not from a practical one, because it's not a deterrent. I have yet to hear of a jury return a guilty verdict and the convicted scream out "But what about the election!!!" I'm actually undecided on other punitive punishments as well, such as not being able to own a firearm or run for election. Certain crimes are obvious, others not so much.

Not allowing them to vote in the long run just seems like punishment for the sake of punishment.

Allowing them to vote while in prison, well......this is sticky business. Do they get to vote on everything? What about the county bond issue to make a new prison? What about school board elections? State and Federal? I can see where certain "charities" serving the prison could easily influence the way those inside voted. Buying votes from a captive audience would be a lot easier that buying them from people on the outside who were actually well-informed, ah, who am I kidding? The prisoners are probably better informed.....

KukriKhan

01-09-2010, 04:47

We are a nation governed by criminals, why not be one elected by criminals, too?

Thought that was Australia, but on second thought, yep.

Lemur

01-09-2010, 04:56

Thought that was Australia, but on second thought, yep.
Old joke, which you probably already know: Why did Australia get the criminals while America got the Puritans? Australia picked first.

Xiahou

01-09-2010, 05:01

when we put a murderer in jail it is so that they don't kill anymore, and when we take away someone's license it is so that they don't drive dangerously anymore--not so that they can't participate in deciding who will be president.Says who? Our justice system has always had punitive aspects.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-09-2010, 05:24

Says who? Our justice system has always had punitive aspects.

Yes, and we punish people so that they don't commit the crime again...

We've gradually weened out the revenge aspects of it.

CCRunner

01-09-2010, 06:53

While they are in prison, they're in prison which in my opinion means they forfeit all rights they have as a normal citizen. Once they are out, they've paid their dues and should be allowed everything again with the exception of second amendment rights being restricted for violence. Meaning no voting while in prison but everyone should have the right to vote once out.

Banquo's Ghost

01-09-2010, 08:36

Why on earth would you believe that would be "cherished" by me....?

Apologies if I offended you. :embarassed:

It was meant to be a light-hearted comment, as you have previously stated the aristocracy are equivalent to criminals. I thought you might be tickled that until 1999, the UK treated them exactly the same in terms of voting rights.

rory_20_uk

01-09-2010, 11:20

Yes, and we punish people so that they don't commit the crime again...

Do I detect sarcasm?

~:smoking:

TinCow

01-09-2010, 15:40

Yes, and we punish people so that they don't commit the crime again...

We've gradually weened out the revenge aspects of it.

That's not entirely true. This is from the SCOTUS opinion which lifted the moratorium on the death penalty in 1976:

The death penalty is said to serve two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders… In part, capital punishment is an expression of society’s moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct. This function may be unappealing to many, but it is essential in an ordered society that asks its citizens to rely on legal processes rather than self-help to vindicate their wrongs… When people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they ‘deserve’ then there are sown the seeds of anarchy – of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law.

Gregg v. Georgia, 408 U.S. at 183.