Democratic Party Boosted in WA; Jailed Felons can Vote

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

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

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

Who cares if prisoners can vote or not?

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?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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. 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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

---

By the judges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

By the judges?

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

What creeps me out is the states where you lose your voting rights permanently. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?