Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
I think you have to be a conservative to be able to misunderstand things so completely. Hearing the voices of the prisoners(or any other group for that matter), does the opposite of this. It adapts the prisoner to society, it doesn't adapt society to the prisoner.

If you fail to understand this, I see very little point further discussion.
This exchange is, on some level, a differend (sorry to go all Lyotardian on ya!).

Both of you are invoking utterly different value frameworks that are at odds over this instance.

Framework One: All persons who are not mentally unsound/undeveloped (due to illness or youthfulness) should have a voice in self governance. In this framework, a person's criminality is dealt with through incarceration/rehabilitation but their right to a "voice" should not be stifled -- their opinion is of no lesser worth than before they committed and were caught in committing a crime.

Framework Two: Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The franchise is the ultimate right/privilege of citizenship in a community. Persons who have demonstrably acted against the greater good -- failing to meet their responsibilities -- have thereby demonstrated that they cannot discharge responsibilities correctly, so they should not be afforded the privilege of the franchise until they have atoned and demonstrated their willingness to accept responsibility.

Neither of these frameworks is without value, but on this issue at least they can easily "speak past" one another.