Democratic Party Boosted in WA; Jailed Felons can Vote

[Beskar]

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

[Vladimir]

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

[Vladimir]

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

Democrats = open criminals

Republicans = closet criminals...pun intended.

[HoreTore]

Democrats = open criminals

Republicans = closet criminals...pun intended.

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

Forgive me, american politics are easy to get mixed up

[Lemur]

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?

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.

[Skullheadhq]

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
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 :)

[TinCow]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

[Fisherking]

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]

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]

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]

By the judges?

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

[Subotan]

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

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. 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.

[Reverend Joe]

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]

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Kralizec]

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

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]

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.