Democratic Party Boosted in WA; Jailed Felons can Vote

[Lemur]

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, you might want to, I dunno, at least refute the earlier comment.

-edit-

In other words:

[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.

[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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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, 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]

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]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

[Proletariat]

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

[Watchman]

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

[Beskar]

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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]

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]

That's not what you were saying back here.
So, fraud and whatnot is directly comparable to assault, robbery and worse in the context ?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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]

That's not what you were saying back here.
So, fraud and whatnot is directly comparable to assault, robbery and worse ?

Well sorry I didn't include every example.

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]

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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]

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

[Gregoshi]

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

I was thinking the same thing, but you put it into words much better than I would have.

[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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

I like to think so.

CR