Taxation without representation

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Felons can vote, even while incarcerated.

Just to add to that. They vote in the constituency they were in prior to being incarcerated.

edit: "vote in" meaning counted toward

Edited October 22, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That is one nasty statistic!

Agreed.

 

 

My view on it is that if you're in jail you shouldn't vote, otherwise as soon as you're free and off of probation, you may vote again. That should be the standard federal law in my opinion.

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 My view on it is that if you're in jail you shouldn't vote, otherwise as soon as you're free and off of probation, you may vote again. That should be the standard federal law in my opinion.

I agree. To deny someone the vote after their sentence is ended means inflicting a penalty on them that wasn't decided by a court of law. It also means that permanent loss of voting rights means someone convicted of a 2-year sentence and a 20-year sentence are getting the same punishment in this regard.

 

[John Cuthber]

"The state" isn't denying them the right to vote.  They did that to themselves. 

They didn't have to commit a crime, and they should have considered the consequences. If we are talking about people who are unable to consider the outcomes of their actions, I'm not sure we should let them vote anyway. That's (in part) why we don't let children vote.

(And I say that, knowing that most people disenfranchised in this way would probably vote the same way I would)

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

I agree. To deny someone the vote after their sentence is ended means inflicting a penalty on them that wasn't decided by a court of law. It also means that permanent loss of voting rights means someone convicted of a 2-year sentence and a 20-year sentence are getting the same punishment in this regard.

 

I think it also sends the wrong message. If the system does not respect them, why should we feel they should respect the system?

[Raider5678]

23 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

"The state" isn't denying them the right to vote.  They did that to themselves. 

 

I agree with this sentiment in regards to those currently in jail. Additionally, how you'd count the votes of those in jail would have to be different as well.

Would you agree though that after they get out they should get the ability to vote back again?

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

"The state" isn't denying them the right to vote.  They did that to themselves. 

They didn't have to commit a crime, and they should have considered the consequences. If we are talking about people who are unable to consider the outcomes of their actions, I'm not sure we should let them vote anyway. That's (in part) why we don't let children vote.

(And I say that, knowing that most people disenfranchised in this way would probably vote the same way I would)

Age is about informed consent. There are several things we don't let children do or be involved in, legally (drinking, smoking, driving, sex), but what of these (or others not listed) do we restrict because they have a felony conviction? If a convict can't be responsible with their vote — something that is a right — surely they can't be responsible with these other actions, which are not rights.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Felons can vote, even while incarcerated.

I can see debating whether or not murders and rapists should be able to vote while in prison. Once people are out of prison though I just don't understand the justification. For me If a person is legally allowed to live in society among everyone else and do all normal things (work, rent, buy, etc ) than it only makes sense they'd be able vote. 

 

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

"The state" isn't denying them the right to vote.  They did that to themselves. 

They didn't have to commit a crime, and they should have considered the consequences. If we are talking about people who are unable to consider the outcomes of their actions, I'm not sure we should let them vote anyway. That's (in part) why we don't let children vote.

(And I say that, knowing that most people disenfranchised in this way would probably vote the same way I would)

If laws state to state were consistent I could partially agree. That isn't the case though. In Florida, state that leads the nation in felon disenfranchisement, there are still felons associated with Marijuana possession on the books, Here . No one should permanently be at risk of losing their right to vote over felons which wouldn't even be misdemeanors in various states. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I can see debating whether or not murders and rapists should be able to vote while in prison. Once people are out of prison though I just don't understand the justification. For me If a person is legally allowed to live in society among everyone else and do all normal things (work, rent, buy, etc ) than it only makes sense they'd be able vote. 

 

My thoughts are that their votes are not going to influence whether murder or rape should be legal, and likely not influence very much at all with respect to those crimes...so why not let them vote along with all the other less than perfect voters (i.e. everyone else)?

As long as they understand what is asked, I don't see what harm there is in having all felons vote on a national or provincial/state election (other than the argument that they might vote for the wrong party...!). I think it is less dangerous than deciding who should/should not vote. Imagine a time of protest and civil disobedience where you could disenfranchise every felon...at what point will it not even be able to pretend to be democratic?

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My thoughts are that their votes are not going to influence whether murder or rape should be legal, and likely not influence very much at all with respect to those crimes...so why not let them vote along with all the other less than perfect voters (i.e. everyone else)?

As long as they understand what is asked, I don't see what harm there is in having all felons vote on a national or provincial/state election (other than the argument that they might vote for the wrong party...!). I think it is less dangerous than deciding who should/should not vote. Imagine a time of protest and civil disobedience where you could disenfranchise every felon...at what point will it not even be able to pretend to be democratic?

You may be right. I can't refute your post. It makes sense. My point was that it seems more understandable to me because in addition to taking the right to vote other rights are denied. For those who are out of Prison rights are restored so it doesn't make sense to hold back the right to vote. 

[Raider5678]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My thoughts are that their votes are not going to influence whether murder or rape should be legal, and likely not influence very much at all with respect to those crimes...so why not let them vote along with all the other less than perfect voters (i.e. everyone else)?

 

It has less to do with the idea of their influence in the election, then the idea of a rapist taking part in the vote to elect someone to office. Regardless of who they choose.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It has less to do with the idea of their influence in the election, then the idea of a rapist taking part in the vote to elect someone to office. Regardless of who they choose.

I take it you don't like them. (fair enough)

What about other violent crimes? Crimes that are emotionally equivalent? The point is that you have to draw the line somewhere, arbitrarily, if you draw it anywhere...and you can get to where it is in Florida (as Ten oz pointed out above) with over 10% of otherwise eligible voters not allowed to take part in the voting for the making and maintaining of laws they are expected to respect.

[Raider5678]

33 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What about other violent crimes? Crimes that are emotionally equivalent? The point is that you have to draw the line somewhere, arbitrarily, if you draw it anywhere...and you can get to where it is in Florida (as Ten oz pointed out above) with over 10% of otherwise eligible voters not allowed to take part in the voting for the making and maintaining of laws they are expected to respect.

I choose to draw the line in jail. If you're in jail you don't vote.

Florida requires you to go through an entire process to get the right to vote back after you've gotten out, and even then it's not guaranteed and it's expensive.

Those are two entirely different situations.

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

I choose to draw the line in jail. If you're in jail you don't vote.

Florida requires you to go through an entire process to get the right to vote back after you've gotten out, and even then it's not guaranteed and it's expensive.

Those are two entirely different situations.

 

Regardless of crime? What if one is in a Florida prison for Marijuana possession of some other infraction which wouldn't land one in prison in other states. 

[iNow]

Also, leaving jail doesn’t currently return to them their suffrage.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Regardless of crime? What if one is in a Florida prison for Marijuana possession of some other infraction which wouldn't land one in prison in other states. 

Regardless of the crime.

The law is the law. Just because something is legal in another state doesn't mean you can simply ignore your state's laws and expect to get away with it.

Democracy is democracy. If the people around you routinely vote politicians in who don't make Marijuana legal, then that is their choice. If their choice is that they don't want Marijuana legal there, they don't want Marijuana legal there. You live there. You follow their laws. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.

 

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

Also, leaving jail doesn’t currently return to them their suffrage.

Which is my main problem with Florida's system. The people who aren't in jail should be allowed to vote. And I say that fully knowing they'd probably vote differently than I.

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

There are several things we don't let children do or be involved in, legally (drinking, smoking, driving, sex), ... If a convict can't be responsible with their vote — something that is a right — surely they can't be responsible with these other actions, which are not rights.

Drinking + smoking typically cause much more harm to the individual than to those around them.

We don't actually allow individuals the right to have sex. We allow them the right to seek consent from another. Again, it's not just one person's decision. (There's also the practicallity of stopping them).

Driving isn't that complex in terms of decision making- we can pretty much get computers to do it. The issue isn't that driving's very difficult- we all know people who can barely read, write or string a sentence together, but can drive OK. We don't let kids do it because they don't fully understand the idea that other people are important too.

In my view, at least part of the reason we don't let felons vote isn't "punitive", any more than we "punish" those with mental health problems by not letting them vote.

It's just that we don't feel we can trust their judgement.

If we know they can't tell right from wrong WRT criminality, why would we give them the choice to screw up right + wrong WRT government?

 

[rangerx]

I often wonder how many American felons have taken up the art of trolling or rhetorical extremism in lieu of the ability to vote.

[Carrock]

Lack of representation is generally associated with other discriminatory treatment or lack of other rights.

I suspect prisoners, in particular, would not vote for politicians who accept money from private prison owners to legislate for more and longer prison sentences for minor offences. In practice, such legislation disproportionately affects those who can't afford to hire a good lawyer.

Prisoners would probably make an exception for judges who receive bribes for jailing people for minor offences.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Drinking + smoking typically cause much more harm to the individual than to those around them.

We don't actually allow individuals the right to have sex. We allow them the right to seek consent from another. Again, it's not just one person's decision. (There's also the practicallity of stopping them).

None of those are rights, but voting is. These are all things that we have decided that children of some age are not old enough to consent to doing. We don't do anything else to assess the quality of their judgement.

If a teen gets pregnant or impregnates someone, do we take away their ability to have sex? That's arguably showing poor judgement. We take away your legal ability to drive if you violate certain driving laws; that's at least directly related. I don't see how  a felony and political decision-making are related. Plus the fact that some people actually turn their life around after being incarcerated. 

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Driving isn't that complex in terms of decision making- we can pretty much get computers to do it. The issue isn't that driving's very difficult- we all know people who can barely read, write or string a sentence together, but can drive OK. We don't let kids do it because they don't fully understand the idea that other people are important too.

In my view, at least part of the reason we don't let felons vote isn't "punitive", any more than we "punish" those with mental health problems by not letting them vote.

It's just that we don't feel we can trust their judgement.

If we know they can't tell right from wrong WRT criminality, why would we give them the choice to screw up right + wrong WRT government?

 

But we don't take away rights from other people with poor judgement.

 Also, if you're rich enough to get a good lawyer (or otherwise have influence) and get out of a felony, how does that make you "responsible"? Part of the problem here is that this disproportionately affects poorer people, who have diminished access to good legal representation, and minorities are over-represented among the poor. 

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Regardless of the crime.

The law is the law. Just because something is legal in another state doesn't mean you can simply ignore your state's laws and expect to get away with it.

Democracy is democracy. If the people around you routinely vote politicians in who don't make Marijuana legal, then that is their choice. If their choice is that they don't want Marijuana legal there, they don't want Marijuana legal there. You live there. You follow their laws. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.

The majority of the country is in favor of legalizing marijuana, Here. When Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her seat on the bus she was breaking the law. Saying that the law is the law enjoys how imperfect laws are. They are being changed and update all the time and in various localities laws are used to subvert specific groups of people.  During the Vietnam war people were arrested and prosecuted for refusing the draft. Meanwhile wealthy people like Donald Trump got deferment after deferment and still got to become President. Law is not omnipotent. 

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

If a teen gets pregnant or impregnates someone, do we take away their ability to have sex? That's arguably showing poor judgement. We take away your legal ability to drive if you violate certain driving laws; that's at least directly related. I don't see how  a felony and political decision-making are related. Plus the fact that some people actually turn their life around after being incarcerated.

I am not even area of any state where one would permanently lose the ability to drive. 

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Also, if you're rich enough to get a good lawyer (or otherwise have influence) and get out of a felony, how does that make you "responsible"? Part of the problem here is that this disproportionately affects poorer people, who have diminished access to good legal representation, and minorities are over-represented among the poor. 

Excellent point.It think it is pretty clear that in the U.S. criminal justice system anyone with resources is assured the lightest punishment possible if any punishment at all.  

[Raider5678]

47 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The majority of the country is in favor of legalizing marijuana, Here. When Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her seat on the bus she was breaking the law. Saying that the law is the law enjoys how imperfect laws are. They are being changed and update all the time and in various localities laws are used to subvert specific groups of people.  During the Vietnam war people were arrested and prosecuted for refusing the draft. Meanwhile wealthy people like Donald Trump got deferment after deferment and still got to become President. Law is not omnipotent. 

3

Saying that the law is the law isn't enjoying how imperfect laws are. It's saying it's the law. Period. 

Additionally, we have state laws for a reason. Just because the majority of the people in the country want something, doesn't mean all the states have to do it.

Wyoming gave women the right to vote 51 years before the rest of the country when it was still massively unpopular with the rest of the nation. 

Perhaps you feel all women should have all waited until 1920 to get the right to vote?(This is a rhetorical question)

 

We can bring up examples of history until the cows come home, but the law is the law. Period. Unless you're advocating states shouldn't have the right to have laws individually.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Saying that the law is the law isn't enjoying how imperfect laws are. It's saying it's the law. Period. 

I imagine you'd feel very differently about this if you were the one impacted by a bad law. During Vietnam tens of thousands of families watch their sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, and etc sent to die in a war even today people struggle to understand the point of while people like Trump and Cheney got deferments and just continued on uninterrupted. Your grandparents weren't the ones sitting in theaters behind chicken wire or using separate facilities because the Law said so. Saying the Law is the law period is a bit dangerous in my opinion. We do not live in a police state. We live in a free society and our laws are fluid by design. The respect between law and citizens should be mutual and not a one way affair favoring authoritarianism.   

3 hours ago, Carrock said:

Lack of representation is generally associated with other discriminatory treatment or lack of other rights.

I suspect prisoners, in particular, would not vote for politicians who accept money from private prison owners to legislate for more and longer prison sentences for minor offences. In practice, such legislation disproportionately affects those who can't afford to hire a good lawyer.

Prisoners would probably make an exception for judges who receive bribes for jailing people for minor offences.

Assumptions about how people might vote shouldn't be a determining factor for whether or not one is able to vote. Otherwise how can we call is democracy. 

[Raider5678]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I imagine you'd feel very differently about this if you were the one impacted by a bad law. During Vietnam tens of thousands of families watch their sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, and etc sent to die in a war even today people struggle to understand the point of while people like Trump and Cheney got deferments and just continued on uninterrupted. Your grandparents weren't the ones sitting in theaters behind chicken wire or using separate facilities because the Law said so. Saying the Law is the law period is a bit dangerous in my opinion. We do not live in a police state. We live in a free society and our laws are fluid by design. The respect between law and citizens should be mutual and not a one way affair favoring authoritarianism.   

It's marijuana man. Not the end of humanity.

And again. It's the law. This is a democracy. You can vote politicians in to change the law.

Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you can defy it and complain when you go to jail because of it.

Marijuana is illegal in some states, it's legal in others.

That is the way it is.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It's marijuana man. Not the end of humanity.

And again. It's the law. This is a democracy. You can vote politicians in to change the law.

Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you can defy it and complain when you go to jail because of it.

Marijuana is illegal in some states, it's legal in others.

That is the way it is.

This is sanctimonious in my opinion. Whether it's jaywalking, speeding, underage drinking, or etc you and everyone you know has broken the law. It is easy to say the law is the law when one has never been negatively impacted by unfair enforcement of the law.