Democrats introduce bill for Felons to vote
- Thread starter carbiner
- Start date
Who will determine if the felon is "a productive member of society"? Or is he automatically productive after completing his sentence?
Why not leave it up to a judge who can look at the individual and complete a risk assessment at the petitioners expense? (as it is now)
It has been a few years since I have done work for the Federal Court. Last I knew there was no parole for federal convicts, when they were released they were done.
garand_shooter
New member
Yes. There are consequences to our actions. Good deeds have good consequences and foul deeds, foul consequences. And what exactly do we rehabilitate? What is broken that we are fixing? How are we fixing it? With so many repeat offenders, it doesn't appear to be working. This is not like a broke-down auto. We can fix a car without it desiring to be fixed. Can we rehabilitate without the desire to be rehabilitated?
Agreed.
If a guy gets out of prison, stays out of trouble and collects welfare, is he a productive member of society? If a guy gets out, returns to his old ways, but doesn't get caught, is he a productive member of society? I like the petition process. Let the ex-con demonstrate that he should have his rights reinstated. After all, it was he who demonstrated that he should have his rights suspended, wasn't it? If a man has paid his debt and can show he has had a true change of heart, it is our duty to accept him back into society, but that doesn't mean a blanket policy is the most effective measure.
GlocksRfun
New member
I don't think felons should get there rights back. U gotta punish people for doing stuff. U spend 20 years in jail, pay your debt to society. But after that ur close to being institutionalized anyways. I've seen the shawshank redemption. After sitting in jail/prison for a long time, I would think people kinda loose touch with reality. If anything, I liked the idea of some good time after being released or what not. I don't know or care who in jail votes for who. If ur gonna comit a crime that will lead to beeing locked up for decades, what do u car about being able to vote, chances are the gun u used to rape that girl with wasn't legit.. Generally felons don't have respect for our laws or probably anything else. I know that doesn't apply for 100% felons and I know a guy that open slapped his X's new boyfriend, but that was after he beat him up before and it was felony something to a witness. Granted not all felonys are violent and not all carry decade's sentence.
I'll probably get jumped on for this, but maybe we should think about this from a different angle. Think back to the 2000 Election, in Florida, when people were denied their right to vote because their names were similar to that of a felon. How would you feel if you were one of these people, with your rights violated and your vote denied? I would be furious. Is it possible to clear your name in time to actually get to vote? How many legitamate voters turned away is worth it?
It would be possible to use this for an underhanded political purpose. I'm not saying it was, I'm saying it could be. How do you propose we protect the rights of the innocent who might get caught up in the felon list?
It would be possible to use this for an underhanded political purpose. I'm not saying it was, I'm saying it could be. How do you propose we protect the rights of the innocent who might get caught up in the felon list?
invention_45
New member
carbiner:
Just so we're clear on this, I do NOT favor coddling a thug selling drugs to a minor, including the drugs called alcohol and nicotine. That should still be a felony.
And when I say violent crime, as I think I implied before, I mean a crime that has an actual victim. Theft is included in that.
A real victim, by the way, is a person who, due to the actions of the perpetrator, would be inclined to go to the police and report the crime. If a "victim" would not do that, then he's really not a victim but a perpetrator. So there's no victim in that case. It's a crime he's committed against himself, which is just plain silly.
That's what drug crimes are. Unless, of course, you're selling to a minor, then there is a victim. Just like with alcohol and cigarettes. This victim would not be inclined to go to the police. But this victim is a MINOR and his/her PARENTS would.
I stick with never restoring gun rights to convicted violent felons. If you are a badass enough to do enough violence against people to get caught and convicted, then you should be badass enough to protect yourself without a gun.
But voting rights. That's nothing but political. On both sides. Once you have paid your debt, they should be restored.
Just so we're clear on this, I do NOT favor coddling a thug selling drugs to a minor, including the drugs called alcohol and nicotine. That should still be a felony.
And when I say violent crime, as I think I implied before, I mean a crime that has an actual victim. Theft is included in that.
A real victim, by the way, is a person who, due to the actions of the perpetrator, would be inclined to go to the police and report the crime. If a "victim" would not do that, then he's really not a victim but a perpetrator. So there's no victim in that case. It's a crime he's committed against himself, which is just plain silly.
That's what drug crimes are. Unless, of course, you're selling to a minor, then there is a victim. Just like with alcohol and cigarettes. This victim would not be inclined to go to the police. But this victim is a MINOR and his/her PARENTS would.
I stick with never restoring gun rights to convicted violent felons. If you are a badass enough to do enough violence against people to get caught and convicted, then you should be badass enough to protect yourself without a gun.
But voting rights. That's nothing but political. On both sides. Once you have paid your debt, they should be restored.
IN 1997 Gov. George Bush signed a bill passed by the Texas legislature that eliminated the two year wating period after their jail sentence was completed allowing them to regain thier voting rights.
IN Texas ex-felons who have completed their jail sentences or the conditions for release can vote.
"In the report, states were asked to restore voting rights to convicted felons who have served full sentences. Bush backs the provision, aides said, noting that he signed legislation as governor of Texas moving up voting eligibility for felons."
http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/08-01-01/01080103_s02_Lukewarm.html
IN Texas ex-felons who have completed their jail sentences or the conditions for release can vote.
"In the report, states were asked to restore voting rights to convicted felons who have served full sentences. Bush backs the provision, aides said, noting that he signed legislation as governor of Texas moving up voting eligibility for felons."
http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/08-01-01/01080103_s02_Lukewarm.html
Do you have a source for this? One name of a person denied for this reason?
How many were?
Hypothetically assuming someone was turned away for this, this argument for a change in the law seems a bit like revoking a criminal statute because one defendant was falsely accused.
I still cannot see why the current expungement/petition system at the expense of the felon is not acceptable to everyone.
"State officials have said there are people on the list who are not felons, and elections workers have flagged more than 300 people listed who might have received clemency."
Another problem was that about 2,700 people who had received clemency were still on the list.
"Florida is one of only a handful of states that does not automatically restore voting rights to convicted felons once they've completed their sentence"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-10-felons-vote-fla_x.htm
I should think that before we tackle the question of felons and rights, shouldn't we tackle the question of what's a felony? The current definitions are:
Felony
: a crime that has a greater punishment imposed by statute than that imposed on a misdemeanor
: a federal crime for which the punishment may be death or imprisonment for more than a year
Violent Felony
: a crime consisting of conduct that presents a serious risk of potential injury to another or that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (used esp. in federal sentencing of career criminals guilty of crimes involving use of a weapon)
Misdemeanor
: a crime that carries a less severe punishment than a felony
: a crime punishable by a fine and by a term of imprisonment not to be served in a penitentiary and not to exceed one year.
What is curious is that the definition has dropped the "serious nature" and/or "grave nature" in the definition. This is possibly due to the sheer number of crimes that have been converted from misdemeanor level to felony level in the past 50 years. Too, many misdemeanors can be converted to felonies by addition of the term "aggravated" to the charge.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Now, I'll be the first to admit that it hasn't gotten quite that bad yet, common sense can still keep you free from the courts. But at the rate that crimes are being added to statutory law, it won't be too many more years before the above is completely true.
The single fastest area of growth in criminal law is in the area of statutory crimes, or crimes against the state. So-called, victimless crimes.
So I would think that before we talk about restoring rights, of any kind, to felons, we need to rethink what a felony is. If a crime does not comport to being serious or grave in nature, should it be a felony at all? And exactly what behaviors do we really want to control? If there is no victim, other than the state, should the behavior be a crime at all?
Felony
: a crime that has a greater punishment imposed by statute than that imposed on a misdemeanor
: a federal crime for which the punishment may be death or imprisonment for more than a year
Violent Felony
: a crime consisting of conduct that presents a serious risk of potential injury to another or that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (used esp. in federal sentencing of career criminals guilty of crimes involving use of a weapon)
Misdemeanor
: a crime that carries a less severe punishment than a felony
: a crime punishable by a fine and by a term of imprisonment not to be served in a penitentiary and not to exceed one year.
What is curious is that the definition has dropped the "serious nature" and/or "grave nature" in the definition. This is possibly due to the sheer number of crimes that have been converted from misdemeanor level to felony level in the past 50 years. Too, many misdemeanors can be converted to felonies by addition of the term "aggravated" to the charge.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Now, I'll be the first to admit that it hasn't gotten quite that bad yet, common sense can still keep you free from the courts. But at the rate that crimes are being added to statutory law, it won't be too many more years before the above is completely true.
The single fastest area of growth in criminal law is in the area of statutory crimes, or crimes against the state. So-called, victimless crimes.
So I would think that before we talk about restoring rights, of any kind, to felons, we need to rethink what a felony is. If a crime does not comport to being serious or grave in nature, should it be a felony at all? And exactly what behaviors do we really want to control? If there is no victim, other than the state, should the behavior be a crime at all?
invention_45
New member
pipoman:
"I still cannot see why the current expungement/petition system at the expense of the felon is not acceptable to everyone."
Because it's a board, probably appointed, of some kind, not a jury of peers, making the decision.
Antipitas: good points.
"I still cannot see why the current expungement/petition system at the expense of the felon is not acceptable to everyone."
Because it's a board, probably appointed, of some kind, not a jury of peers, making the decision.
Antipitas: good points.
I'll buy that for a $1.00
Felons who have completed thier sentences, terms for release and probation or parole should be eligible for regaining thier voting rights. If they are still on probation or parole or they have not complied with the terms of thier release then no vote. no vote while in prison or jail. If they commit another felony and they are founf guilty and convicted they lose voting rights.
I am even agreeable to felons that have commited a crime that is heinous or violent having tougher restrictions based on the facts of the crime.
For instance lets say an 18 year old gets in a fistfight and acidentally kills the other person. He completes his sentence and earns a college degree and a graduate degree and is a productive member of society. Even though he has committed a crime with a vicitm it was unintentional. He has paid his debt to society and has rehabilitated himself. I think that this person should have his voting rights restored.
Felons who have completed thier sentences, terms for release and probation or parole should be eligible for regaining thier voting rights. If they are still on probation or parole or they have not complied with the terms of thier release then no vote. no vote while in prison or jail. If they commit another felony and they are founf guilty and convicted they lose voting rights.
I am even agreeable to felons that have commited a crime that is heinous or violent having tougher restrictions based on the facts of the crime.
For instance lets say an 18 year old gets in a fistfight and acidentally kills the other person. He completes his sentence and earns a college degree and a graduate degree and is a productive member of society. Even though he has committed a crime with a vicitm it was unintentional. He has paid his debt to society and has rehabilitated himself. I think that this person should have his voting rights restored.
It sounds like the problem has been addressed.
Of course if polling places could require photo IDs for verification of identity this problem may never occur. Isn't this another Democrat position? (Opposition to ID requirement at polling places)
This is probably the truth of the matter (if not 19 out of 20).
So you think the board or jury should consist of convicted felons? Short of this it doesn't matter who is on the board or jury because they will not be "his peers".
+1 Antipitas
loggerhead
Moderator
What Do We Do When The Asians Decide To Stop Loaning Us Money?
The BC administration presented a balanced budget in I believe 1998, and as I recall it was the first in 30 years.
The gwb administration almost immediately turned that into a deficit. Thsi deficit is primarily funded by China and Japan. The AARP, February 2006 bulletin, reported that the proposed budget by the gwb administration is roughly a deficit of approximately $400 BILLION. They polled 1026 adults 18 and over in early January 2006 for reccomendations for balanceing the budget. Of the respondents 69% favored keeping the tax on estates over $2 million, 61% favored raising the ICT on households earning over $100,000 and 11 % favored a cut in Medicare and Medicaid and only 7%favored cutting social security benefits.
It appears to me that the bush administration is not listening to the mainstream of america.
The BC administration presented a balanced budget in I believe 1998, and as I recall it was the first in 30 years.
The gwb administration almost immediately turned that into a deficit. Thsi deficit is primarily funded by China and Japan. The AARP, February 2006 bulletin, reported that the proposed budget by the gwb administration is roughly a deficit of approximately $400 BILLION. They polled 1026 adults 18 and over in early January 2006 for reccomendations for balanceing the budget. Of the respondents 69% favored keeping the tax on estates over $2 million, 61% favored raising the ICT on households earning over $100,000 and 11 % favored a cut in Medicare and Medicaid and only 7%favored cutting social security benefits.
It appears to me that the bush administration is not listening to the mainstream of america.
invention_45
New member
Practically speaking, "jury of peers" seems to mean "jury randomly selected, then subjected to screening", not "jury with your same occupation".
At least that's what it looked like last time I got called.
What I'm saying is that it's possible to "stack" an appointed board. Not that we would ever think a politician would do such a thing.
Better that there should be some fairly applied rules about the matter.
At least that's what it looked like last time I got called.
What I'm saying is that it's possible to "stack" an appointed board. Not that we would ever think a politician would do such a thing.
Better that there should be some fairly applied rules about the matter.
invention_45
New member
loggerhead...looks to me like you were trying to start a new thread?
fisherman66
New member
If the Chineese want to buy T-bills then it's an open market. We do not refuse the right to sell to other nations. Walmart and MickyD's is now in China. They are purchasing debt at the rate of 4.6%. They are hedging against inflation in their own country. That's all.
If you want to get upset about the loans the US has made to other countries and then forgiven then I will stand beside you and vent at the same time.
OK. I'll make it official. The general topic is felons and rights of felons - specifically, the introduction of a bill to give felons the right to vote. There is room for sub-topics of the main topic.
There Is No Room In This Thread for discussing budgets and national debt. You want to do that? Make a new thread, keeping in mind it must have some legal or political angle.
There Is No Room In This Thread for discussing budgets and national debt. You want to do that? Make a new thread, keeping in mind it must have some legal or political angle.