Why, of all natural rights, should this be the one taken away from criminals
-
There's no point
If someone commits a felon or if they are convicted they are barred from the right to vote. This makes absolutely no sense to me. First off, many people who in fact do commit crimes are too young to vote in the first place, and before they are even given the chance, it is swiped underneath their feet.
Second, people in prisons still have natural rights, and when they have a problem, all of a sudden their opinion is worth nothing to the government. Testimony of prisoners concerning the conditions in prisons are thrown out the window, and elections destroy the chance of an equal vote.
Finally, the idea that it is a form of punishment means nothing. It is the last concern on most criminal's minds when humiliation and a destroyed life are onsets. It is pointless. Escpecially when you keep people out of the voting booth when they are innocent. Many people in the 2000 election were restricted from voting because they were felons, even though they were, in fact, not. Or more simply, what if a person is innocent and is a responsible citizen, taking voting seriously. How is this person supposed to react to this incident?
I hope I brought forth a noble point, if not, feel free to rip me to shreds.
100%
Voted for by
RT michaels,
petethemeat.
None of the choices fit your opinion? Add one →
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
mudgod
March 5, 2007
Applehead
March 6, 2007
Edit | Reply
March 5, 2007
pnktrky
March 9, 2007
Edit | Reply
Weydon
March 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
They're not denied their OPINIONS. If they want to write books and inspire others to their cause, they can. They just can't vote in elections.
Felons are denied the right to vote because there is a fear their interests will point towards enhancing their criminal methods.
March 6, 2007
Edit | Reply
Please, i beg you to take a seriously look at our society. This is a question of how we should punish them; it's a question of how we can help them. Have you ever even read a book written by a criminal. Or I'll go one simpler, have you read "A Clockwork Orange." This book is a perfect example showing how children, the youth of the nation, are influenced to do wrong things and quick fix methods such as prison and trickery and the taking away of rights do nothing to prevent people from changing.
Please, read this book. If not this one, read one by a criminal, or a family member of a criminal's book. Or read articles in the paper. Visit a prison. Visit a youth correctional facility. You'll see the life we choose for them is far worse than the life we could be giving everyone in our society.
Weydon
March 6, 2007
Edit | Reply
I'm all for helping them. Ones that can be rehabilitated should. Either way, a good amount of sentences mean the person will be back on the streets within their own lifetime, so some effort should be taken. But they also could simply have been educated by fellow cons on how to do things better, fight better, gotten in better shape, become shrewder at getting away with crimes. It's not "10 years...unless we think you're a big mean-face still". It's 10 years regardless of "lesson learned" (unless maybe that lesson is, "Do a better job of not getting caught next time").
The ones that truly realized the errors of their ways and are trying to live a decent and honest life? Good for them. If THESE SPECIFIC individuals had the right to vote, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it's impossible to say who's who. We can't give up the benefit of disenfranchising someone who's interest has previously been hurting others greatly to help himself, just because some guys are better people. These reformed "victims", being the good people they've turned into, can gladly suck up the loss of voting in order to help protect the interests of law abiding citizens they once harmed.
I've read A Clockwork Orange. Personally I liked the movie a little better but thought both are overrated. I can only assume most people go into with the mindset of "I want to be someone that likes this book, because people that like this book are interesting". They had their ups though, specifically in the some of the ideas of human nature. Also pretty gruesome though. Interesting discussion piece, nothing to inspire me to give criminals the right to vote. We're no where near as bad as that society--maybe because we do our best to stop documented violent people from having an easy, uninspired say in how we run our government.
March 6, 2007
i don't quite understand what you're arguing for or against in the second paragraph, so i'm just going to skip it.
My only argument for your third is how are most felonies damaging others greatly. I have never known drug possession to harm anyone besides themselves (unless it is involved with organized criminals, but that's something different completely) or accessories to crime, where people are typically sentenced higher than their actually affiliation to the crime. Where is the justice behind these. Most of them happen to youth who barely know anything about anything.
I'm very glad you have both read and seen A Clockwork Orange. I would have to disagree and say the book is better, but only for the reason being that Alex is younger is the book and better depicts my point. I'm sorry i couldn't dissuade you from your point of view, but maybe i could reach a compromise. I understand and partially agree with your angle. However, i think it would be in the best interest of most people to see that criminals such as we have discussed should, rather than a life time of achievement (politically speaking), a probation period of restriction on rights, including voting, should be given out based upon the magnitude of the incident. I can see five - ten years of voting privileges revoked as they do with licenses. Do you see where I'm coming from?
Weydon
March 10, 2007
Edit | Reply
Sure I can. They screwed up and don't have the luxury of flipping switches and pulling levers to voice their opinion. If they're that upset about losing their "voice" through that method, they should develop other means. Read more, do some research into whatever specific problems they see, talk about their ideas to people, maybe even become a writer or something. If it's too difficult for them to even sit with some people in a bar and explain their views while hoping a difference is made, I don't imagine their vote would have been extremely well informed anyway.
"i don't quite understand what you're arguing for or against in the second paragraph, "
lol I'm saying rehabilitation is good. We should try and straighten people out and make them productive members of society when they get back--for their sake and ours. But there's no way to say "Well, his sentence is up AND he's a better person" or "His sentence is up, but he's still a scumbag--and stronger and shrewder." We can't give all people convicted in harming others to help themselves the right to vote because SOME have kinda-probably changed for the better.
"I have never known drug possession to harm anyone besides themselves"
I would be open to the idea of only certain crimes taking away certain rights.
"or accessories to crime, where people are typically sentenced higher than their actually affiliation to the crime. Where is the justice behind these. Most of them happen to youth who barely know anything about anything"
Boohoo. They helped cause danger to others. They're not 6, they're teenagers. They're smart enough to know what they were doing was wrong and punishable--and if it was an extreme case of the opposite somehow, I guess they shouldn't have been convicted in light of that evidence. But they were convicted, because there was no evidence that "Yeah, but I'm stupid and younger than you" was reason to let them off easy.
"I can see five - ten years of voting privileges revoked as they do with licenses. Do you see where I'm coming from?"
Sounds reasonable, but I'd have to mull it over. Maybe only in the way how I suggested some crimes don't need to take away rights--like ones where you were only harming yourself anyway. Some crimes take no rights, some put them on probation, some take them for good.
petethemeat
March 7, 2007
Weydon
March 10, 2007
petethemeat
March 12, 2007
People are sent to prison to lose their liberty but not their identity. Often allowing them to channel their energy into political pursuits is a beneficial part of their rehabilitation and it prevents alienating them from the rest of the nation.
I am a drug dealer Weydon, and If i could take an informed guess you are too.
Weydon
March 12, 2007
lol No, of course not, but they've proven they think their interests are so important that they can cause others harms (As RT pointed out, I didn't make clear that I am really just for this with criminals that cause harm to others) in order to achieve those interests. Whatever their interests are, I don't want them represented at all. Obviously anyone can utter a truth. A murderer can be for universal health care and gay marriage, which I have advocated for a while--but I just don't care. Odds are they aren't highly compassionate to begin with, and they just don't deserve to their opinions to easily influential in society.
"a fair percentage is made up of people who possessed weed)."
Yes, I should have made clear that I don't think some crimes deserve the issue. Even possession of harder drugs wouldn't bug me much, as long as there was no acts of violence added onto it. You're only hurting yourself, which isn't enormously harmful to society.
"I am a drug dealer Weydon, and If i could take an informed guess you are too."
lol I deal WITH drugs, but I am not a dealer as in I supply and sell them. But I know plenty of people who are and aren't all that bad. I don't actually consider exclusive weed dealers on the same level of "actual" drug dealers, and I don't consider all drug dealers to be threatening. My proposal for who deserves what would be difficult to some extent, but it would partly simply be how large their "empire" is--because if it's more than just making some decent change on the side, odds are they are using violence and weapons to maintain order. Additionally, (this is where it would get tricky I guess), anyone that deals hard drugs to minors or soft drugs to people under the age of 15 should be treated a little worse as well.
I am fairly against heroin and crack as they are highly addictive, exploitative, and prone to inducing violence in order to get cash for another score.
If you go into any bar, odds are there's a tiny handful of "drug dealers" just hanging out. You may be friends with one and not even know it. But if you go into a drug den with hard drugs and people who have "satellite dealers"--you are in a dangerous place, with dangerous people who will not hesitate to kill you if you cross them or are not welcome there or think you are a cop. These are the dealers that I couldn't care less about.
petethemeat
March 13, 2007
I have always considered you a fine debater, and this case is no exception. However I believe that we are unlikely to reach an agreement on this issue as it seems nearly entirely based on viewpoint rather than anything logical either way.
Weydon
March 13, 2007
Edit | Reply
petethemeat
March 14, 2007
Weydon
March 14, 2007
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
March 8, 2007
Edit | Reply
Simple
They failed to abide by the very laws that they would then seek to amend or support. Someone who didn't like the idea but still obeyed has more right of say then would one who disobeyed and neglected their duty, because their is more distrust concerning their ability to abide by what they wish to see utilized. However, I do consider that sometimes this penalty would appear far too extreme to befit the crime committed.March 15, 2007
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free