Convicted felons civil right to vote after incarceration restoration.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bottom rung, Mar 3, 2015.

  1. Bottom rung

    Bottom rung Active Member

    So lets hear your thoughts.
  2. DriveInDriveOut

    DriveInDriveOut The One Who Knocks

    Great topic. Felons who have served their time should be allowed to vote.
    The fact that states can individually set their own standards for whether felons can vote is ridiculous.
    A felon in Maine can vote from prison, but someone in Mississippi who bounced a check 20 years ago can't.... it's nonsense.
  3. upschuck

    upschuck Well-Known Member

    I have no problem with convicted felons not being able to vote ever again. They voluntarily resigned the right when they decided to do their felonious act.
  4. superballs63

    superballs63 Well-Known Troll Troll

    Well, illegal immigrants can vote, so why not scum lawbreakers too. Makes sense.

    Criminals are morons, why would we want them to be able to vote? We already have enough uneducated/ uninformed voters. We call them Democrats
  5. DriveInDriveOut

    DriveInDriveOut The One Who Knocks

    What is the rationale though? Do you see it as a form of punishment?
  6. rod

    rod retired and happy

    Instead of arguing over felons voting the concern should be if the other millions's of uninformed voters should be allowed to vote. There should be some kind of basic IQ test given before being eligible to vote---------------------that and a picture ID.

  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I recently saw it suggested that in order to run for office you had to have an IQ higher than 135 and in order to vote you needed an IQ higher than 150.

    The rational being that the voters would consider those running for office as too stupid and the 150 IQ's couldn't run as there would be nobody to vote.

    Sounds like the perfect self correcting system too me! ;)

    Aside from the fact that I question the whole concept of jail in the first place, if the convicted has fulfilled the terms of his/her sentence, the debt is paid and thus voting should be restored.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  8. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Once someone has paid their debt to society by completing the sentence handed down by the court they should have their full civil rights restored imho.
  9. superballs63

    superballs63 Well-Known Troll Troll

    ....and how would you replace it?
  10. DriveInDriveOut

    DriveInDriveOut The One Who Knocks

    So you're in favor of not letting people convicted of misdemeanors vote either?
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    The crime is a debt to the victim or the victims family. Treat it as such. How does jail restore stolen property to a victim? Think of it that way. The State isn't the damaged party but the way legal standing is stated in court, they are. The true victim only serves as a witness to the crime. The added insult is the rest of us foot the bill to house and feed the criminal while the actual injury is left unaddressed.

    BTW: I thought you boldly claimed you had me on ignore? Do I need to say something like "Jesus is nothing but a myth" or some such to have you return to what I felt was a very good arrangement?

    Yeah, I also believe Jesus is a myth too.
  12. Turdferguson

    Turdferguson Guest

    To me it goes against a basic principle that this country fought gain their independence on. That being the concept of taxation without representation. You hope ,and expect these felons after they have served their time to be productive members of society
  13. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    I personally believe that if they paid their debt to society they should be restored their right to vote. Voting from within prison is nonsense though. I also believe all non violent felons should have their 2nd amendment rights restored upon release. Lawmakers are constantly lowering the bar for a felony and there are plenty of non violent convicted felons out there who should have the right to own a gun.
  14. superballs63

    superballs63 Well-Known Troll Troll

    We'll address the last point first. There is this special button where one can view ignored content.

    So of the crime is a debt to the family, they should be the ones to choose the punishment, no? I'd be okay with that. Hopefully more people would see to put down stupid thugs.

    Your thoughts about Mr Jesus are 100% irrelevant in this thread.
  15. upschuck

    upschuck Well-Known Member

    Felons lose other rights as well, to be on a jury, and the right to carry a firearm. If you don't want to lose those rights, don't commit the crime. Actions have consequences, and this happens to be one of them.

    Another question is whether or not there should be another classification of crimes, between misdemeanor and felony.
  16. upschuck

    upschuck Well-Known Member

    According to the Justice department, 3 or 4 are rearrested within 5 years.
  17. sailfish

    sailfish Well-Known Member

    I could still run but I guess I'd be screwed to ever vote again!
  18. superballs63

    superballs63 Well-Known Troll Troll

    Good thing they all abide by their new governing laws. LOL
  19. bluehdmc

    bluehdmc Well-Known Member

    When I was in the service if you committed a minor offense, you went in front of the Commanding Officer and basically pleaded guilty and he gave you punishment with certain limitations. If you pleaded not guilty, it would go to a courts martial and if you were convicted it was considered a felony.

    Not exactly fair punishment for telling your Sargent to :censored2: off!

    Maybe it should depend on the felony. For example to get a hazmat endorsement for a commercial drivers license you can be convicted of attempted murder and released from prison for 7yrs and qualify. It would be denied if you were convicted of murder. I don't understand that, it would seem at the time of the murder attempt the intent was the same, it just depends on whether or no you were successful.

    Marijuana is now being legalized in many places, but still in some places possession is a felony. Should someone who got convicted of possession not be allowed to vote?

    Maybe people convicted of non-violent felonies should be able to get back their rights. (Of course don't include wall st bankers or other white collar criminals in the group.) Bernie Madoff types should be in general population with the bank robbers, muggers, etc. Just because they stole more money with a briefcase than anyone ever did with a gun shouldn't exempt them from gen pop.
  20. Nimnim

    Nimnim The Nim

    This can be a real conundrum given that a felony in one state could be a misdemeanor or somehow completely legal in another. I'd say voting a few years after full sentence served, parole still have to wait until the sentence would have been served but since they were paroled able at that point. Since felons are restricted with other things, like gun ownership and jury service as mentioned a few posts above I'd say those would depend on what the felony was. You wouldn't want someone who was convicted of armed robbery and murder to be able to own a gun, but someone who has committed a non violent felony should be able to at least after a restricted period upon release. I don't think someone who just got out of jail after serving a felony term for say multiple duis with no injury to others should be able to get a gun the same day, but perhaps a year later with no other criminal issues they can start the process to get one.