Lib Dems 'want violence register'

[mdwh]

Large majority of drug crimes are not felonys, but rather misdemeanors. Personal use or possession are misdemeanors - intent to sell, and distribute felonies.

So in other words, drugs can be felonies.

I dont think a felon who distributes crack to kids a debateable crime.

And is it *only* dealing crack to kids that is a felony?

Dealing isn't simply pushing hard drugs onto innocent children. It could be someone buying drugs for his friends, and then his friend gives him the money. Legally, that makes you a dealer.

Sorry, your assuming here. You say below that you dont commit crime, so how would you know what a criminal would want in a society? And if numbers are the issue..then whats the big deal either way?

You're the one making assumptions, by assuming that all criminals want to vote for the "let's have no laws" party. (And indeed, if they did think that, they are entitled to their say - there are people such as Anarchists who believe this. I disagree with them, but I would never suggest they shouldn't have a say.)

As for numbers, there *are* enough of them to help sway in issues such as drugs, where there are many such people (users who are convicted, users who haven't got caught, and non-users who believe in legalisation) who are in favour. I don't believe that the "make murder legal" crowd is that big, whether criminals are included or not.

If you truly believe in democracy, you wouldnt rob or kill your neighbor.

But you might take drugs.

Once more you miss the point. You, as a law abiding citizen gets to vote no problem. Felons - hardened criminals - do not have your best interests at heart until they prove otherwise. They should not be allowed to vote.

And you miss the point. My point of view is weakened, because you wish to remove the vote from those who agree with me.

And once again, we don't have "felonies" in the UK.

 

[Truronian]

To be honest, I don't think someone that has infringed on anothers right to vote (by killing them, comatosing them, forging their vote etc) should retain their right to vote in future elections (a least until they are rehabilitated).

 

[Mise]

To be honest, I don't think someone that has infringed on anothers right to vote (by killing them, comatosing them, forging their vote etc) should retain their right to vote in future elections (a least until they are rehabilitated).

That's just "an eye for an eye", which we don't use in our legal system, and haven't done for centuries, because it is grossly unjust. Why is it ok for the legal system to deny people the right to vote, when we have just said that it's wrong to deny people the right to vote? Same goes for executing murderers, but that's another debate...

 

[Truronian]

That's just "an eye for an eye", which we don't use in our legal system, and haven't done for centuries, because it is grossly unjust. Why is it ok for the legal system to deny people the right to vote, when we have just said that it's wrong to deny people the right to vote? Same goes for executing murderers, but that's another debate...

They started it...

I see your point.

 

[zulu9812]

An eye for an eye will leave us all blind