Should criminals who are released from prison get the right to vote?

[Stylesjl]

Should serious criminals who are released from prison be able to vote?

Note: This is AFTER they are released from prison

I think voting is a fundamental right that should not be taken away. However when someone is serving a prison sentence there right to vote should be removed from them, but after release it should be given back

 

[Elrohir]

No. If you cannot follow the laws of society, you should not be allowed to have a voice in making them.

Note: This goes for violent or serious criminals. I don't think people convicted of civil crimes (IE, Martin Luther King style civil disobedience) should have their right to vote taken away.

 

[malclave]

Can you clarify what you mean by "serious criminals"? Do you mean felons, habitual criminals limited to misdemeanors, or both?

 

[Stylesjl]

I mean felons in general pretty much anything that gets you locked up for several years. Though you can state your postion on wether someone gets the right to vote for more serious crimes like murder, child molestation, etc

 

[warpus]

I don't think that they should be allowed to vote while they're in prison, and maybe even some time after that.. but to remove their voting rights for life?. IMO that's pretty extreme.

 

[bhsup]

Interesting topic, actually.

They've paid their debt to society and are encouraged to re-enter and become a contributing member of that society. What better way to start doing that than performing a loyal and dutiful citizen's duty by voting? I don't think I'd be opposed to them getting their right to vote restored.

Not for parolees though, just ones who have completely finished their terms!!

 

[The Yankee]

Should serious criminals who are released from prison be able to vote?

Are they not allowed to vote Down Under?

I don't know what the US law is, but I hope I'm not mistaken in thinking that a felon that has served his/her time can petition to restore voting rights.

 

[malclave]

I don't know what the US law is, but I hope I'm not mistaken in thinking that a felon that has served his/her time can petition to restore voting rights.

Depends on the state.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1046.pdf gives a summary.

My own opinion on the subject is somewhat muddled. If it came up for a referendum, I'd have to study the proposal very closely to see exactly what it would do before deciding how to vote.

 

[The Yankee]

Abstained. Don't know if I'd want to give it if there was parole. But if all the time is served, then I don't see why not. After all, they served the sentence handed to them by the judge or jury.

Besides, how would we expect them to become functioning members of society afterwards if they do not have all the rights of a member of society?

Thank you for that link, malclave.

 

[bhsup]

Abstained. Don't know if I'd want to give it if there was parole. But if all the time is served, then I don't see why not. After all, they served the sentence handed to them by the judge or jury.

It's not too often that we see eye to eye on things. I always feel good about finding common ground with folks I tend to disagree with on many issues.

 

[The Yankee]

It's not too often that we see eye to eye on things. I always feel good about finding common ground with folks I tend to disagree with on many issues.

I completely shocked my ladyfriend when I got a 55-45 liberal/conservative score on some internet quiz. And she blew her top when she was 60-40 conservative/liberal (too liberal).

Did you take a look at malclave's link btw? Found it interesting. Especially seeing some silly laws such as suspending the vote for two years after everything in the world has been served (if I read that right, my luck says I didn't). States rights maybe...but I find the discrepencies odd, especially considering that I would think voting would be more of a universal (read: federal) domain.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, I downloaded it and read it. I was rather glad to see my State pretty much falls in line with what I think. While they are actually serving time or on probation or parole for a crime, no vote. But if I read it right, they get their voting rights back after their entire sentence is completed.

And with that, I'm off to play with Mr. Sandman.

 

[El_Machinae]

I believe that prisoners should have the right to vote while in prison, mainly so that I can live in a country where everyone has the absolute right to vote. This discourages the jailing of political dissidents and opponents. As well, the inmate likely has a view of society apart from being merely a felon - and so should not be treated like he has one, evil, view.

In other words, the harm in risking that felonious voters will make my country an evil place is outweighed by living in a country that values democracy greatly.

 

[The Yankee]

Ah, but then, of course assuming that it's a normal functioning democracy without political prisoners, why should someone that could not function in society and is serving the prescribed sentence be allowed to help guide that same society?

 

[GeorgeOP]

They also lose their right to own firearms. If you think they should still be given the right to vote, they should get that vote back also.

No, do a felony and lose your ability to cast a vote for life. It's part of the punishment.

 

[El_Machinae]

If the person cannot function in society, they have a unique and (hopefully) minority view of what's wrong.

As well, there is also the situation where a person becomes freed during the course of a political reign. This ex-prisoner is now living in a country where he did not have a say in its development. This ex-prisoner is motivated to have a good society.

Finally, what are people afraid of? That a small minority of people will attempt to change society for what's best for them? Isn't that what everyone is doing? A criminal's vision of a good society is likely not much different, in the ways that he can change it. It's not like a rapist will make rape legal with his vote, and everyone knows this. He might, however, want to change the education system or make society more laissez faire. Just like anyone else. For every prisoner trying to make prisons more comfortable, you have non-prisoners motivation to keep their tax dollars.

I wish to a again invoke the slippery slope. Once the party in power can alter who is allowed to vote, they will continue to do so. This avoidance of the slippery slope is worth letting a small minority of people retain the right to vote.

 

[Babbler]

It debatable if current prisonniers should have the vote, but for people realeased, they definitely should. They served their time, and society should regonized the fact by allow them the vote agian.

 

[GenMarshall]

I feel that if the criminal is truly sorry for his wrong doings, then they should be given the right to vote.

 

[The Yankee]

If the person cannot function in society, they have a unique and (hopefully) minority view of what's wrong.

Depends...but I'm sure they would find no shortage of advocates while in prison if the treatment is too harsh. And they'd be free to advocate for that themselves once they have repaid the debt that they brought on themselves for the crime.

As well, there is also the situation where a person becomes freed during the course of a political reign. This ex-prisoner is now living in a country where he did not have a say in its development. This ex-prisoner is motivated to have a good society.

No arguments there, since this is a person that has served their time.

Finally, what are people afraid of? That a small minority of people will attempt to change society for what's best for them? Isn't that what everyone is doing? A criminal's vision of a good society is likely not much different, in the ways that he can change it. It's not like a rapist will make rape legal with his vote, and everyone knows this. He might, however, want to change the education system or make society more laissez faire. Just like anyone else. For every prisoner trying to make prisons more comfortable, you have non-prisoners motivation to keep their tax dollars.

I could invoke the slippery slope you did (look below) and wonder why non-citizens can't vote or why children under 18 (or whatever it is in a given country) can't vote.

But as for felons, they probably would not petition to make aggrivated assault legal. However, they would have a (small, of course) part in helping set the laws in a society where they broke the laws.

I wish to a again invoke the slippery slope. Once the party in power can alter who is allowed to vote, they will continue to do so. This avoidance of the slippery slope is worth letting a small minority of people retain the right to vote.

But what's the slope that is slippery? You're going from a convicted felon, in prison, to someone that cannot vote because they have a certain letter next to their name (D or R in the USA, whatever the abbreviations might be elsewhere).

 

[The Yankee]

I feel that if the criminal is truly sorry for his wrong doings, then they should be given the right to vote.

How would you objectively determine such a sentiment?