iPoW #3 - Defeating Homelessness, American Style.

[Honor]

Unless I am sorely misinformed, I believe it is law at the federal level to allow anyone who jumps through the right hoops and fills out the right forms (and "serves their time") to vote again.

My understanding of this situation is that the relevant department has never been funded, thus making it possible in theory, and impossible in practice.

Now, do I think that felons should be allowed to vote? I am not so sure. This is a rather moral question, and I tend to shy away from those....

...But I suppose the point to my rambling is that I think denial (or at least partial denial) of the vote is part of the punishment. A black mark in your past that says, "since you ignored the law, the law and its creators will now ignore you."

I'd say it's more a legal and ethical question than a moral one.... But that's just semantics. Your main point on the issue (and ManaUser's and RavenxDrake's) touches well enough on my own dilemma in the situation.

One the one hand, I favor harsh punishments, and I don't much believe in forgiveness or rehabilitation... Which is to say I feel there are a lot more instances in which rehabilitation is or must be unsuccessful than situations in which it is or may be successful.

On the other hand... When the law is so unevenly applied... When it's use is so questionable... (Should a person who stole a coke from a vending machine or "played doctor" with his sister suffer the same lasting penalties as the person who date-raped and "accidentally" killed his neighbor's daughter?) ...When what seemed like a good idea on it's face becomes primarily a tool by which to keep the poor poor and the substantially disenfranchised disenfranchised in fact...

Well... I have some serious issues with that.

I very much like the (slightly modified*) phrase "If you have no respect for the law, then the law has no respect for you." but... I think, in order for it to be valid, we have to have some way to assure that the law begins with equal respect for all in the first place...

So, while I very much feel there are -some- felons who should never be allowed to vote, own a weapon, sing in public, or really, even breathe my air... I'm not sure I'm very happy with the way the law's being applied.



* Sorry... I once had this sign that said something like "In all the world there is no urge so strong as the <strike>urge</strike> <strike>desire</strike> <strike>compulsion</strike> <strike>need</strike> <strike>drive</strike> <strike>imperative</strike> <strike>will</strike> urge to edit another's copy."

[Leeloo]

I would say obviously anyone convicted of a violent crime should be stripped of their rights to vote.

"Obviously"?

How are you ever going to get an unjust law repealed, if the only people allowed to vote are those who agree with it?

Now, you may be in that category *at the moment*, but then imagine for a second that not believing in god becomes a felony. Atheists go to prison, and are no longer allowed to vote. How are you going to get that law repealed?

The above is of course just an example. There are already lots of victimless crimes, where people get put in prison without ever having harmed anyone (except maybe themselves, but that depends on your point of view. I'm sure you could find enough christians that would say that not believing in got is the worst case of harming yourself).

Note you missed a crucial point in your quote of me I said of a VIOLENT crime. ie rape, murder, assault, drive-by shooting (even if no one is murdered in it).

*editted for spelling error*

Ok, I missed that word. It doesn't make any difference, though. What does "violent" and "vote" have to do with eachother, apart from the first one containing all the letters of the last one? From my point of view, either you have a democracy, or you don't. There is no such thing as "democracy except for violent people, women and/or black people". In either case, it's a system designed to keep those in power who wrote the law, and prevent those from voting who disagrees with it.

And, once you move from everyone is allowed to vote, to certain crimes removing your right to vote, you already have the tools in place. There is a list of crimes which remove your right to vote, and even if you agree with the list today, don't forget who will be maintaining the list.
Politicians. The most lying, untrustworthy group of people ever to exist. Just like everything else, it WILL be expanded to include more and more crimes.

And yes, I think even those *in* prison should be allowed to vote.

[Boring 7]

Well now I am all curious.

If articles like this are at all accurate, it appears to be a state-to-state thing. (Thus I stand corrected)

http://www.felonvotingprocon.org/ appears to have a lot more information, but I'm feeling lazy (and ill, how the *hell* do I get a sinus infection/cold in Central Texas in Summer?!) so I will leave the deeper perusing to others.

Now, back to my inane ruminations and ramblings.

I am a conservative, not the paltry and pathetic neoconservative right-winger of today. I do not believe we should, "change things back to the way they were back in the good old days" or blindly think all the strange manner of ridiculous "out-of-touch" things that so-called "conservatives" and their libertarian brethren believe in prove a "mandate".

I am a conservative, to the true definition of the word:
con·serv·a·tive /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.

You will note that none of the above say "republican" or "one who wishes to regress to the good old days." To be conservative is to be inertia. Boring, uncreative, slow, resistant to change, dull, did I mention boring? At its extreme this means opposition to all change, being a human I am complex enough to accept and even support some change. But I am prejudiced against change, and will expect it to prove itself before I accept it.

In a more relevant connection to this particular topic, I think that felons should be stripped of voting rights as a matter of course, and that to regain them they should have to jump through a variety of legalese "hoops" to get those rights back. That is how it works here in Texas, I think it works well elsewhere.

I think that perhaps these hoops should change relating to the crime.

The politician who takes bribes, embezzles, and abuses his power is also the man to whom the vote is most important because if he DOES manage to get back into politics, appearing publicly and voting is actually FAR more important and "worth" more than just his own one vote. His public appearance at the polling station is like a political advertisement right inside the polling place (which is normally prohibited you know) for himself and his "causes".

In comparison, denying a tweaked-out meth-head who shot his dealer the vote does nothing, as he never did and never will vote, and the man who got drunk, assaulted a police officer, did his time, and is just trying to get his life back on track just wants to be a normal citizen again.

But more complexities in law mean more complexities in law enforcement. Every action has a reaction, and that becomes more apparent when you see really off-the-wall connections, like when legalized abortion was successfully linked to a dramatic reduction in juvenile crimes 16 years after the fact.

Did I mention I am also a jerk?

[Honor]

Good, well reasoned debate on this one... Nobody's bleeding or calling names yet. Refreshing. :-) And good argument on both sides... I keep reading excellent posts, and thinking "Ok, yeah... I can see that." But, then I read an equally well written post in counterpoint, and think "Um... , Yeah. Ok. I can see that, too..."

And, once you move from everyone is allowed to vote, to certain crimes removing your right to vote, you already have the tools in place...

Just as a point of order... There has never been a time in the history of this country when everyone was allowed to vote.

In fact, since the main body of the constitution cannot be edited, but only added to, there is still language in the document describing & mandating how to count blacks and other "semi-humans" as part of a person, for purposes of representation.

Well now I am all curious.

If articles like this are at all accurate, it appears to be a state-to-state thing. (Thus I stand corrected)

Depends on where (in which court) you are charged and convicted... If your felony is a state conviction, then you are subject to the state's restrictions and redresses, if any. If you were convicted in federal court, then federal rules apply, and the only place you can seek expunction is a non-existent department in Washington DC.

I am a conservative, not the paltry and pathetic neoconservative right-winger of today.[/i]

I have a 'blog post coming up on a theory about this and the next election...

I do not believe we should, "change things back to the way they were back in the good old days"...

...1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. (emphasis added)

...You will note that none of the above say "republican" or "one who wishes to regress to the good old days."

Do you find it amusing that the first line of the definition you provided disagrees with a qualification you make twice?

And yeah... It -does- say "republican"... in the words "Of or pertaining to the conservative party." In the current American system, that's Republicans. :-)

"The large metal and glass and plastic thing in the driveway, with four black rubberized tires" doesn't say "the car" either... But the car is automatically included in what it -does- say.

Not that I disagree with your point... The modern Republican party has certainly stepped away from traditional conservative values. I just enjoy little "point of order" things like that.

But I am prejudiced against change, and will expect it to prove itself before I accept it.

Traditional liberalism actually doesn't require that the sought-after change be entered into only in the most reckless and untested manner available.

Either way... I guess it's a lucky thing for you that none of our founders were conservatives, hm?

A quick comparison of historical leaders who were traditional conservatives will quickly bring you to a name that some people (I'm proud of myself for not saying "idiots"... keep it civil, that's what I always say... ;-) will argue the mere mention of should shut down a thread.

Gentle ribbing aside, though, that was the best and most reasonable description of "conservative" I've seen in this forum... Thank you... You should have been here for the "political pole" thread. :-)

Every action has a reaction, and that becomes more apparent when you see really off-the-wall connections, like when legalized abortion was successfully linked to a dramatic reduction in juvenile crimes 16 years after the fact.

This is an awesome statistic... An interesting use of the phrase "off the wall", but a wonderful statistic, nonetheless. I don't suppose you have source offhand, to save me the time of looking for it?

Did I mention I am also a jerk?

You keep saying that.. I haven't really seen the evidence of it yet, though.

[Boring 7]

I do not believe we should, "change things back to the way they were back in the good old days"...

...1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. (emphasis added)

...You will note that none of the above say "republican" or "one who wishes to regress to the good old days."

Do you find it amusing that the first line of the definition you provided disagrees with a qualification you make twice?

I disagree. You see, traditions change. The 1960s and 70s really were a long time ago for most of us folks. A desire to "return to tradition" *might* mean "going back to the 50s" or it might mean "going back to the 70s" since, you know, both are considered a "previous generation" with "previous traditions." Shall we burn our draft cards or shall we get drafted to kill nazis? (Vietnam vs. WW2, both before my time) Should we embrace the tradition of lynching black folks or having sex with them? (Erath county vs. Woodstock, also both before my time). If we are supposed to go all the way back to the earliest traditions then I must warn you that my flint supplies are not for public use and I do not intend to share my Atlatl.

Further, I consider that section to merely be evidence of an exercise in stretching a word for selfish gain. "Conservative" means "stable and tested", so when someone wants to change things to "unstable and tested and broken by said tests" they just use the word, and then try to make everyone go along with it.

And yeah... It -does- say "republican"... in the words "Of or pertaining to the conservative party." In the current American system, that's Republicans.

This is intolerable. We are already having to listen to O'Reilly pretend his views are conservative. A "Conservative party" is one that is *named* "the conservative party" (or some relevant variant) and only exists in England and Canada. I keep seeing this attempted reasoning but I refuse to accept it.

"The large metal and glass and plastic thing in the driveway, with four black rubberized tires" doesn't say "the car" either... But the car is automatically included in what it -does- say.

Unless it is the truck.

Not that I disagree with your point... The modern Republican party has certainly stepped away from traditional conservative values. I just enjoy little "point of order" things like that.

Damn, I was hoping for assault and betentacled battery from the scary and almighty Honor.

Gentle ribbing aside, though, that was the best and most reasonable description of "conservative" I've seen in this forum... Thank you... You should have been here for the "political pole" thread.

I looked for it, then I got distracted by shiny objects.

Sadly I do not have a relevant source for that abortion thing, and I already exhausted my patience trying to find the (harvard?) study showing that most Americans think it is okay to discriminate against Atheists. I actually got the tale from a friend who lived in Chicago. I believe it was a large study in the city that was trying to determine what, if anything, they had done right to have this sudden drop in juvenile crime, and the only thing they could find was that about 16 years ago abortion had been legalized in the state.

So yeah, the whole "personal accounts are suspect" rule applies. But for some other examples of actions and reactions, we have the use of Eminent Domain to kick Wal-Mart out of a town, and then it being used elsewhere for Wal-Mart to force its way in. We also have the Emergency Room, which must be kept open to avoid dead people on the hospital doorstep (it's bad PR) but drives costs of the entire medical industry up because of it.

I'm trying to think of others, but the combination of mildly caffinated tea and dope-your-brain antihistamines is causing interesting things to happen to my thought processes.

Fuckin' coelocanth, why does he have to be pink?

[WD]

on the subject of the topic title...

Feed the homeless to the hungry

kills 2 birds with 1 stone

[GHE]

The ability to vote is called a right because that's what it is. Law requires the revocation of a right only in the event that a person commits a felony (the only exception to this is the Lautenberg Act which revokes your right to own a firearm upon commission of a crime, even a misdemeanor, when certain circumstances are in play). Felony convictions are generally serious in nature. When the state decides to take over a year of your life away you have been more than a little naughty and deserve to be punished. After the stain has been washed away there are precedures that can be followed to allow one to have these rights reinstated. THIS is where my problem is. If a person has gone forward with thier life after serving thier time, probation etc then there should be a serious look at restoration of rights. If the system is broken here there needs to be a long hard look at why. Bottom line; if you commit a felony you lose rights. If you prove that you deserve restoration you get them back.

I think it should be pointed out that there is a sad track record of voter turn out here in America. I would be willing to bet that the Iraq elections had a better rate of turnout. The lack of civic virtue is very evident here where pop culture takes a lead over who will be running the country. And thus you get the government you vote for.

It also bodes bad when we are so politicized that we look at one side as far right and one side as far left. I think most of the nation is somewhere in the middle. I think many people assume that a Dem is only out for the little guy and the Reps are only looking out for the rich. We have demonized the political process big time.

[Pyretimeth]

Good, well reasoned debate on this one... Nobody's bleeding or calling names yet. Refreshing.

Then let me be the first, you kooky, left-leaning socialist wingnut. <grin>

You make mention of race in your original post, but is race really what drives these statistics? Black individuals are significantly over-represented in the prison population (Slightly over 40% of the prison population is black), but how closely does that tie in with their economic status?

I suppose the question I'm asking is, "Are people in prison because they're black, or because they're poor?"

[Halo299]

i was just talking about this the other day with my GF

voteing. I dislike strongly the idea that felons should not be able to vote. Why? because if the system is corrupted (stick with me here) it becomes possible for the system to define who is a felon, take their right to vote, and thus make it impossible for them to challenge the system or try and change it. This is the same reason i don't like lynch mobs. It works out fine as long as they are lynching the right person, but as soon as they get it wrong you have a problem on your hands.

-halo

[ManaUser]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet. You all remember how close the 2000 election was in Florida, right? One of the many suspect things that went on was the "accidental" removal of at least a few thousand non-felons from the list of eligible voters. (Of course they corrected it, some months after the election.) Whether that was an honest mistake or not, that's another reason to be against disenfranchising anyone, you might get the wrong people.

Meanwhile, I just don't see any advantage in it. Most of the arguments for disenfranchising felons seem to boil down to "Well, they deserve it." I say that's a lousy reason. I don't think criminal law is about what people deserve, and I suspect it would screw up worse if it was. No, the only real purpose of prison is to have something to threaten people with so they won't break the law. Does disenfranchisement add much to that deterrent effect? I think not. I can't imagine too many people thinking "Six years in prison I can handle, but man sure don't want to lose my vote. I better not risk it."

The only other argument I picked up on (and I'm sorry if I missed any) is boring 7's, that we might not want felons to "re-write the law to allow their law-breaking ways". But as Halo299 pointed out, maybe we do want that. Maybe it was a bad law. All things considered I think letting the voting public sort that out without any extra "help" is the safer course of action.

[GHE]

It seems that only fourteen states bar a person from voting for life. http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm

I think a system that allows a convicted felon to have his franchise restored upon review if is the best choice. But as the link above shows, in most states in the U.S. once a person has served his time he is once again allowed to vote. Four states don't bar voting while in jail.

This is clearly an issue that the Federal government has left up to the several states though.

[Pyretimeth]

It seems that only fourteen states bar a person from voting for life. http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm ... This is clearly an issue that the Federal government has left up to the several states though.

Please let me point out that any powers not explicitly set forth in the Constitution are, in fact, left up to the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

At least, that seems to have been the original intention of the Constitution's framers. It seems to be the exception now, instead of the rule.