Should voting rights be taken away from a person?

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: JAGStorm

Used to be the rational for not allowing Felons to vote was that people didn't want the law breakers to be electing the law makers. Another reason was it was considered that felons had committed crimes of moral turpitude.

Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general. Examples include rape, forgery, Robbery, and solicitation by prostitutes.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Imprisoning these felons was to altogether remove them from society because of their depraaved nature.

I can see why, today, having abrogated most all concepts of morality or depravity, this society would see no probem with felons voting. Today, the only remaining crime that contains an element of moral turpitude is paedophilia, and that will probably change in the next 30 years or so when that is legalized.

The problem is that it seems like damn near everything could be considered a felony. The other issue is that why punish someone for the rest of their life after they've completed their sentence?

If someone got caught selling a few bags of drugs or whatever when they were 18 or 19 and got a felony but they are now say 35 and otherwise living a peaceful and productive life, why should they not be allowed to vote?

This is a far cry from say a Chomo, rapist, or murderer in my mind. Heck, even some murderers do their time and go on to live productive lives. TV star Tim Allen is a convicted murderer. There are a ton of people who are extremely productive citizens who have prior felonies.

I know Bernie needs all the votes he can get, but yes, voting rights should not be allowed to people in prison.

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

"BOB has broken our rules and is now banned from participating."

The problem is there are to many rules and each person can interpret the rules differently .

originally posted by: JAGStorm

How crazy is it that we have some of the strictest voting laws in the world. I also think it is weird that all states have different rules regarding voting. I understand states rights, but if we are voting for a president that would affect everyone.

Reading your point above I guess you do not understand states rights....

a reply to: Edumakated

I believe he sold coc aine and was caught with a bunch at an airport. Not a convicted murderer as far as I know...huge fan though.

originally posted by: olaru12
Anyone that pays taxes to the US government should have the right to vote on how that money is spent and who get to spends it.

Other wise it's just theft....

I agree entirely.

So those Americans that do not pay taxes or are a net minus to the general fund (see: welfare recipients) shouldn't get to vote.

Or people that pay 4k into taxes and get an 8k return because of existing tax laws.

Glad to see we are on the same page on something.

a reply to: Edumakated

What you say is true. The war on drugs has been an entire disaster. The solution is to legalize all the drugs and reserve felonies to murderers and rapists and white collar criminals.

As well, if we are going to allow Felons to vote, then I see no reason to NOT allow all residents in the US to vote, citizen, non-citizen alike. 100% sufferage.

a reply to: TonyS

"reserve felonies to murderers and rapists and white collar criminals."


How do you put "White collar offenses" in the same category as Murders and Rapist lol

a reply to: Gargoyle91

Simple, everyone is free to hate the rich people! Jail them all and confiscate their money.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: olaru12
Anyone that pays taxes to the US government should have the right to vote on how that money is spent and who get to spends it.

Other wise it's just theft....

I agree entirely.

So those Americans that do not pay taxes or are a net minus to the general fund (see: welfare recipients) shouldn't get to vote.

Or people that pay 4k into taxes and get an 8k return because of existing tax laws.

Glad to see we are on the same page on something.

Not so fast....

I take every advantage of every tax loop hole afforded by the law for incorporated businesses. Just like trump....and everyother business person concerned about their bottom line.

My businesses also apply for government grants and contracts that are paid for by the taxpayers. Being an entrepreneur has it's advantages...

originally posted by: Lumenari

So those Americans that do not pay taxes or are a net minus to the general fund (see: welfare recipients) shouldn't get to vote.

Or people that pay 4k into taxes and get an 8k return because of existing tax laws.

Glad to see we are on the same page on something.

Pleaae first forgive my insight into "4k/8k" but i think I get the basic idea, low income = no vote ?

Not sure you can rule out people who do not make income or make low income as worthless, that is not what democracy stands for (it dont exist in reality buts thats a seperate issue), how can not being eligble for a vote be based on income alone, with so many corporations/politicians involved in minimum wage levels, they would then just push you below the limit and thus suddenly you cant vote, ewwww, that sounds awful when played out like you that.

Big corporations paying you less than required to be eligble to vote, only the 1% can then vote, how does that seem to make any sense


EDIT
Also in the UK welfare includes money for Pregnant women, men/women off work long term sick, disabled people,elderly are we refusing their right to vote or just certain welfare groups and if so which groups and more importantly, why?

a reply to: JAGStorm

So the democrats can offer huge relief in prison sentences, promise to change the laws on certain crimes etc. etc. basically bait the voters and get more voters that way rather than standing on their own proposals and political stuff lol yeah no thanks.

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Allow me a short story(feel free to skip this part): IF We started a poker group ten friends, and we decided "Everyone comes with $100" that's one of our rules, ok? And everyone Agrees to this, yet one person "BOB" decided to come with $80 every time. After 3 times of doing this the group decided BOB can't come anymore because he is cheating us all and not following the rules. We ban BOB from sitting with us. Should we continue to call BOB when we decide on future poker nights? Should he be allowed a vote on who we let into our games in the future? Of course not, BOB has broken our rules and is now banned from participating.

This is what really happened. Everyone comes to the poker game. At the game red bull is sold. BOB hates red bull and prefers red wine. Red wine is not allowed at the games. Bobs doesn't know why, and Bobs friends don't care, they just want to play the game. The gaming authority, sees Paul, bob's friend drinking red wine, they don't do anything. Paul donates huge amounts of money to the gaming authority. Bob comes to another game, this time he brings enough red wine for him and Paul, this time the gaming authority arrest him and don't let him in the game anymore and he has no say in future games or the beverages consumed there.

Also to add regarding the history of the right to vote in the UK


Emmeline Pankhurst

This lady would be a catalyst in the right to vote for every woman in the UK, she may have been classed as low income also, born in Manchester UK(biased I know) , she was integral to the rights for women to vote, it was a long road which she did not know when it would end, she was fighting a system, a system dominated by the very people she was fighting against.

Women had to fight through WW1 and the trials it brought,the war ended women played their part were they then rewarded with the first step to equality, YES..... kind of...only if they were over 30 , it was 1928 until women were given the same freedoms as men to vote for their chosen MP (modern pleb)

With the advent of the First World War, Emmeline and Christabel called an immediate halt to militant suffrage terrorism in support of the British government's stand against the "German Peril".[6] They urged women to aid industrial production and encouraged young men to fight, becoming prominent figures in the white feather movement.[7] In 1918, the Representation of the People Act granted votes to all men over the age of 21 and women over the age of 30. This discrepancy was intended to ensure that men did not become minority voters as a consequence of the huge number of deaths suffered during the First World War

The right to vote is everyones who is part of a civilised society, regardless of wealth or lack of

a reply to: JAGStorm

No, its unconstitutional because it amounts to taxation without representation. I could see temporarily suspending them while incarcerated, but once out you voting rights are restored immediately, no panel, no process, no paperwork. A felon who has served their time should be able to walk right down to the county registrar and be able to vote.

Maybe it's time to take away the gov's rights they illegally appointed themselves?

"No taxation without representation."
"Shall not infringe."

It doesn't say "unless, this and this"

We have a criminal "justice" system designed to extract cash, remove rights and create criminals.

They also aim to keep people commiting crime and filling for profit prisons using criminal records that bar any decent job in their future.

Notice firearm rights removed on misdemeanor domestics now.
They sure don't remove hammers, knives, bats, etc from homes.
-that shows their intentions right there.

Making this a partisan issue is insane, we all suffer when there are a ton of scarlet lettered criminals everywhere.

Cruel and unusual punishment is the gd definition of what is going on with "their" system.

I'd argue ALL taxes need to be refunded to ALL felons that have paid in and they need to be exempt to ALL future tax liabilities as per Constitution, or until all rights are returned. Only to suspend rights during imprisonment.


Firearm rights are non negotiable, it's the whole point of being able to defend your life from a tyrannical gov, which we now have. Limit gun right removal to gun related crimes. Criminals are already armed, you can't say someone had a plant, or some other bs felony and now they need disarmed and unable to protect their families.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Like I originally said in my OP I'm a very much by the rules type of person, but I
truly believe what you have said. I think it is happening on a much larger scale than most realize.

They also aim to keep people commiting crime and filling for profit prisons using criminal records that bar any decent job in their future.

a reply to: JAGStorm

So instead of being the United States of America, you would like it to just be America and remove States Rights?

Felon Voting Rights


Personally I don't want to be in a single state country. Our diversity is what makes us unique and States Rights are already under assault constantly by partisans, who see eliminating them as a way for single party control.

Someone in DC should not be making the rules for Alaska or any other state.

Losing the right to vote is part of a punishment, the same as losing the right to own guns. You kill someone, you rape someone, you rob a bank with a gun or any other serious crime should be punished harshly. As I showed above they can get that right back in most states right now.

Why is Bernie talking about non-federal issues anyway? Is he confused, or just pandering?

Prissoners get the vote.

Wonder what's next?

Will Sanders want women to get to vote next?

pfft!

a reply to: JAGStorm

Of course, looking at the population statistics of the incarcerated in the US, it is clear that our Klans would be outvoted if concepts like actual 'universal suffrage' were introduced into the US.

Best they just keep those good 'ol boys in control.

Liberty for all... except the ones we keep locked up, and those we accuse of terrorism, and those whose political views don't jibe with ours, and those who might take our lovely guns away, and those what don't go to our church, and those who are poor, and a stack of other individuals that I can't recall just at this moment!