Support NeoGAF

[hiryu64]

This isn't want I'm looking for. I need the populations of felons and mids separately.

That data, from what I can tell, doesn't exist--or at the very least hasn't been collated and presented in a manner like what you're asking for. Regardless, I fail to see what the ratio of misdemeanor to felony population has to do with anything.

Which is why I said before there are more important issues, a job can prevent a relapse, a vote in arguably rigged elections will not. Because they still will be mistreated and won't find a job often so they go back to crime.

They won't find a job because they face systemic discrimination. If only they could vote for laws that would outlaw hiring discrimination against felons. But that would be corruption.

I would like to believe that you're operating in good faith, but you keep giving me reasons as to why you're not. I feel like I'm being taken for a ride, here. Why should I continue bearing the burden of proof when you've seemingly made up your mind already and are willing to throw out whatever I show you because it isn't fast enough to keep up with your mobile goalposts?

 

[Voost Kain]

Why does it have to be an either/or? Why can't we focus on getting them better jobs and post-jail lives AND give them back their right to vote? Because you don't see "progress" in giving people back a very basic right that was unjustly taken from them? You sound like all you are doing is deflecting because you have no real reason to justify why certain people shoudln't have the right to vote.

Last I checked, correct me if I am wrong, the average citizen does not say they want felons to vote. So passing bill to allow them to vote without the peoples input, cause what Iike to call a shock bill.

Basically people will be against it, will likely discriminate toward inmates more, and other negative reactions..

It's not about doing one thing at a time, just one of the two things you mention from my view does not hep them at all and accomplishes nothing but controversy.

 

[VariantX]

Why would you not? The default should be that citizens are allowed to vote. The onus is on you to argue that he shouldn't be able to.

If it just boils down to "well he's a bad person," great. Let's make a list of anyone who votes for Trump or has attended a Trump rally and block them from voting forever.

Yep to the bolded. A good number of folks who work at Wall Street should never even see the inside of a ballot box.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Disenfranchisement Defense Force.

 

[ivysaur12]

Last I checked, correct me if I am wrong, the average citizen does not say they want felons to vote. So passing bill to allow them to vote without the peoples input, cause what Iike to call a shock bill.

Basically people will be against it, will likely discriminate toward inmates more, and other negative reactions..

It's not about doing one thing at a time, just one of the two things you mention from my view does not hep them at all and accomplishes nothing but controversy.

No.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork....-voting-rights-criminals#sthash.xE4K7uCw.dpuf

What Americans Think

Our results show that Americans hold nuanced views about which convicts should have the right to vote:

A clear majority (60%) favors restoring voting rights to people who have exited prison and are now on parole in the community.

Fully two-thirds (68%) endorse voting rights for people under supervised probation in the community.

But support for voting rights disappears at the penitentiary gate; only 31% of Americans endorse allowing people currently in prison to vote.

Support for restoring the right to vote to former felons who have completed their entire sentence (both prison and probation) varies depending on the specific kind of offense. With no reference to the nature of the crime, four-fifths of Americans favor restoring voting rights to former felons who have served their entire sentences. But support drops to 66% for people convicted of a violent crime, to 63% for a white-collar conviction, and to a bare majority of 52% when highly stigmatized sex offenders are at issue.
The key finding is that a majority of Americans favors restoring voting rights to former felons who have completed their sentences – even when told that convicts had served time for highly stigmatizing offenses such as sex crimes. Majorities in favor of voting rights for ex-felons are much stronger for less stigmatizing crimes. And high proportions of Americans favor voting rights for probationers who are currently serving their sentences in their communities, as well as for former prisoners serving time on parole.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Last I checked, correct me if I am wrong, the average citizen does not say they want felons to vote. So passing bill to allow them to vote without the peoples input, cause what Iike to call a shock bill.

Basically people will be against it, will likely discriminate toward inmates more, and other negative reactions..

It's not about doing one thing at a time, just one of the two things you mention from my view does not hep them at all and accomplishes nothing but controversy.

What the average citizen wants and what is right are not the same thing.

And have you considered that by restricting the rights of felons, including voting rights, you inherently skew the mindset of the population to be more anti-felon. After all, if the government won't let them vote, there must be a reason, right?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

That data, from what I can tell, doesn't exist--or at the very least hasn't been collated and presented in a manner like what you're asking for. Regardless, I fail to see what the ratio of misdemeanor to felony population has to do with anything.

He's trying to argue that the reason we can't know for sure if laws to disenfranchise felons are racist because even though the prisons in America are filled to the brim with black and brown people (just a coincidence, I'm sure) we don't know the breakdown of how many are misdemeanors and how many are felonies. SO many all the black/brown people in prison are just in there on misdemeanors and it's the white people catching felonies!?!? WHO KNOWS?!?!

 

[DarthWoo]

Last I checked, correct me if I am wrong, the average citizen does not say they want felons to vote. So passing bill to allow them to vote without the peoples input, cause what Iike to call a shock bill.

Basically people will be against it, will likely discriminate toward inmates more, and other negative reactions..

It's not about doing one thing at a time, just one of the two things you mention from my view does not hep them at all and accomplishes nothing but controversy.

There was a time when the average citizen didn't want black children in the same schools with white children. There was a time when the average citizen thought that slavery was A-OK. There was a time when the average citizen thought that women didn't belong in the voting booth. Certainly there may have been more important things going on at those times, and pursuing them may have caused controversy. Do you then propose those things should have been tabled until later?

 

[Voost Kain]

That data, from what I can tell, doesn't exist--or at the very least hasn't been collated and presented in a manner like what you're asking for. Regardless, I fail to see what the ratio of misdemeanor to felony population has to do with anything.
They won't find a job because they face systemic discrimination. If only they could vote for laws that would outlaw hiring discrimination against felons. But that would be corruption.

I would like to believe that you're operating in good faith, but you keep giving me reasons as to why you're not. I feel like I'm being taken for a ride, here. Why should I continue bearing the burden of proof when you've seemingly made up your mind already and are willing to throw out whatever I show you because it isn't fast enough to keep up with your mobile goalposts?

Goal posts? My argument hasn't changed. Also I'm not trying to be rude but you showed me the near exact opposite of what I asked, if you feel that's "throwing your post away" you can but it literally did not have anything to do with what I said.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Last I checked, correct me if I am wrong, the average citizen does not say they want felons to vote. So passing bill to allow them to vote without the peoples input, cause what Iike to call a shock bill.

Basically people will be against it, will likely discriminate toward inmates more, and other negative reactions..

It's not about doing one thing at a time, just one of the two things you mention from my view does not hep them at all and accomplishes nothing but controversy.

There was a time when the average citizen would not have wanted black people or women to vote.

 

[spwolf]

makes a lot of sense to me... we expect these people to-reintegrate into society and then dont allow them to vote. Is US one of the few countries doing this?

 

[Aaronrules380]

makes a lot of sense to me... we expect these people to-reintegrate into society and then dont allow them to vote. Is US one of the few countries doing this?

yes

 

[Voost Kain]

Here's another example. A lot of sex offenders/Child molesters are felons. They also unlike a lot of other inmates have to register as child mol/Sex offenders.

Do you guys think that once they serve their time, they should get those labels they had to register for (cm/so) removed and be allowed to vote?

 

[Voost Kain]

There was a time when the average citizen would not have wanted black people or women to vote.

What does this even mean? Felon is not a race or sex term.

 

[Pantaghana]

makes a lot of sense to me... we expect these people to-reintegrate into society and then dont allow them to vote. Is US one of the few countries doing this?

In a single word? Yes.

It's not that simple of course, some countries have special laws like not being allowed to vote for a set period of time, regardless how long the sentence is or only being excluded for one election.

What does this even mean? Felon is not a race or sex term.

I have a difficult time accepting someone to be this clueless, you must be trolling.

 

[Cyan]

Here's another example. A lot of sex offenders/Child molesters are felons. They also unlike a lot of other inmates have to register as child mol/Sex offenders.

Do you guys think that once they serve their time, they should get those labels they had to register for (cm/so) removed and be allowed to vote?

Again, your argument here is basically "they are bad people therefore they shouldn't get to vote." If that's the argument you want to make, maybe actually make it straightforwardly instead of resorting to "but what about sex offenders." Yes, you can keep listing off different types of felony. That doesn't change the underlying argument.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Here's another example. A lot of sex offenders/Child molesters are felons. They also unlike a lot of other inmates have to register as child mol/Sex offenders.

Do you guys think that once they serve their time, they should get those labels they had to register for (cm/so) removed and be allowed to vote?

Yes. Isn't that the point of serving time?

Furthermore, I could add the amount of felonies for all violent crimes (including, but not limited to forcible rape), and all offenses against children and family together, and it wouldn't be equal to HALF the number of people who have been convicted for drug charges
http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php

 

[ivysaur12]

Here's another example. A lot of sex offenders/Child molesters are felons. They also unlike a lot of other inmates have to register as child mol/Sex offenders.

Do you guys think that once they serve their time, they should get those labels they had to register for (cm/so) removed and be allowed to vote?

I don't have any problem with sex offenders being registered, but I also think there's no reason that sex offenders who have served time shouldn't be able to vote. That also goes with murders and rapists who have served their time. Or any sort of felons who have served their time.

 

[Voost Kain]

Why would you not? The default should be that citizens are allowed to vote. The onus is on you to argue that he shouldn't be able to.

If it just boils down to "well he's a bad person," great. Let's make a list of anyone who votes for Trump or has attended a Trump rally and block them from voting forever.

So you think all people voting for trump are bad people?

Cyan, it's not that he S bad. Look at the example the poster gave me, one guy. If there was one felon that would mean nationwide this one guy did something worse than the majority of criminals judges thought deserved jail time for. Worse.

I mean there are felons that have done bad things, and you supporting some who may not be bad let's them vote by consequence.

 

[Aaronrules380]

So you think all people voting for trump are bad people?

Cyan, it's not that he S bad. Look at the example the poster gave me, one guy. If there was one felon that would mean nationwide this one guy did something worse than the majority of criminals judges thought deserved jail time for. Worse.

I mean there are felons that have done bad things, and you supporting some who may not be bad let's them vote by consequence.

You think all felon's are bad people? Most felons are not rapists, murderers, etc, contrary to what you seem to believe.

And even people who are can change, believe it or not

Also, please stop equating legality to morality. Plenty of horribly, horribly awful things aren't illegal. Plenty of harmless thing are.

 

[Voost Kain]

You think all felon's are bad people? Most felons are not rapists, murderers, etc, contrary to what you seem to believe.

And even people who are can change, believe it or not

What you said is the exact opposite of what you just quoted.

By consequence letting "non bad people vote" will allow the worse to vote as well.

 

[hiryu64]

He's trying to argue that the reason we can't know for sure if laws to disenfranchise felons are racist because even though the prisons in America are filled to the brim with black and brown people (just a coincidence, I'm sure) we don't know the breakdown of how many are misdemeanors and how many are felonies. SO many all the black/brown people in prison are just in there on misdemeanors and it's the white people catching felonies!?!? WHO KNOWS?!?!

The fact that these laws disproportionately affect minority populations, while important context to have, shouldn't necessarily be the focus here (although it certainly is the reason for this whole controversy in the first place). Felony disenfranchisement laws affect all felons--white, black, brown, male, female, young, old. These are people who have had rights stripped from them that would never see them reinstated unless they moved to one of the other 40 states that reinstates felon voter rights yet still haven't been sunk due to corruption from some organized coalition of ex-felons.

Goal posts? My argument hasn't changed. Also I'm not trying to be rude but you showed me the near exact opposite of what I asked, if you feel that's "throwing your post away" you can but it literally did not have anything to do with what I said.

What, then, would it take for you to consider that there might actually be a problem, here? A 2:1 ratio of misdemeanor charges to felonies? What's the cutoff for this moving from not a problem to a problem that's worth solving now? The idea of some arbitrary threshold for when this suddenly crosses into problem territory is, frankly, laughable.

 

[Aaronrules380]

What you said is the exact opposite of what you just quoted.

Read my edit as well. And I think it's better to let the bad people vote so that we don't victimize the good, rather than the opposite. Especially if it's only after someone's served their time that they can vote. For example, most of the people who committed really attrocious crimes under such a system would still not be able to vote, because *shocker* the length of a sentence depends on the severity of the crime. The worse the crime, the longer they'd be kept out of the voting loop, with the worst crimes keeping people in prison for life

 

[Cyan]

So you think all people voting for trump are bad people?

That was the general thrust of that argument, yes. The point is that even if you disagree, once you justify disenfranchisement on the basis of someone being a bad person, you're leaving the door open for a whole bunch of other disenfranchisement.

Cyan, it's not that he S bad. Look at the example the poster gave me, one guy. If there was one felon that would mean nationwide this one guy did something worse than the majority of criminals judges thought deserved jail time for. Worse.

I mean there are felons that have done bad things, and you supporting some who may not be bad let's them vote by consequence.

You're completely missing the point. I'm saying I don't care that they might be bad people or have done bad things. I'm saying that suffrage should not depend on being a good person.

 

[Voost Kain]

The fact that these laws disproportionately affect minority populations, while important context to have, shouldn't necessarily be the focus here (although it certainly is the reason for this whole controversy in the first place). Felony disenfranchisement laws affect all felons--white, black, brown, male, female, young, old. These are people who have had rights stripped from them that would never see them reinstated unless they moved to one of the other 40 states that reinstates felon voter rights yet still haven't been sunk due to corruption from some organized coalition of ex-felons.
What, then, would it take for you to consider that there might actually be a problem, here? A 2:1 ratio of misdemeanor charges to felonies? What's the cutoff for this moving from not a problem to a problem that's worth solving now? The idea of some arbitrary threshold for when this suddenly crosses into problem territory is, frankly, laughable.

There's not really 40, there are tiers with different requirements on that graph. It's not just two rows.

So let me ask you this and maybe ill get the answer.

So lets say that there were only 100,000 felons and all of the either killed someone or was a sex offender. Say the race issue was not present for this example.

That would mean all these felons committed 1st or A class felonies. That the majority of the population never dreamed of doing, infringing on the rights of others, which were protected by state/federal law In the constitution.

You say you want these individuals to gain the right to vote after their 1-20 year prison sentences.

Without posting only two sentences can you please tell me why you think they should still get a vote and why it doesn't bother you even a little bit?

 

[ivysaur12]

There's not really 40, there are tiers with different requirements on that graph. It's not just two rows.

So let me ask you this and maybe ill get the answer.

So lets say that there were only 100,000 felons and all of the either killed someone or was a sex offender. Say the race issue was not present for this example.

That would mean all these felons committed 1st or A class felonies. That the majority of the population never dreamed of doing, infringing on the rights of others, which were protected by state/federal law In the constitution.

You say you want these individuals to gain the right to vote after their 1-20 year prison sentences.

Without posting only two sentences can you please tell me why you think they should still get a vote and why it doesn't bother you even a little bit?

Because suffrage should not be limited to if someone is a bad person or not, no matter what they've done in their life.

 

[Voost Kain]

I'm saying that suffrage should not depend on being a good person.

This is what I'm trying to figure out.

Why do you think this?

 

[CornBurrito]

I made the argument very clear, and even made it MORE clear in the post a few posts up. This is more like intentionally reading out of context.

As far as I can tell, you're main argument is about white collar criminals using their voting power and wealth to get laws passed that benefit them. Which is more a problem with their wealth's ability to buy lawmakers than their individual vote.

This is what I'm trying to figure out.

Why do you think this?

I mean who determines what a bad person is? Some stuff (rape, murder) may be clear cut. But there are tons of gray areas.

 

[stump sock]

Without posting only two sentences can you please tell me why you think they should still get a vote and why it doesn't bother you even a little bit?

because they have literally done the punishment that was determined to be appropriate for the crime they committed? why shouldn't that be the end of it?

 

[Voost Kain]

Because suffrage should not be limited to if someone is a bad person or not, no matter what they've done in their life.

And why do you think this?

 

[Link]

Boy, I'm glad I bailed out of this early. Highly entertaining, though.

 

[CornBurrito]

You say you want these individuals to gain the right to vote after their 1-20 year prison sentences.

Mind if I ask you this: Would you support life sentences for all violent/sexual crimes, first time offender or not?

 

[Cyan]

This is what I'm trying to figure out.

Why do you think this?

And why do you think this?

Again, the default is that all citizens can vote. Why do you think they shouldn't be able to vote? So far your argument has been, effectively, "because they are bad" which is circular.

 

[Voost Kain]

As far as I can tell, you're main argument is about white collar criminals using their voting power and wealth to get laws passed that benefit them. Which is more a problem with their wealth's ability to buy lawmakers than their individual vote.



I mean who determines what a bad person is? Some stuff (rape, murder) may be clear cut. But there are tons of gray areas.

But the issue is you want the clear cut ones to vote as well.

 

[Macho Madness]

But the issue is you want the clear cut ones to vote as well.

Why continue treating people like non citizens after they've served time? Are they sentenced to life without voting rights for one crime?

You've not clarified or provided a good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Its not like voting rights are a special right provided only to a few people and need to be earned. They are given at the age of 18 to everyone. Therefore the default position is that everyone has the right to vote. Why is it not party for people to return to that after serving time?

 

[Voost Kain]

Again, the default is that all citizens can vote. Why do you think they shouldn't be able to vote? So far your argument has been, effectively, "because they are bad" which is circular.

Your argument is basically that the constitution says everyone can vote. So Felons should vote.

My argument is I don't think felons who severely infringe on others constitutional rights should be allowed to vote and lose that constitutional right.

Hopefully my argument is much clearer now.

 

[PataHikari]

But the issue is you want the clear cut ones to vote as well.

If they've finished their sentence why shouldn't they be able to vote?

They paid for their crime already, people aren't irredeemable.

 

[hiryu64]

There's not really 40, there are tiers with different requirements on that graph. It's not just two rows.

So let me ask you this and maybe ill get the answer.

So lets say that there were only 100,000 felons and all of the either killed someone or was a sex offender. Say the race issue was not present for this example.

That would mean all these felons committed 1st or A class felonies. That the majority of the population never dreamed of doing, infringing on the rights of others, which were protected by state/federal law In the constitution.

You say you want these individuals to gain the right to vote after their 1-20 year prison sentences.

Without posting only two sentences can you please tell me why you think they should still get a vote and why it doesn't bother you even a little bit?

Incidentally, I already answered this.

The systematic removal of rights and privileges, including voting rights, from felons reinforces a stigma that they (without exception) are inherently worthless people and perpetuates the suffering and hardship of an entire group of people by stuffing them into a permanent and inescapable underclass. It is effectively our society branding them and telling them that they are not wanted and that they can never earn their way back into society (a society that should have never condemned them to such a miserable existence in the first place).

They are assumed to be dumb, ignorant, depraved, and subhuman rather than troubled, flawed, and vulnerable, and this attitude further drives a wedge between them and the society that they would want to re-integrate into if only they were given the chance. In addition, due to the presumption of guilt (and let's be honest--innocent until proven guilty is a falsehood when it comes to perception), innocent lives are sacrificed to the god of retribution, doomed to pay the price for crimes they never committed by wearing a brand that they never should have been branded with in the first place.

There is much, much work that needs to be done to overhaul the US justice system, prison system, and perception of justice. This law is a small step, perhaps the first of many, toward moving away from a vengeful, retributive justice system that seeks to validate the existence of law-abiding citizens by placing law-breaking citizens beneath them and toward a more humane, rehabilitative system that utilizes compassion rather than petty attempts at superiority.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I think people that use the screenname Edson Farley shouldn't be able to vote.

 

[Cyan]

Your argument is basically that the constitution says everyone can vote. So Felons should vote.

My argument isn't based on the constitution, but yes, I do agree that the constitution says everyone can vote.

My argument is I don't think felons who severely infringe on others constitutional rights should be allowed to vote and lose that constitutional right.

Oh ok, now I get it. So, for example, anyone who voted in favor of a ballot proposition that blocked gay marriage, a constitutional right, shouldn't be allowed to vote. I agree, this sounds like an excellent idea.

 

[Macho Madness]

I think people that use the screenname Edson Farley shouldn't be able to vote.

But what if he changes it?

 

[Link]

Oh ok, now I get it. So, for example, anyone who voted in favor of a ballot proposition that blocked gay marriage, a constitutional right, shouldn't be allowed to vote. I agree, this sounds like an excellent idea.

This swerve... this swerve I like.

 

[Aaronrules380]

But the issue is you want the clear cut ones to vote as well.

There are no clear cut ones though. Even someone in on things like rape or murder might actually have been falsely convicteded. ANd even if not, why should someone who committed rape when they were 18 be forced to not vote when they're 50? And even if we let someone who was a rapist vote, why do you think that will harm anyone? The vast majority of the public is still and always going to be anti rape, so it's not like the small number of rapists who would vote is going to elect someone who would pass pro-rape laws or some shit like that

 

[ivysaur12]

And why do you think this?

If someone has served their time to society, as decided upon by a jury of their peers or through a plea deal or by a judge, there is no reason why their rights as a citizens shouldn't be resorted. Otherwise, it is punitive and infringes on a person's ability to reintegrate into society. It's the same with informing potential employers that they are ex-felons. If we're going to reduce recidivism and actually not be punitive with our justice system, then we shouldn't hold back on reintegrating ex-felons who have done their time into society.

Oh ok, now I get it. So, for example, anyone who voted in favor of a ballot proposition that blocked gay marriage, a constitutional right, shouldn't be allowed to vote. I agree, this sounds like an excellent idea.

lol

 

[Voost Kain]

My argument isn't based on the constitution, but yes, I do agree that the constitution says everyone can vote.



Oh ok, now I get it. So, for example, anyone who voted in favor of a ballot proposition that blocked gay marriage, a constitutional right, shouldn't be allowed to vote. I agree, this sounds like an excellent idea.

Marriage regardless of orientation isn't a right where did you get that?

I also find your random side assumption that I am against something distasteful.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I, too, would like to live in a world where only people I agree with could vote. Although, just making me king would be more efficient.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Marriage regardless of orientation isn't a right where did you get that?

I also find your random side assumption that I am against something distasteful.

Pretty much any arguement against gay marriage hinges on religion, which is a clear violation of church and state, and was ultimately ruled as such by the supreme court

 

[stump sock]

Marriage regardless of orientation isn't a right where did you get that?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...riage-supreme-court-politics-activism/397052/

3 seconds on google bro

 

[ivysaur12]

Marriage regardless of orientation isn't a right where did you get that?

I also find your random side assumption that I am against something distasteful.

It's actually a constitutional right as opinioned by the Supreme Court last year in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Pretty much any arguement against gay marriage hinges on religion, which is a clear violation of church and state, and was ultimately ruled as such by the supreme court

(A separation between church and state ultimately had nothing to do with the SCOTUS's reasoning)

 

[-COOLIO-]

All felons, including those currently serving time in prison, should be permitted to vote.

yup. the poorest people with their backs against the wall need change to happen the most.