[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;32485112]I went and pulled an armed robbery stealing loads of money that wasn't mine and killed loads of people in the process but it's okay! [/QUOTE] Yea because most people in prison are this bad. Not to mention most people who murder actually seem like normal people.
[B]I think the key point here is that you can't revoke someone's right to vote based on their character, actions, opinions, level of intelligence, or political motive.[/B]
That isn't what the constitution envisioned and it could set a dark precedent. Where would that lead to? Political supporters of "x" can't vote? No one under an IQ of "y" can vote? The right to vote is one best left untouched.
I think you'd have to advocate for a constitutional amendment if wanted to stand any chance of successfully arguing for removing prisoners' right to vote.
What's even worse, if you're a felon and you get out a prison, you can never vote again.
Voting doesn't actually make all that much difference to anything so yeah let them take their own dump on society.
Only if its a fake ballot. Criminals are in prison because they don't respect laws and oppose society, they shouldn't be able to call the shots.
As soon as they're released they should be able to vote again. You don't let irresponsible parents keep custody of children or let irresponsible drivers keep their licences, it makes sense that irresponsible citizens should not vote while they serve their sentence.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;32513078]Only if its a fake ballot. Criminals are in prison because they don't respect laws and oppose society, they shouldn't be able to call the shots.
As soon as they're released they should be able to vote again. You don't let irresponsible parents keep custody of children or let irresponsible drivers keep their licences, it makes sense that irresponsible citizens should not vote while they serve their sentence.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because every voter is "calling the shots". What if the US started taking on political dissidents like they used to? Would you still be arguing the same thing based on this "if they're in jail, they must be in there for a good reason" mentality?
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32482880]Here's a good argument for why prisoners should not be allowed to vote:
If prison is for rehabilitation for something that's seriously wrong with someone (murder, rape, etc.) wouldn't you want to rehabilitate them before returning they're right to vote?[/QUOTE]
Another reason could be that people in prison could threaten eachother into voting for a certain candidate.
Depends on what they are in for, people in for horrifically violent offenses, like murder, armed robbery. Should not, since its likely they aren't thinking straight, so thus shouldn't vote for the same reason children cant (lack of ability, or less likely to make a rational, informed decision). But people just in for having drugs, or other light sentences should still maintain the ability to vote.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32513771]Yes, because every voter is "calling the shots". What if the US started taking on political dissidents like they used to? Would you still be arguing the same thing based on this "if they're in jail, they must be in there for a good reason" mentality?[/QUOTE]
Of course not. Good thing this isn't a 'what if' situation.
From wikipedia:
"Proponents of felony disenfranchisement contend that felonies are, by definition, serious crimes, and that persons who commit felonies have 'broken' the social contract, and have thereby given up their right to participate in a civil society."
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;32514695]Of course not. Good thing this isn't a 'what if' situation.[/QUOTE]
It isn't improbable. We interned Japanese, German, and Italian Americans in WWII, and put anti-war politicians in prison during WWI. Should they be barred from voting because they're in jail?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32514955]It isn't improbable. We interned Japanese, German, and Italian Americans in WWII, and put anti-war politicians in prison during WWI. Should they be barred from voting because they're in jail?[/QUOTE]
If that was happening now then I would think the major concern would be whether it was right for them to be arrested in the first place (the answer is no). It would be a moot point arguing for their right to vote because a government that locks people up for their beliefs isn't going to allow them to vote anyway.
Except this isn't WWII so I guess that bullet was dodged
Absolutely, for the reasons Zeke gave. It's incredibly dangerous to allow a society to dictate which people aren't given any say in its running.
Yup.
I don't subscribe to the idea that being in prison means you lose your rights, because in that case, they're privileges and not rights - other than the right (privilege) to freedom; but it goes without saying that being free is a privilege that society has the right to take away if you've proven that you can't handle it.
That said, I also know that the state can and will take away your rights whenever it's convenient for them. In an ideal society however, yes, prisoners should be allowed to vote. Say a popular leader is being considered for election and one of his policies is (re)instatement of the death penalty for violent prisoners. Shouldn't they be able to vote against that?
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;32515242]If that was happening now then I would think the major concern would be whether it was right for them to be arrested in the first place (the answer is no). It would be a moot point arguing for their right to vote because a government that locks people up for their beliefs isn't going to allow them to vote anyway.
Except this isn't WWII so I guess that bullet was dodged[/QUOTE]
Then what about non-violent offenders? Should they be barred from voting? Like if you get arrested for selling weed or something, should you be prevented from voting?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32515375]Then what about non-violent offenders? Should they be barred from voting? Like if you get arrested for selling weed or something, should you be prevented from voting?[/QUOTE]
Getting arrested for weed is dumb in the first place. Don't get me started on that.
If you are a violent criminal then you broke the social contract. You're right to vote has been voided.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;32515768]Getting arrested for weed is dumb in the first place. Don't get me started on that.
If you are a violent criminal then you broke the social contract. You're right to vote has been voided.[/QUOTE]
It's not a right if it can be taken away.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32515776]It's not a right if it can be taken away.[/QUOTE]
uh
I have the right to keep and bear arms, do I not? Second Amendment, all that fun shit?
Send me off to jail, should that right not be taken away?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;32515916]uh
I have the right to keep and bear arms, do I not? Second Amendment, all that fun shit?
Send me off to jail, should that right not be taken away?[/QUOTE]
They can't take the right away, but they can stop you from getting or holding onto firearms.
I don't think the government should have the power to disenfranchise people because they've broken laws.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32515938]They can't take the right away, but they can stop you from getting or holding onto firearms.[/QUOTE]
The fuck?
So when the government prevents prisoners from voting, their right to vote has been "taken away", but when they prevent them from having guns, their right to keep and bear arms has NOT been taken away?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;32515981]The fuck?
So when the government prevents prisoners from voting, their right to vote has been "taken away", but when they prevent them from having guns, their right to keep and bear arms has NOT been taken away?[/QUOTE]
Well they [I]physically can[/I] take them away, but it's not just to do so.
I suppose it is fair enough to say that removing the right to vote is unjust. But saying the same about rights in general is unrealistic.
If we're ideally trying to reform prisoners, you can't just take away rights that have nothing to do with the sentence.
It's not too unlike Texas taking away special last meals for death row inmates recently. There's no point in having this attitude of working against the prisoner. They've already been sentenced, making things worse for them in extra little ways is just counterproductive.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;32516058]I suppose it is fair enough to say that removing the right to vote is unjust. But saying the same about rights in general is unrealistic.[/QUOTE]
a right is guaranteed by society. if the government can take it away when you're sent to prison it's not a right, it's a privilege.
We actually don't have, "rights" so get that shit out of your head. "Rights" are not what they seem at all. "Freedom of speech" is the biggest piece of bullshit. If I go into public and start screaming, "FUCK FUCK SHIT FUCK" I can get a citation for either "disturbing the peace" or "unruly conduct."
That's a funny scene to imagine.
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;32518396]We actually don't have, "rights" so get that shit out of your head.[/QUOTE]
yes i realize that because the government (or whoever is in charge) can and will take away your privileges whenever and however it sees fit
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;32518396]"Freedom of speech" is the biggest piece of bullshit. If I go into public and start screaming, "FUCK FUCK SHIT FUCK" I can get a citation for either "disturbing the peace" or "unruly conduct."[/QUOTE]
however this is a terrible example
a law against unruly public conduct does not contradict one's right to freedom of speech. you're allowed to say whatever you want, to whoever you want, wherever you want; [I]however[/I] if you violate someone else's rights you can be held accountable as such. laws against certain instances of speech such as slander/libel exist to protect others' rights and well-being. but there's nothing technically censoring you should you choose to say whatever you wish
again, i don't buy into the idea of rights, it's just an easy word to use in this context
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;32518396]We actually don't have, "rights" so get that shit out of your head. "Rights" are not what they seem at all. "Freedom of speech" is the biggest piece of bullshit. If I go into public and start screaming, "FUCK FUCK SHIT FUCK" I can get a citation for either "disturbing the peace" or "unruly conduct."[/QUOTE]
Freedom of speech likely applies to dissenting opinions against the government. Now I can't speak to the US founding fathers but I doubt they intended it to cover someone going into a public place and screaming FUCK FUCK SHIT FUCK.
But maybe they did, this is wild speculation.
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;32518396]We actually don't have, "rights" so get that shit out of your head. "Rights" are not what they seem at all. "Freedom of speech" is the biggest piece of bullshit. If I go into public and start screaming, "FUCK FUCK SHIT FUCK" I can get a citation for either "disturbing the peace" or "unruly conduct."[/QUOTE]
Yes you do.
Perhaps now you see why a lot of people hate the government? You have a bill of rights that is [B]supposed[/B] to give you inalienable rights. In practice, however, your government pisses on this every day.
BTW like Zeke said, freedom of speech has nothing do with you screaming profanities in public. If you were to go into a public platform and start screaming profanities that wouldn't be speech. You aren't communicating any sort of opinion or information, you are basically just shouting gibberish.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
