Virginia Supreme Court strikes down governor's executive order to restore voting rights to felons - Polidicks

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50778279] Yeah, once you decide to turn to crime, or[B] blatantly ignore[/B] the laws in place, you've proved you have no interest in contributing decent things to society, or think for one reason or another, you're above these laws. That's a problem, especially when you act on it. [/QUOTE] Many of the felons I met got their convictions when their were children or just over 18. The ramifications of their charges carry on way after. I don't think its fair to restrict a 28 year old for what they did before their brain was even fully developed.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50778318]Except it's taken away when you're in prison and during your sentence. I see no reason why it should apply afterwards considering how much more difficult life is made for people after leaving prison.[/QUOTE] Because you don't know if they actually learned anything during their sentence (which is why I'm for prison reform in certain areas), and if they've decided to make the changes to warrant them receiving the rights they gave up. 12 months with no reoffending, maybe references from the people your interact with? Get your vote back. 12 after that, 2nd amendment rights restored. Seems fair. [editline]26th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mikenopa;50778328]Many of the felons I met got their convictions when their were children or just over 18. The ramifications of their charges carry on way after. I don't think its fair to restrict a 28 year old for what they did before their brain was even fully developed.[/QUOTE] Being a young adult isn't an excuse to be absolved of the consequences of breaking the law. If you can prove you're not that dumb anymore, thats fine by me.

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;50778328]Many of the felons I met got their convictions when their were children or just over 18. The ramifications of their charges carry on way after. I don't think its fair to restrict a 28 year old for what they did before their brain was even fully developed.[/QUOTE] The only time a felony committed under the age of 18 isn't sealed is if it's something especially heinous like kidnapping, attempted murder, armed robbery, at which point I think they probably still shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50778018]If you do something warranting felony charges, I don't think you should be able to vote. You've demonstrated disregard for society around you in one way or another. Making it through your sentencr doesnt mean you're changed. Once you're out, working, contributing to society and staying out of trouble, thats a different story. You could have a case to have your rights restored. Thats what the processes we have now are for. Want to reform those? All for it. But giving it to all of them on good faith? No. I don't think that having 200,000 new votes being put in place by a guy who knows these people are probably going to be voting in his interests is free of any scrutiny or moral issues.[/QUOTE] But, again... why? How are their voting rights endangering society? It's nonsensical. Barring a violent felon from owning a gun makes sense. Barring a from working with children makes sense. What sense does revoking voting rights for anybody have? What harm does it supposedly prevent? It's pointless. All it does is further disenfranchise and alienate convicts, feeding into an ugly an broken system.

This has nothing to do with being a felon and everything to do with the Governor overstepping their power.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50778496]This has nothing to do with being a felon and everything to do with the Governor overstepping their power.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's the ruling and it's a pretty fair one as far as the constitutional limits of power. Still, there's room for debate on why felons should have their voting rights restricted to begin with, since it's the current status quo in much of America.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50778486]But, again... why? How are their voting rights endangering society? It's nonsensical. Barring a violent felon from owning a gun makes sense. Barring a from working with children makes sense. What sense does revoking voting rights for anybody have? What harm does it supposedly prevent? It's pointless. All it does is further disenfranchise and alienate convicts, feeding into an ugly an broken system.[/QUOTE] They can't be trusted to take part in shaping society in their own view of how it should be if they've shown a complete disregard for the laws in place that they either don't agree with, or choose to ignore, or are ignorant of. You don't get both. If you're going to have a part in making the rules others live by, you damn sure better live by them yourself. If you decide to give up those rights when you decide to sell drugs, assault someone, robbing someone, etc., it shouldn't be a given that you get them back as soon as your out of prison and back into society. You need to prove that you're now capable of living amongst the rest of us law-abiding citizens now that you're out here with us, before you have any small say in how we'll be able to spend our lives in the future. You chose to do the crime, it's now on you to prove that you've learned from the experience. If people are desiring reform to rights restoration processes, I'm all for that. But giving them all back to people demonstrably untrustworthy? Not my thing. This is all ignoring that it is McAuliffe seeking votes and doing things he wasn't in power to do, anyway. Which isn't surprising, he's been a bery iffy governor so far.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;50777803]Yup. In the good ole USA, if you get a felony you're basically screwed for life. Can't vote, can't (legally) get a gun, and your hiring prospects are significantly lower because not everyone wants to hire a convicted felon. It's pretty much nationwide to my knowledge.[/QUOTE] Sounds to me like the American system is deliberately designed to make it impossible for convicts to re-integrate. It's a system carefully designed to manufacture career criminals for the for-profit prisons.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50778554]Sounds to me like the American system is deliberately designed to make it impossible for convicts to re-integrate. It's a system carefully designed to manufacture career criminals for the for-profit prisons.[/QUOTE] The US DOJ gave up rehabilitation a long time ago. Our prisons do not exist to reform criminals and help them avoid reoffending after release -- they exist to warehouse people for profit, before throwing them back on the streets even worse than when they left. In America we view our criminals the same way we view everything else: rehabilitating inmates, educating them, giving them self respect and employable skills is for bleeding-heart liberal pussies. The [b]real[/b] way to lower crime rates is to strip every shred of dignity and hope from everyone who commits a crime. :terrists:

One of the things I hated realizing the most in college was the fact that America has a stupid "once a criminal always a criminal" stigma on felons. It prevents them from getting decent jobs, living in certain neighborhoods, or even affording livable housing. Even if they clearly show that they have changed, society refuses to accept them and it just causes the spiral back to prison. I think felons should be able to vote after a certain number of years of no issues after they have been released, why is that so hard for some states to figure out.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50778549]They can't be trusted to take part in shaping society in their own view of how it should be if they've shown a complete disregard for the laws in place that they either don't agree with, or choose to ignore, or are ignorant of. You don't get both. If you're going to have a part in making the rules others live by, you damn sure better live by them yourself. If you decide to give up those rights when you decide to sell drugs, assault someone, robbing someone, etc., it shouldn't be a given that you get them back as soon as your out of prison and back into society. You need to prove that you're now capable of living amongst the rest of us law-abiding citizens now that you're out here with us, before you have any small say in how we'll be able to spend our lives in the future. You chose to do the crime, it's now on you to prove that you've learned from the experience. If people are desiring reform to rights restoration processes, I'm all for that. But giving them all back to people demonstrably untrustworthy? Not my thing. This is all ignoring that it is McAuliffe seeking votes and doing things he wasn't in power to do, anyway. Which isn't surprising, he's been a bery iffy governor so far.[/QUOTE] Again... [B]why?[/B] All you are doing is restating your belief that people who commit crimes should lose the right to vote, but you haven't explained what taking away their right to vote actually [B]accomplishes[/B]. If we are discussing revoking the rights of US citizens, I should at least hope there is legitimate cause to do so, and that such revocation somehow protects the rights of society at large. You say rhat youworry abour former criminals "reshaping society in their image." So, please, elaborate. What does revoking their voting rights actually accomplish? How does it protect society? How would they damage society by bejng allowed to vote? We know how absurd the notion that they're going to outlaw cops and make theft legal is, but obviously you are concerned about SOMETHING, and that's what I'm failing to see.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50778549][B]You don't get both. If you're going to have a part in making the rules others live by, you damn sure better live by them yourself. [/B][/QUOTE] tell that to most politicians lol

What other rights can felons not be trusted with? I get guns because that provides an immediate threat, but what's the immediate threat of a felon voting for Romney in 2012?

Felons should certainly have voting rights but the fact the former chairman of the DNC wants to issue a blanket ruling right before the presidential elections is suspect at best.

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;50778881]Felons should certainly have voting rights but the fact the former chairman of the DNC wants to issue a blanket ruling right before the presidential elections is suspect at best.[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ, is everything the DNC does now a conspiracy? This paranoia helps no one man.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50778921]Jesus Christ, is everything the DNC does now a conspiracy? This paranoia helps no one man.[/QUOTE] This isn't about the DNC exclusively. I'd still think it'd be odd if a former chairman of the RNC did something along these lines. He's chosen to do this right before an election and it just comes across as something purely for a party benefit.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50778680]Again... [B]why?[/B] All you are doing is restating your belief that people who commit crimes should lose the right to vote, but you haven't explained what taking away their right to vote actually [B]accomplishes[/B]. If we are discussing revoking the rights of US citizens, I should at least hope there is legitimate cause to do so, and that such revocation somehow protects the rights of society at large. You say rhat youworry abour former criminals "reshaping society in their image." So, please, elaborate. What does revoking their voting rights actually accomplish? How does it protect society? How would they damage society by bejng allowed to vote? We know how absurd the notion that they're going to outlaw cops and make theft legal is, but obviously you are concerned about SOMETHING, and that's what I'm failing to see.[/QUOTE] It's more of a moral thing for me. Realistically, you're right to say there's no practical danger in them voting. It doesn't physicay harm society or damage it. I can cede that point, but that really wasnt what I was arguing, or not how I wanted to phrase it. I don't want the people who break laws voting on and putting in place laws other people have to follow if they're going to break them. Felons have a demonstrable history of breaking laws. It is not fair in my eyes to let felons have any influence on how law-abiding citizens live their lives through regulations, taxes, etc. until they're able to prove they are willing to live by the rules everyone else who votes does. IE: Terry sells dope, was caught, goes to prison, comes out, goes back to selling, doesn't pay income tax on it of course, but votes for higher income taxes in Virginia, putting burden on society while contributing nothing to what he actually voted for, but reaping the benefits. It doesn't seem just to me. People who dodged the law should have no part in shaping it, until they can prove they're going to be living by the laws they vote for. It's on them to come up with that proof. That's why I'm for revising rights restoration systems, but not for letting all felons immediately vote upon exiting prison.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50779008]It's more of a moral thing for me. Realistically, you're right to say there's no practical danger in them voting. It doesn't physicay harm society or damage it. I can cede that point, but that really wasnt what I was arguing, or not how I wanted to phrase it. I don't want the people who break laws voting on and putting in place laws other people have to follow if they're going to break them. Felons have a demonstrable history of breaking laws. It is not fair in my eyes to let felons have any influence on how law-abiding citizens live their lives through regulations, taxes, etc. until they're able to prove they are willing to live by the rules everyone else who votes does. IE: Terry sells dope, was caught, goes to prison, comes out, goes back to selling, doesn't pay income tax on it of course, but votes for higher income taxes in Virginia, putting burden on society while contributing nothing to what he actually voted for, but reaping the benefits. It doesn't seem just to me. People who dodged the law should have no part in shaping it, until they can prove they're going to be living by the laws they vote for. It's on them to come up with that proof. That's why I'm for revising rights restoration systems, but not for letting all felons immediately vote upon exiting prison.[/QUOTE] You know that people who helped form laws are more likely to follow them, otherwise they wouldn't have voted for them? If criminals aren't going to vote anymore, they sure won't be inclined to follow them

The fastest way to make enemies is to create a crowd of disenfranchised people who have nothing to gain by working for or within acceptable boundaries - and so they remain in opposition to it. By essentially making life much more difficult for felons you are encouraging them to commit crimes and to further damage and undermine the basic structures of society. Considering that America has one of the largest prison populations on the planet, this does not bode well for society as a whole when a massive proportion of its inhabitants are treated as second class citizens and have nothing to gain by supporting society in its current state. It leads to increasing dysfunction.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50779081]The fastest way to make enemies is to create a crowd of disenfranchised people who have nothing to gain by working for or within acceptable boundaries - and so they remain in opposition to it. By essentially making life much more difficult for felons you are encouraging them to commit crimes and to further damage and undermine the basic structures of society. Considering that America has one of the largest prison populations on the planet, this does not bode well for society as a whole when a massive proportion of its inhabitants are treated as second class citizens and have nothing to gain by supporting society in its current state. It leads to increasing dysfunction.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's definitely an issue we need to fix. It'll take time though. Personally, I'd start by ending the war on drugs, that's been a huge source of non-violent felony charges, in addition to being the cause of a plethora of problems.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50779008]It's more of a moral thing for me.[/QUOTE] Hey there's a special thing that can be implemented to the terrible prison/criminal system in the US called REHABILITATION. I hear it's great and can be allowed for offenders to change and be reintroduced to society instead of leaving them to rot in a hellhole or live the rest of their days being unable to hold a decent job and having to resort back to a life of crime. Seriously, if you want to consider yourself "moral", then how in the everloving fuck can you justify yourself as moral when you want to prevent felons from being able to try to redeem themselves?

[QUOTE=joshuadim;50779400]Seriously, if you want to consider yourself "moral", then how in the everloving fuck can you justify yourself as moral when you want to prevent felons from being able to try to redeem themselves?[/QUOTE] Most Americans don't think criminals can be redeemed

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50779008]It's more of a moral thing for me. Realistically, you're right to say there's no practical danger in them voting. It doesn't physicay harm society or damage it. I can cede that point, but that really wasnt what I was arguing, or not how I wanted to phrase it. I don't want the people who break laws voting on and putting in place laws other people have to follow if they're going to break them. Felons have a demonstrable history of breaking laws. It is not fair in my eyes to let felons have any influence on how law-abiding citizens live their lives through regulations, taxes, etc. until they're able to prove they are willing to live by the rules everyone else who votes does. IE: Terry sells dope, was caught, goes to prison, comes out, goes back to selling, doesn't pay income tax on it of course, but votes for higher income taxes in Virginia, putting burden on society while contributing nothing to what he actually voted for, but reaping the benefits. It doesn't seem just to me. People who dodged the law should have no part in shaping it, until they can prove they're going to be living by the laws they vote for. It's on them to come up with that proof. That's why I'm for revising rights restoration systems, but not for letting all felons immediately vote upon exiting prison.[/QUOTE] You can be contributing just as little to society as a felon without committing a crime, I don't see how a self-intrest vote would be less valid if you're a felon. Regardless, contribution to society has never been about how much you exactly contribute, you don't get more votes when you contribute more, you don't lose your vote when you're on benefits. And you have to draw the line for impeding on personal rights somewhere with a Felon, you're whole argument is infinite, you can argue for any length of any right under the notion of "But they committed a crime! They took away from society!" What about unemployment benefits or any government funding or programs, why should society pay for somebody who committed a crime? You have to draw the line somewhere, their personal rights also matter, and the chance of them becoming a meaningful part of society decreases if you restrict or impede on it consistently.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;50779400]Hey there's a special thing that can be implemented to the terrible prison/criminal system in the US called REHABILITATION. I hear it's great and can be allowed for offenders to change and be reintroduced to society instead of leaving them to rot in a hellhole or live the rest of their days being unable to hold a decent job and having to resort back to a life of crime. Seriously, if you want to consider yourself "moral", then how in the everloving fuck can you justify yourself as moral when you want to prevent felons from being able to try to redeem themselves?[/QUOTE] You missed the part where I gave a venue for it, I guess.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50779008]It's more of a moral thing for me. Realistically, you're right to say there's no practical danger in them voting. It doesn't physicay harm society or damage it. I can cede that point, but that really wasnt what I was arguing, or not how I wanted to phrase it. I don't want the people who break laws voting on and putting in place laws other people have to follow if they're going to break them. Felons have a demonstrable history of breaking laws. It is not fair in my eyes to let felons have any influence on how law-abiding citizens live their lives through regulations, taxes, etc. until they're able to prove they are willing to live by the rules everyone else who votes does. IE: Terry sells dope, was caught, goes to prison, comes out, goes back to selling, doesn't pay income tax on it of course, but votes for higher income taxes in Virginia, putting burden on society while contributing nothing to what he actually voted for, but reaping the benefits. It doesn't seem just to me. People who dodged the law should have no part in shaping it, until they can prove they're going to be living by the laws they vote for. It's on them to come up with that proof. That's why I'm for revising rights restoration systems, but not for letting all felons immediately vote upon exiting prison.[/QUOTE] With all honesty if someone, let's call him Nick, came out of prison with no real job prospects beyond slave wages (if that), the societal stigma that comes with having a record and then to top it off, told ge can't have a say in how the country's run without going through some form of obstacle (which, given voter disenfranchisement, can be rather measurable) then what incentive is there for Nick to reform? For him, it feels as if his life is fucked and whilst, yes, he made the mistake of slanging dope as a kid that doesn't mean it should follow him for the rest of his life and bar him from being represented. If he isn't going to get even that, then why the hell should he follow society's laws? Why should he follow the rules of people he never even had an inkling in electing. Nick might become even more bitter after the shitshow that is the American prison system and start thinking society can go fuck itself and goes back to slanging dope or something just because it's the only way he can get by without constantly being on the breadline and he can't vote in favour of politicians that could help him reform. I see your point but I don't agree with it. Terry's an asshole but that doesn't mean Nick is going to be one, unless he's put in that position.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50779008]It's more of a moral thing for me. [/QUOTE] The government isn't (or shouldn't) be a moral police. [QUOTE=evilweazel;50779008]IE: Terry sells dope, was caught, goes to prison, comes out, goes back to selling, doesn't pay income tax on it of course, but votes for higher income taxes in Virginia, putting burden on society while contributing nothing to what he actually voted for, but reaping the benefits. It doesn't seem just to me.[/QUOTE] Just because someone is a felon, even a non-reformed felon, doesn't mean their political opinion is invalid. Your logic of "reaping the benefits while contributing nothing" is similar to that of the people who are trying to get welfare programs restricted because they can be abused. The amount of risk that comes with people leeching on the system is low compared to benefit of giving thousands of people the rights they should have had in the first place. [QUOTE=evilweazel;50779008]People who dodged the law should have no part in shaping it[/QUOTE] [quote=Martin Luther King Jr.]“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”[/quote] Would you agree that people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi should have no part in shaping the law? I understand we're focusing on convicted felons and their voting rights, but this still highlights a very flawed part in your reasoning. A person who commits a crime isn't opposed to the idea of law or is inherently a bad person. [quote==evilweazel;50779008]until they can prove they're going to be living by the laws they vote for.[/quote] How can they vote for the laws when you want them to be disenfranchised? [quote==evilweazel;50779008]It's on them to come up with that proof. That's why I'm for revising rights restoration systems, but not for letting all felons immediately vote upon exiting prison.[/quote] You talk about a rights restoration system, but honestly it sounds like it'd be very inefficient and slow. Also, how would define someone as being reformed enough to get their rights back? Do they have to hold a job? It's difficult for a felon to be hired nowadays. Do they have to be sober if they were arrested on drug charges? For how long? Prison does nothing to help addicts and you're disenfranchising someone for however long it takes for them to be sober, if not longer depending on how slow the rights restoration process is.

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;50778951]This isn't about the DNC exclusively. I'd still think it'd be odd if a former chairman of the RNC did something along these lines. He's chosen to do this right before an election and it just comes across as something purely for a party benefit.[/QUOTE] Please provide evidence that A) All of these convicts [I]would[/I] register to vote and do so, B) Definitely vote for Clinton come November and C) Actually make an impact on which way Virginia goes, which has been blue the last several elections anyway. Then I'll say your conspiracy theory holds a few drops of water.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50778549]They can't be trusted to take part in shaping society in their own view of how it should be if they've shown a complete disregard for the laws in place that they either don't agree with, or choose to ignore, or are ignorant of. You don't get both. If you're going to have a part in making the rules others live by, you damn sure better live by them yourself. If you decide to give up those rights when you decide to sell drugs, assault someone, robbing someone, etc., it shouldn't be a given that you get them back as soon as your out of prison and back into society. You need to prove that you're now capable of living amongst the rest of us law-abiding citizens now that you're out here with us, before you have any small say in how we'll be able to spend our lives in the future. You chose to do the crime, it's now on you to prove that you've learned from the experience. If people are desiring reform to rights restoration processes, I'm all for that. But giving them all back to people demonstrably untrustworthy? Not my thing. This is all ignoring that it is McAuliffe seeking votes and doing things he wasn't in power to do, anyway. Which isn't surprising, he's been a bery iffy governor so far.[/QUOTE] People who disagree with current laws actually shouldn't have the right to try and change them?

[media]https://twitter.com/AP/status/767783838944821248[/media] That didn't take long

Reguardless of where you stand on this issue it's more or less a problem of executive power and overreach. The law states that felons cannot vote, the governor cannot change that. He can pardon felons, but that's not done through executive orders. If he really wants this to work he would have to pardon each felon individually, which he could do although it would take a very long time. In my opinion he's just doing this to look good, rather then try and actually do something about it.