Should convicted locked up terrorists have the right to vote?

[ImpulsE69]

Why do you keep claiming that everyone here says it wouldn’t affect the vote when multiple people have said otherwise?

I re-read the thread again because I honestly thought I saw a bunch of that, and while yes, I saw a few, they really weren't in the context I was saying they were. So, I'll concede I don't know exactly why I thought that, but it seemed to be pretty prevalant as a defense when I was typing so I don't know where that came from.

 

[mect]

That may be the case, but again, that's about changing the laws that put them there in the first place. Why should they have a 'vote' in that since they broke the law to begin with? Isn't that up to their peers to decide instead?

Because our judicial process has been biased against minorities for decades, and it is unlikely to be fixed any time soon. Fixing the judicial process in America is a much more challenging problem than just allowing felons to vote. Particularly considering no one has given a persuasive argument for removing that right.

 

[fskimospy]

I re-read the thread again because I honestly thought I saw a bunch of that, and while yes, I saw a few, they really weren't in the context I was saying they were. So, I'll concede I don't know exactly why I thought that, but it seemed to be pretty prevalant as a defense when I was typing so I don't know where that came from.

Haha fair enough. I don’t think we agree very much but you’re refreshingly candid. I like that!

 

[Vic]

What this 4 pages of discussion has really told me is more people are just concerned they might get a felony for smoking weed than anything else. Change the law then.

Cool, we already did that in my state.

 

[Vic]

I'm answering the original question in the thread title. Convicted terrorists should not be allowed to vote. They have committed crimes against America and her people, showing no regard for our country or its citizens. Anyone who has committed a hate crime against our citizens and is serving time for it should not be allowed to vote.

The original question in the thread title was FUD BS. As in, actual fake news, specifically intended to sway those who have strong political opinions, yet never read past the headline or thread title.

 

[Vic]

That may be the case, but again, that's about changing the laws that put them there in the first place. Why should they have a 'vote' in that since they broke the law to begin with? Isn't that up to their peers to decide instead?

No, because a jury of one's peers is specifically prohibited by the courts from allowing their personal opinion of the justness of the law from interfering with their decision as to whether or not the defendant broke the law.

 

[ImpulsE69]

No, because a jury of one's peers is specifically prohibited by the courts from allowing their personal opinion of the justness of the law from interfering with their decision as to whether or not the defendant broke the law.

I never said jury, I said peers, as in us, the rest of the voting country.

 

[Jhhnn]

The original question in the thread title was FUD BS. As in, actual fake news, specifically intended to sway those who have strong political opinions, yet never read past the headline or thread title.

Alt-right troll framing. Libtards want convicted Terrarists to vote!

We just want every citizen to vote, so we'll take the bad with the good. You know, on the basis of principle & belief in Democracy, something conservatives abandoned long ago. Well, if they ever had any in the first place.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Most modern democracies allow people convicted of crimes to vote. Many, including Canada, allow them to vote in prison. Here, voting while serving your sentence was determined to be a constitutional right by the Supreme Court (twice).

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm only torn on whether or not the right to vote is suspended while in prison. And I tend to lean towards voting should be allowed.

But WRT to the OP, are the terrorists U.S. citizens, then yes. Although they're probably people who see voting as ineffective...

 

[fskimospy]

I'm only torn on whether or not the right to vote is suspended while in prison. And I tend to lean towards voting should be allowed.

But WRT to the OP, are the terrorists U.S. citizens, then yes. Although they're probably people who see voting as ineffective...

My thought would be that there is basically no one whose life is more affected by government policy than someone in prison. Why shouldn’t they get a say?

 

[ch33zw1z]

My thought would be that there is basically no one whose life is more affected by government policy than someone in prison. Why shouldn’t they get a say?

Yea, exactly. It's one of those topics that I've definitely changed stance on since my younger days.

 

[woolfe9998]

Anyone want to bet that if we searched a bit we could find people claiming that getting rid of literacy tests and poll taxes was just a political maneuver to get more votes?

I'm sure we could find such an argument. The thing is, there is an equal and opposite argument: that the person/party opposing the voting rights expansion is doing so to prevent the other side from getting votes. Let's just say these two arguments cancel each other out, which leaves us with the proposition that it's healthier for a democracy to allow all its citizens to vote. The discussion must rise above the political dynamics and fortunes of the day and age in which it is had. It's about what's best for a democracy, not what's best for a political party in 2019.

 

[woolfe9998]

The person who asked Sanders that question quite obviously chose the most despicable person s/he could think of in order to appeal to emotions like hatred and anger. How about using the people who get locked up over weed? There are vastly more of them. Convicted mass murderers are too few to even matter.

That the question was framed that way is unsettling in and of itself. It shows how easily emotions like fear and anger can be used to persuade people to adopt undemocratic positions. We all know where that leads because we've seen it played out historically, time and time again.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sure we could find such an argument. The thing is, there is an equal and opposite argument: that the person/party opposing the voting rights expansion is doing so to prevent the other side from getting votes. Let's just say these two arguments cancel each other out, which leaves us with the proposition that it's healthier for a democracy to allow all its citizens to vote. The discussion must rise above the political dynamics and fortunes of the day and age in which it is had. It's about what's best for a democracy, not what's best for a political party in 2019.

This was an exceptionally lawyerly post.

Edit: I don’t mean that in a bad way.

 

[crashtech]

No, because a jury of one's peers is specifically prohibited by the courts from allowing their personal opinion of the justness of the law from interfering with their decision as to whether or not the defendant broke the law.

I don't want to get in to the original subject, but imo, jury nullification is every citizen's sacred, secret, and arguably most powerful right.

 

[pmv]

I re-read the thread again because I honestly thought I saw a bunch of that, and while yes, I saw a few, they really weren't in the context I was saying they were. So, I'll concede I don't know exactly why I thought that, but it seemed to be pretty prevalant as a defense when I was typing so I don't know where that came from.

It was probably me! I don't think allowing 'lags' to vote would have a dramatic effect on outcomes overall.

But that was in regard to the UK. Where the prison population is proportionally a lot smaller (if wikipedia is to be believed, the US is 10 times as high, at about 1% of the adult population vs 0.1%...and the UK is, I think, the highest in the EU). So I guess it would have a more noticeable effect in a US context?

 

[dawp]

slow seems to think all lefties are terrorist.

 

[sdifox]

I guess amendment 15 isn't real. Fake amendment!

 

[ch33zw1z]

I guess amendment 15 isn't real. Fake amendment!

wut, this old thing?

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fifteenth-amendment

funny how that WoD impacted certain members of the population more:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/

but hey, it's a "clever" workaround, so it's cool, right??


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[allisolm]

I guess amendment 15 isn't real. Fake amendment!

Ask women whether amendment 15 is real or fake.

 

[pmv]

I guess amendment 15 isn't real. Fake amendment!

It seems quite a limited statement, though. It doesn't state all American adults have the right to vote. It just rules out one particular way of directly disenfranchising one particular group. I don't mean to get all "all lives matter" about it, but it would surely have been simply more effective - and less vulnerable to 'workarounds' - to just state outright "every citizen over 18 has an inalienable right to vote"?

 

[sdifox]

It seems quite a limited statement, though. It doesn't state all American adults have the right to vote. It just rules out one particular way of directly disenfranchising one particular group. I don't mean to get all "all lives matter" about it, but it would surely have been simply more effective - and less vulnerable to 'workarounds' - to just state outright "every citizen over 18 has an inalienable right to vote"?

Well women had to wait til amendment 19. And having to do #25 as well kind of doesn't inspire confidence does it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It comes down to an issue of principles & ideology. Dems want everybody to vote & Repubs want to limit the franchise to favorable groups. The latter employ a variety of mechanisms to achieve their goals. They'll basically do anything to win. Here's a new twist-

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/...ule=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Contributors

Democrats have gotten to the point that they want citizens of other countries to vote in our elections.

I still haven't heard a good reason why the right to vote is so magical and unique that it cannot be taken away when one breaks significant laws and shows they are not willing to live within the framework of our society. I guess that is where the disconnect is for me. It isn't about stacking the deck in any way, it is that I don't believe a convicted terrorist that has taken tangible steps outside of the law to actively harm the country should have a say in who is elected to govern that country.

 

[SlowSpyder]

this idiot shows up every day with a thread to feed the outrage synapsis in his brain.

If this thread or the discussion up to your post really offends you, the problem is you, snowflake.