Should convicted locked up terrorists have the right to vote?

[Majes]

You haven't mentioned what tangible harm could come from felons being allowed to vote though.

You are allowing those that refused to abide by the laws of society to have a voice in the structure of that society. I personally don't think that's a very good idea...

 

[dank69]

You are allowing those that refused to abide by the laws of society to have a voice in the structure of that society. I personally don't think that's a very good idea...

What harm could come from these people having a voice?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You are allowing those that refused to abide by the laws of society to have a voice in the structure of that society. I personally don't think that's a very good idea...

By that logic every crime that anyone commits would exclude them from voting. I dare you to find anyone of voting that's never committed a crime.

 

[Majes]

By that logic every crime that anyone commits would exclude them from voting. I dare you to find anyone of voting that's never committed a crime.

Uh what...? Are you talking about things like speeding tickets? I was leaning towards those in need of incarceration.

 

[dank69]

Uh what...? Are you talking about things like speeding tickets? I was leaning towards those in need of incarceration.

Like people who smoke pot?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Uh what...? Are you talking about things like speeding tickets? I was leaning towards those in need of incarceration.

Your specific statement was 'refuse to abide by the laws of society', even minor infractions are in fact 'laws of society' designed to either protect society, or it's people. By disregarding them you're likely putting something at risk, somewhere, and that includes speeding tickets. If you want to start instituting gradients in how bad an infraction has to be before we disallow voting, you're in the exact same boat as most of us, now bargaining over what crimes should exclude someone from voting.

So, what's your low-bar for that? Writing bad checks? Getting drunk and punching a cop?

 

[Majes]

What harm could come from these people having a voice?

Lots of harm can come from allowing people who don't follow the rules to vote on the rules.

Like people who smoke pot?

If we as a society deem that to be a prison worthy crime, then yes...

 

[Majes]

Your specific statement was 'refuse to abide by the laws of society', even minor infractions are in fact 'laws of society' designed to either protect society, or it's people. By disregarding them you're likely putting something at risk, somewhere, and that includes speeding tickets. If you want to start instituting gradients in how bad an infraction has to be before we disallow voting, you're in the exact same boat as most of us, now bargaining over what crimes should exclude someone from voting.

So, what's your low-bar for that? Writing bad checks? Getting drunk and punching a cop?

I think I already answered that. It's literally the system we have now.

 

[fskimospy]

Lots of harm can come from allowing people who don't follow the rules to vote on the rules.

If we as a society deem that to be a prison worthy crime, then yes...

What harm do you think would come, specifically? Have you seen evidence of this harm in say, Canada, where you can vote from prison?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think I already answered that. It's literally the system we have now.

Should they still be taxed by society then, if they have no representation in society? We literally had a war about that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's a personal running gag that like 99% of presidential candidates pretty much end up as 'old rich white dude'. If you're offended by that, you should probably take a break from the interwebs.

They might not care, but I do. There's zero reason to restrict voting rights for convicts. I might make an exception for that for convicted treason, voting fraud, or actual terrorism, due to the nature of the crime. Everyone else? Shouldn't matter, they should get a vote.

Well, the topic of the thread is specific to terrorists, but has really expanded to felons as well.

I do not think convicted terrorists should vote. I feel the voices of rapists and murderers shouldn't count either, they cannot live within the normal fabric of society and have displayed that they don't care to fit in civilized society. I get why many felons should have their right reinstated, I'm fine with them not having the right while locked up, similar to how freedom is taken away during incarceration.

I get that much of this will vary from person to person when we discuss taking away voting rights of felons. But what I cannot get behind, and struggle to understand how some can get behind, is convicted terrorists being allowed to vote.

 

[dank69]

Lots of harm can come from allowing people who don't follow the rules to vote on the rules.



If we as a society deem that to be a prison worthy crime, then yes...

Great. So the majority gets to decide what the rules are. Then, when they want to marginalize a group of people all they have to do is find a behavior common to that group and make it a jailable offense. Then that group gets locked up and loses the chance to vote to undo the law. No harm in that, right?

 

[Majes]

What harm do you think would come, specifically? Have you seen evidence of this harm in say, Canada, where you can vote from prison?

I think you ask this question because you know there's no good statistical way to quantify any "harm" it may or may not have done to society.

My argument comes from my personal experience in this case where if you let the "rule breakers" in school influence or set policy bad things happen.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Well, the topic of the thread is specific to terrorists, but has really expanded to felons as well.

I do not think convicted terrorists should vote. I feel the voices of rapists and murderers shouldn't count either, they cannot live within the normal fabric of society and have displayed that they don't care to fit in civilized society. I get why many felons should have their right reinstated, I'm fine with them not having the right while locked up, similar to how freedom is taken away during incarceration.

I get that much of this will vary from person to person when we discuss taking away voting rights of felons. But what I cannot get behind, and struggle to understand how some can get behind, is convicted terrorists being allowed to vote.

Honestly, it's hard to argue with Bernie on this one. It's defined in the constitution, same as 2A. If i'm not mistaken, you're a staunch supporter of 2A rights yes? Wouldn't you agree with the mindset that if you start to chip away at those rights, it very quickly turns into a free-for-all on the elimination of the right entirely?

That was Bernie's stance, per the articles you linked.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
-H L Mencken

 

[SlowSpyder]

Honestly, it's hard to argue with Bernie on this one. It's defined in the constitution, same as 2A. If i'm not mistaken, you're a staunch supporter of 2A rights yes? Wouldn't you agree with the mindset that if you start to chip away at those rights, it very quickly turns into a free-for-all on the elimination of the right entirely?

That was Bernie's stance, per the articles you linked.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
-H L Mencken

Do you believe that with felons not being able to vote while incarcerated, that is a slippery slope that will lead to removing voting rights from the masses? I don't believe that.

While I am a staunch supporter of the 2A, I also understand why felons and convicted terrorists can and do have their rights limited or outright taken away. The 2A being one of those. I don't argue for convicted murderers, terrorists, etc. to have the right to bear arms.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you ask this question because you know there's no good statistical way to quantify any "harm" it may or may not have done to society.

My argument comes from my personal experience in this case where if you let the "rule breakers" in school influence or set policy bad things happen.

I'm not trying to trick you or trap you or anything, I simply can't think of any plausible scenario where society would be harmed by felons voting from prison.

Again, Canada seems to be doing just fine and you can vote from prison there. I'm sure if Canada can handle it so can we.

 

[dank69]

I think you ask this question because you know there's no good statistical way to quantify any "harm" it may or may not have done to society.

Whoa, can't get anything by this guy. Thanks for admitting that there is no compelling reason to remove this specific right from felons.

My argument comes from my personal experience in this case where if you let the "rule breakers" in school influence or set policy bad things happen.

What bad thing happened when someone let a rule breaker set school policy?

 

[Vic]

I think it's fair to say that the drug war has unfairly disenfranchised too many people and that America should have a discussion about how best to fix that.
I also think it's fair to say that injecting fearmongering about terrorists voting from jail is an intentionally dishonest attempt to try to shut down that discussion.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Do you believe that with felons not being able to vote while incarcerated, that is a slippery slope that will lead to removing voting rights from the masses? I don't believe that.

While I am a staunch supporter of the 2A, I also understand why felons and convicted terrorists can and do have their rights limited or outright taken away. The 2A being one of those. I don't argue for convicted murderers, terrorists, etc. to have the right to bear arms.

As I've said earlier in this thread, I believe in the removal of rights relevant to the incarceration, and potentially afterward if they are still considered a threat to society in some way that doesn't require them to stay incarcerated (think mentally handicapped -> gun). I do not believe we should wholesale strip all freedoms from individuals during and after incarceration just because they were incarcerated, I think that's too wide a brush to be painting with. If someone's acted against the US govt, or against the US population as a target rather than simply getting in a bar fight and breaking someone's neck, then i guess yes, strip them of their right to affect change on that society. Probably a couple other exceptions I can't think of. If it's anything else, I think you should still have your voice heard.

I've got pretty strong views on any right being infringed or restricted, if it were up to me I'd probably just permit all felons to vote, no matter the crime. To me, the potential effect of the handful of people that I personally would 'accept' restricting, I'd rather just let them vote than have any restrictions on that right at all. Given how limited our voting system is, they can only choose between two candidates that half the population will be voting for anyhow.

And I still say taxation without representation is an issue.

EDIT: The above 'rights restriction' issue isn't relevant to some other rights, like 2A, as the 'potential effect' of letting someone retain their 2A right that shouldn't be trusted with it could have extremely damaging results. That potential doesn't exist with voting rights.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not trying to trick you or trap you or anything, I simply can't think of any plausible scenario where society would be harmed by felons voting from prison.

Again, Canada seems to be doing just fine and you can vote from prison there. I'm sure if Canada can handle it so can we.

Can I safely presume you're not an absolutist on this? For example, that some subset of convicts might justifiably have their voting rights limited or suspended altogether? And that even other felons whose voting rights weren't abridged may rightly be restricted in how/when/etc. they exercise that right for safety or other reasons that might not be currently foreseeable to those of us who aren't SMEs about the criminal justice system?

 

[fskimospy]

Can I safely presume you're not an absolutist on this? For example, that some subset of convicts might justifiably have their voting rights limited or suspended altogether? And that even other felons whose voting rights weren't abridged may rightly be restricted in how/when/etc. they exercise that right for safety or other reasons that might not be currently foreseeable to those of us who aren't SMEs about the criminal justice system?

Yes, I'm sure that some crimes would merit the suspension of voting privileges. As people brought up already, voter fraud or election fraud seem like good examples. Same with misuse of public funds/public office, things like that.

 

[mect]

Can I safely presume you're not an absolutist on this? For example, that some subset of convicts might justifiably have their voting rights limited or suspended altogether? And that even other felons whose voting rights weren't abridged may rightly be restricted in how/when/etc. they exercise that right for safety or other reasons that might not be currently foreseeable to those of us who aren't SMEs about the criminal justice system?

If you can provide a compelling example. Those promoting removing voting rights from felons have still provided no reason for removing voting rights from an individual. Saying that incarceration allows us to randomly begin removing rights from citizens would completely invalidate having the eighth amendment, as one could then simply argue the person is a felon and no longer enjoys those rights.

 

[glenn1]

If you can provide a compelling example. Those promoting removing voting rights from felons have still provided no reason for removing voting rights from an individual. Saying that incarceration allows us to randomly begin removing rights from citizens would completely invalidate having the eighth amendment, as one could then simply argue the person is a felon and no longer enjoys those rights.

See my post https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...he-right-to-vote.2564361/page-6#post-39801711

I suggested election fraud as being a prime example of when it's appropriate to remove voting rights and would probably be gross negligence to not restrict the convict's voting rights. I don't think it would be a very extensive list however and as I said would be much more unique case-specific.

 

[mect]

See my post https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...he-right-to-vote.2564361/page-6#post-39801711

I suggested election fraud as being a prime example of when it's appropriate to remove voting rights and would probably be gross negligence to not restrict the convict's voting rights. I don't think it would be a very extensive list however and as I said would be much more unique case-specific.

Yes, that would be a case where I could see a valid reason for removing the right to vote. The punishment would at least be relevant to the crime in that case.

 

[Viper1j]

They are still citizens. But, our penal system purposely removes rights as part of the punishment for breaking certain laws. Voting is currently one of those rights and in my opinion should remain (until people have served out their sentence). I'm trying to understand why many on the left seem to disagree with that.

Will you feel the same way as Donny screams into his pillow at Supermax when Robert Hanssen makes him his bitch?