Should convicted locked up terrorists have the right to vote?

[zinfamous]

The whole point to being in prison is you gave up your rights. .

This is not at all the point of going to prison. In fact, very few countries recognize this argument as legitimate ....I think North Korea, Russia, and probably China would agree with you. Burma, too.

Wonderful company that you have selected.

 

[dank69]

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.

You only restrict rights when not doing so would tangibly harm other people. Think about it in a way that you will understand: you are vehemently against restricting 2A rights because even though you acknowledge that doing so increases the risk to society because you own a gun and have never hurt anyone with it. But not restricting 2A rights still presents a tangible risk. Compare that to voting. What tangible risk are you preventing by not allowing felons to vote?

 

[SlowSpyder]

You only restrict rights when not doing so would tangibly harm other people. Think about it in a way that you will understand: you are vehemently against restricting 2A rights because even though you acknowledge that doing so increases the risk to society because you own a gun and have never hurt anyone with it. But not restricting 2A rights still presents a tangible risk. Compare that to voting. What tangible risk are you preventing by not allowing felons to vote?

That isn't true, though. You can go to jail for writing bad checks. You can go to jail for a fraudulent college admission scheme, having nothing to do with tangibly harming others. Also, I am very much for taking away the 2A rights (and other rights, like voting and freedom) of convicted terrorists.

 

[mect]

That isn't true, though. You can go to jail for writing bad checks. You can go to jail for a fraudulent college admission scheme, having nothing to do with tangibly harming others. Also, I am very much for taking away the 2A rights (and other rights, like voting and freedom) of convicted terrorists.

Of course fraud tangibly harms people.

 

[dank69]

That isn't true, though. You can go to jail for writing bad checks. You can go to jail for a fraudulent college admission scheme, having nothing to do with tangibly harming others.

You funny. As a victim of someone writing a bad check in my youth I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. As for the admission scheme, I guess you think the people that just missed the cut for those schools were not tangibly harmed? Try harder.

Also, I am very much for taking away the 2A rights (and other rights, like voting and freedom) of convicted terrorists.

Of course you are, even you can't argue against the tangible harm presented when you allow a convicted murderer to continue to possess a firearm. You haven't mentioned what tangible harm could come from felons being allowed to vote though.

 

[Jhhnn]

That isn't true, though. You can go to jail for writing bad checks. You can go to jail for a fraudulent college admission scheme, having nothing to do with tangibly harming others. Also, I am very much for taking away the 2A rights (and other rights, like voting and freedom) of convicted terrorists.

Bullshit. Somebody eats the loss on bad checks. Some deserving student is denied admission when others commit fraud.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Of course fraud tangibly harms people.

Lori Loughlin faces prison time, who did she harm by getting her daughter into USC? How about unpaid parking tickets? How about someone that goes to jail for personal drug use?

People can and do get incarcerated for some crimes that have nothing or next to nothing to do with harming others. Rights are taken away in those cases, I guess I still don't get what makes voting different. If anything, I think in many (perhaps most) cases the right to vote shouldn't be taken away for being incarcerated, but I understand why with some convictions that makes perfect sense. I don't see this right as a magic unicorn that is not to be touched under any circumstance while just about all other rights are and can be removed, depending on the nature of the crime one is convicted of.

 

[mect]

Lori Loughlin faces prison time, who did she harm by getting her daughter into USC? How about unpaid parking tickets? How about someone that goes to jail for personal drug use?

People can and do get incarcerated for some crimes that have nothing or next to nothing to do with harming others. Rights are taken away in those cases, I guess I still don't get what makes voting different. If anything, I think in many (perhaps most) cases the right to vote shouldn't be taken away for being incarcerated, but I understand why with some convictions that makes perfect sense. I don't see this right as a magic unicorn that is not to be touched under any circumstance while just about all other rights are and can be removed, depending on the nature of the crime one is convicted of.

In most non-violent crime cases, I'm actually generally opposed to prison time in general. There should be fines and financial penalties or community service requirements to pay ones debt to society. Having said that, there are still people that are harmed by these individuals. Lori Loughlin prevented another student from getting accepted to USC. Unpaid parking tickets are essentially theft from the city by not paying the proper parking fee to begin and then again by not paying the penalty. On the other hand, if the car was just parked illegally, that then creates potential victims through safety violations. Someone shouldn't ever go to jail for personal drug use.

 

[dank69]

Lori Loughlin faces prison time, who did she harm by getting her daughter into USC? How about unpaid parking tickets? How about someone that goes to jail for personal drug use?

People can and do get incarcerated for some crimes that have nothing or next to nothing to do with harming others. Rights are taken away in those cases, I guess I still don't get what makes voting different. If anything, I think in many (perhaps most) cases the right to vote shouldn't be taken away for being incarcerated, but I understand why with some convictions that makes perfect sense. I don't see this right as a magic unicorn that is not to be touched under any circumstance while just about all other rights are and can be removed, depending on the nature of the crime one is convicted of.

Many filthy liberals are arguing that the war on drugs is shit policy that should be undone, so that is a pretty bad example. Hell, even many conservatives agree that the WoD is bad.
There are plenty of rights that are not removed from convicted felons. It isn't that difficult to understand the difference, especially since I have mentioned it to you twice now and you continue to ignore it: You have to have a compelling reason to deny someone a specific right. There is no compelling reason to deny felons the right to vote.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is no compelling reason to deny felons the right to vote.

But his Feelz are different than that.

 

[ImpulsE69]

This is not at all the point of going to prison. In fact, very few countries recognize this argument as legitimate ....I think North Korea, Russia, and probably China would agree with you. Burma, too.

Wonderful company that you have selected.

yea because restricting rights of criminals is equivalent to all that nonsense. A++ for effort though.

 

[JSt0rm]

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

Im not offended your offended I said as I shrunk into a corn cob!

 

[Vic]

That isn't true, though. You can go to jail for writing bad checks. You can go to jail for a fraudulent college admission scheme, having nothing to do with tangibly harming others. Also, I am very much for taking away the 2A rights (and other rights, like voting and freedom) of convicted terrorists.

Writing a bad check doesn't harm anyone? WTF?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Writing a bad check doesn't harm anyone? WTF?

Do you think someone should be imprisoned for it? If so, why is it ok to take that person's freedom, 2A rights, etc. but not their right to vote?

If you'd like, you can change my argument to unpaid parking tickets.

The point was that people go to prison for not actively harming someone else. If you feel bad checks makes for a bad example, there are others that fit. We're willing to take away fundamental, constitutional rights, but for some reason some think voting is just too far and terrorists should vote from prison. I disagree.

 

[dank69]

Do you think someone should be imprisoned for it? If so, why is it ok to take that person's freedom, 2A rights, etc. but not their right to vote?

If you'd like, you can change my argument to unpaid parking tickets.

The point was that people go to prison for not actively harming someone else. If you feel bad checks makes for a bad example, there are others that fit. We're willing to take away fundamental, constitutional rights, but for some reason some think voting is just too far and terrorists should vote from prison. I disagree.

So, still no compelling reason for preventing felons from voting then?

 

[SlowSpyder]

So, still no compelling reason for preventing felons from voting then?

I think it depends on the nature of the felony. But like taking freedom away, taking away some basic rights like voting should be part of the punishment to help ensure people don't commit felonies. But, not all felonies are equal.

 

[Luna1968]

while locked up you lose a lot of your rights voting is one of them. when they get out voting rights are restored.

so whats the issue?

 

[dank69]

I think it depends on the nature of the felony. But like taking freedom away, taking away some basic rights like voting should be part of the punishment to help ensure people don't commit felonies. But, not all felonies are equal.

This guy. Someone should let him know that we discovered that punishment is not an effective deterrent decades ago. We don't take away their rights to punish them. We take away their rights because not doing so could lead to more harm to other people. Most laws that takes away rights for any other purpose are immoral.

 

[Vic]

Do you think someone should be imprisoned for it? If so, why is it ok to take that person's freedom, 2A rights, etc. but not their right to vote?

If you'd like, you can change my argument to unpaid parking tickets.

The point was that people go to prison for not actively harming someone else. If you feel bad checks makes for a bad example, there are others that fit. We're willing to take away fundamental, constitutional rights, but for some reason some think voting is just too far and terrorists should vote from prison. I disagree.

This isn't about whether or not they should be locked up, you said writing a bad check doesn't harm anyone. Which of course it does, because it is really no different than theft.
Meanwhile, your terrorists voting from prison bit continues to be an extreme example, effectively a straw man, which is why I continue to disregard it. You need to learn to discuss honestly if you're expect people to take you seriously.

 

[dank69]

while locked up you lose a lot of your rights voting is one of them. when they get out voting rights are restored.

so whats the issue?

In many states the right is not restored.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think it depends on the nature of the felony. But like taking freedom away, taking away some basic rights like voting should be part of the punishment to help ensure people don't commit felonies. But, not all felonies are equal.

Hasn't it been proven like a million times over that fear of harsher punishment doesn't stop crime? Who the hell says 'I was gonna rob this store, but I heard on the news the Govt is gonna prevent me from voting for another old white dude, I better rethink my actions!'?

 

[Luna1968]

In many states the right is not restored.

it should be. depending on the felony. such as voter fraud.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Hasn't it been proven like a million times over that fear of harsher punishment doesn't stop crime? Who the hell says 'I was gonna rob this store, but I heard on the news the Govt is gonna prevent me from voting for another old white dude, I better rethink my actions!'?

Sounds like they wouldn't care if their right to vote is taken away then, eh?

And why did you inject race into this?

 

[dank69]

it should be. depending on the felony. such as voter fraud.

I think actual voter fraud might be the only crime I would be willing to consider would be worthy of removing their right to vote.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Sounds like they wouldn't care if their right to vote is taken away then, eh?

And why did you inject race into this?

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.