Should convicted locked up terrorists have the right to vote?

[Majes]

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

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

I dunno man... If a person has to be removed from society for a time and doesn't get to participate in society why should they still get to vote as part of society? It just seems like a disconnect to me. I can't point to any historical danger, and it's possible that it would have no ill effect.

With certain classes it can be a good activity to communally agree to behavior rules. You can have the students talk through and discuss potential problems to come up with guidelines and solutions. This even works when there are a few students with behavior issues in a class. However, for each student with behavior issues in a group it gets more and more difficult. With 5 or more in a group of 25ish it's frankly impossible and turns into a joke.

So maybe I just proved myself wrong and it's fine to let criminals vote as long as their numbers don't meet a certain % of the population? That doesn't mean that it makes sense to me to give someone who chooses not to follow the rules of society a voice in that society...

 

[Viper1j]

^I've owned several of those. It is no toy, but it isn't overly accurate and if you miss on your first show you're better off throwing the crossbow at someone, reloading is a bit of work.

You can add a magazine, laser sight and all kinds off mods.

There are also conversion kits to make it full auto. Something totally illegal for guns, but not crossbows.

 

[Indus]

Hmm OP The bomber was a refugee who naturalized. Committing a terrorist act after becoming a citizen is grounds for denaturalization.

How'd he get to vote after that?

https://www.masslive.com/politics/2013/04/former_us_attorney_michael_sul_3.html

Why hasn't the Trump administration pursued this? Maybe it's because the guy is a dead man walking..


Fake outrage thread.

 

[zinfamous]

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?

who knows. ask the OP and a few others.

 

[ImpulsE69]

So, let's discuss why being lawful alignment is really bad. Let's pretend that society has decided that everyone that is of x race is not human and therefore does not qualify for any rights. In fact, let's say they've decided for whatever reason that x race is nothing more than a piece of property so you can beat, rape and kill them whenever it strikes your fancy. Now let's pretend you are not a piece of shit and believe that x race are humans and deserve rights no matter what society says. A person of x race escapes (felony) and runs into you, and asks you not to alert the authorities (felony). What do you do? Alert the authorities like a piece of shit and pretend you did the moral thing because you were just obeying the law? Or do you say nothing knowing that your moral code now dictates that you shouldn't vote anymore?

I had to really think about a response to this because what you've done here is basically brought up WWII Germany as a comparison to non-violent crimes and it's too easy to just open any can of worms down this path and do the 'oh you evil anti democratic person!'. I can understand based on what I said that you might think me heartless, which is not at all true. I'm a softie. I'm not a 'run to the police because timmy said a bad word' type. The key piece you are missing here is accountability, which I bring up a lot in my posts. AKA life choices. What you propose here is not a life choice for which someone should be held accountable. The person didn't CHOOSE to be X race or oppressed. That is a key difference. Even in your scenario how a person responds to it is going to vary based on their experience and where they are in life at any given time. A mother with small children is more likely to weigh what would happen to her kids if someone found out for example. A sympathizer may allow them in happily and even defend them to the death. Either way, the person has to live with that decision and be accountable for that decision.

So in that vein, do I care if someone does drugs? No. Do I think it is on them if they get caught? Yes. Do I think people use 'life' as a crutch too much? Yes. Lots of people have shitty childhoods and life in general. People deal with it in different ways. We can argue all day about if laws are right or wrong, but it doesn't matter, because they can be changed eventually. In the end, if the law is the law and if you break it you are accountable. Do I have my own views on drug use? Obviously - but that is based on personal experience. We can expand this out to many different crimes, but those would all be case by case. Heck, a great comparison would be piracy. You don't have to go very far on this forum alone to see how divided people are on that subject alone and how serious of a crime it should be.

All of this is just noise though. It's my opinion, right or wrong. The key I feel is that the masses should decide. We don't have to agree, but democracy should state the majority decide and the rest have to be okay with it -- at least until enough people agree to change it again.

 

[dank69]

I had to really think about a response to this because what you've done here is basically brought up WWII Germany as a comparison to non-violent crimes and it's too easy to just open any can of worms down this path and do the 'oh you evil anti democratic person!'. I can understand based on what I said that you might think me heartless, which is not at all true. I'm a softie. I'm not a 'run to the police because timmy said a bad word' type. The key piece you are missing here is accountability, which I bring up a lot in my posts. AKA life choices. What you propose here is not a life choice for which someone should be held accountable. The person didn't CHOOSE to be X race or oppressed. That is a key difference. Even in your scenario how a person responds to it is going to vary based on their experience and where they are in life at any given time. A mother with small children is more likely to weigh what would happen to her kids if someone found out for example. A sympathizer may allow them in happily and even defend them to the death. Either way, the person has to live with that decision and be accountable for that decision.

So in that vein, do I care if someone does drugs? No. Do I think it is on them if they get caught? Yes. Do I think people use 'life' as a crutch too much? Yes. Lots of people have shitty childhoods and life in general. People deal with it in different ways. We can argue all day about if laws are right or wrong, but it doesn't matter, because they can be changed eventually. In the end, if the law is the law and if you break it you are accountable. Do I have my own views on drug use? Obviously - but that is based on personal experience. We can expand this out to many different crimes, but those would all be case by case. Heck, a great comparison would be piracy. You don't have to go very far on this forum alone to see how divided people are on that subject alone and how serious of a crime it should be.

All of this is just noise though. It's my opinion, right or wrong. The key I feel is that the masses should decide. We don't have to agree, but democracy should state the majority decide and the rest have to be okay with it -- at least until enough people agree to change it again.

Okay change x race to x religion.

Also keep in mind, your decision not to notify the police is also against the law, and you seem to want to choose not to follow that law. I'm asking what you think about the person who chose to look the other way instead of notifying the authorities and now faces life in prison and no more right to vote for a change to the laws.

Do you still not see how this inevitably leads to authoritarianism? Men are fallible and so our laws are fallible. The absolute number 1 right that we should never infringe in any circumstance is a person's voice when it comes to affecting change. If one serial killer can be the difference between choice A or choice B winning when one of those choices is dangerous enough that you absolutely don't want leave that choice in the hands of a serial killer, you have much bigger problems that his vote.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Okay change x race to x religion.

Also keep in mind, your decision not to notify the police is also against the law, and you seem to want to choose not to follow that law. I'm asking what you think about the person who chose to look the other way instead of notifying the authorities and now faces life in prison and no more right to vote for a change to the laws.

Do you still not see how this inevitably leads to authoritarianism? Men are fallible and so our laws are fallible. The absolute number 1 right that we should never infringe in any circumstance is a person's voice when it comes to affecting change. If one serial killer can be the difference between choice A or choice B winning when one of those choices is dangerous enough that you absolutely don't want leave that choice in the hands of a serial killer, you have much bigger problems that his vote.

You are using FUD. This is still basically an opression angle which you are clearly afraid of. You are saying X was made illegal but it isn't 'in your opinion' right. Again, it's your opinion. If 99 people agree with a law and 1 doesn't, who is right? What about white supremist hate crimes? One would assume many would report anything of that nature assuming you weren't a sympathizer. Or is that okay because they are just 'planning'. Why not just use murder which is almost universally considered bad (but is considered just fine by many depending on the reasoning). I mean if you want to go through every scenario imaginable to determine what my actions might be we'll be here awhile. I am all for people incarcerated being able to continue to defend / appeal for themselves because yes, mistakes or even outright corruption takes place. If you truly think that oppression and authoritarian things are going to happen due to people in jail not being able to vote while they serve their time what makes you think those peoples actual votes would even see the light of day in that scenario and you would even know about it. As you stated, if it gets to that point, we have much bigger problems than his vote.

What is your angle on 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'?

 

[dank69]

You are using FUD. This is still basically an opression angle which you are clearly afraid of. You are saying X was made illegal but it isn't 'in your opinion' right. Again, it's your opinion. If 99 people agree with a law and 1 doesn't, who is right? What about white supremist hate crimes? One would assume many would report anything of that nature assuming you weren't a sympathizer. Or is that okay because they are just 'planning'. Why not just use murder which is almost universally considered bad (but is considered just fine by many depending on the reasoning). I mean if you want to go through every scenario imaginable to determine what my actions might be we'll be here awhile. I am all for people incarcerated being able to continue to defend / appeal for themselves because yes, mistakes or even outright corruption takes place. If you truly think that oppression and authoritarian things are going to happen due to people in jail not being able to vote while they serve their time what makes you think those peoples actual votes would even see the light of day in that scenario and you would even know about it. As you stated, if it gets to that point, we have much bigger problems than his vote.

What is your angle on 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'?

I'm not spreading FUD, I am giving you examples of immoral laws to try to help you realize that laws and morals are two separate concepts and quite often at odds with each other. "If 99 people agree with a law and 1 doesn't, who is right?" This is a logical fallacy. It even has a name: argumentum ad populum. How many people agree with something has absolutely no bearing on what is right and what is wrong. We have countless examples of this throughout history and we will have countless more examples throughout our lives.

You are also mixing up cause and effect. My contention is not that "authoritarian things are going to happen due to people in jail not being able to vote." It is the opposite. It is that authoritarians can craft specific laws that on the surface appeal to the irrational fears that people have in order to gain majority support but the real aim and side effect they don't mention is that a specific group of people will lose their right to vote at a much larger rate. It provides one more tool for authoritarians to use to maintain control, and we are making that tool available for zero gain. If we allowed all felons the right to vote again starting tomorrow, we would see 3 possible outcomes: more democrats would win, more republicans would win, or zero effect. I suspect more Democrats might win but I don't think it would be a huge swing. The only reason I think that would be the outcome is because I am pretty sure incarceration rates are higher among minorities, and most minorities are aware the most GOP policy is designed to fuck them, including the policies that put them in prison in the first place.

None of that matters though if you can't even acknowledge the simple fact that law != moral && law != right.

To answer your question, ignorance of the law is no excuse for the most part is just fine. However, since it isn't possible for everyone to know every single little law everywhere, sometimes I think warnings are justified. Obviously exceptions like these would not apply to laws everyone should know about, or people not reading blatantly posted signage, or other things of that nature.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I'm not spreading FUD, I am giving you examples of immoral laws to try to help you realize that laws and morals are two separate concepts and quite often at odds with each other. "If 99 people agree with a law and 1 doesn't, who is right?" This is a logical fallacy. It even has a name: argumentum ad populum. How many people agree with something has absolutely no bearing on what is right and what is wrong. We have countless examples of this throughout history and we will have countless more examples throughout our lives.

You are also mixing up cause and effect. My contention is not that "authoritarian things are going to happen due to people in jail not being able to vote." It is the opposite. It is that authoritarians can craft specific laws that on the surface appeal to the irrational fears that people have in order to gain majority support but the real aim and side effect they don't mention is that a specific group of people will lose their right to vote at a much larger rate. It provides one more tool for authoritarians to use to maintain control, and we are making that tool available for zero gain. If we allowed all felons the right to vote again starting tomorrow, we would see 3 possible outcomes: more democrats would win, more republicans would win, or zero effect. I suspect more Democrats might win but I don't think it would be a huge swing. The only reason I think that would be the outcome is because I am pretty sure incarceration rates are higher among minorities, and most minorities are aware the most GOP policy is designed to fuck them, including the policies that put them in prison in the first place.

None of that matters though if you can't even acknowledge the simple fact that law != moral && law != right.

To answer your question, ignorance of the law is no excuse for the most part is just fine. However, since it isn't possible for everyone to know every single little law everywhere, sometimes I think warnings are justified. Obviously exceptions like these would not apply to laws everyone should know about, or people not reading blatantly posted signage, or other things of that nature.

See, this is why these discussions never go anywhere. You are assuming I think laws and morals are the same. What I am stating is accountability, regardless of morals or laws. One chooses to follow or break a law based on their morals. Ultimately a moral is an opinion. Morals are not miraculously something you are born with. It is framed by your life experiences. A law is in most cases adjacent to moral opinion and is most cases is decided by the majority. You can't state 99/1 is fallacy when what I am describing is democracy. There are many laws that the minority don't agree with, moral or amoral. It really doesn't matter what you think NOW about a subject, it has to be in context of the majority of thought at the time. Whether that is right or wrong can be argued for every single law in existance and I hope we at least agree that it should be. You believe in democracy don't you? That's only 51/49. I've repeatedly said if you don't like the law it is up to the majority to change it. You change the law and the people you are concerned about are no longer in jail to begin with. I see that as a much more impactful scenario than 'giving convicts voting rights'.

We can apply this to many horrible events in history where the people oppressed didn't get to decide their fate but at some point the masses said 'this isn't right' and changed the laws. What we are talking about here is minor crime vs major crime, and you keep trying to twist what I'm saying into applying to everything. Why not abolish laws all together since those can and are abused? Why take their gun rights? Don't they have the same rights for guns as they do voting so they can defend against those authoritarians? It just goes on and on. You are basically saying 'but this and this can happen'. Corruption can and will happen either way, vote or no vote. It is and always has been that way. The key here is that most people are not going to vote against their interests. Everything from a drug dealer to a flat out terrorist is going to vote for whatever might get them lower punishment - even if what they did was as you say 'morally' wrong.

I think the clear difference in our view of this is you consider laws you don't agree with as oppression and there's that whole our government is out to get us mentality. You think that w/o votes it can be abused, while I think that with vote or without votes it can be abused because those people are already in a bad place and that position can be leveraged, with or without a vote. Ultimately, as I keep saying my stance is people should be held accountable for their actions. Whether they actually 'voted' or not prior to their conviction, they already voted on the law along with the rest of the country and then chose to break it. If you don't like the laws change them. I am in no way saying what I think is the 'right' way, most of my responses are simply why I think what I do. The issue I have is most people try the black and white method and automatically assume the worst when someone doesn't outright agree with their views.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You know, let me pose it this way: Do you think someone who has been convicted of a crime should have a vote in their jury pool? Should they get a vote on their punishment? If you are standing in front of the judge and you pleade guilty and the judge asks you if you think you should go free and you say yes and explain why, and he locks you up anyway, is he wrong? Is he amoral?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Bernie Sanders, your candidate for socialism and terrorist voting rights.

 

[0roo0roo]

The left is pushing for children to vote, down to the age of 16 and even further because rights have become disconnected from responsibilities.

We are very far down this path thanks to "progressives" who mindlessly fixated on rights at the expense of all else. And so now the system is one where politicians buy votes. Non net tax payers should have never been allowed to vote, it was never supposed to be this way. Its just assumed now, the same way the left now believes our country was founded on a poem.

 

[nickqt]

The left is pushing for children to vote, down to the age of 16 and even further because rights have become disconnected from responsibilities.

We are very far down this path thanks to "progressives" who mindlessly fixated on rights at the expense of all else. And so now the system is one where politicians buy votes. Non net tax payers should have never been allowed to vote, it was never supposed to be this way. Its just assumed now, the same way the left now believes our country was founded on a poem.

Needs more youtube links, dimwit.

 

[Jhhnn]

The left is pushing for children to vote, down to the age of 16 and even further because rights have become disconnected from responsibilities.

We are very far down this path thanks to "progressives" who mindlessly fixated on rights at the expense of all else. And so now the system is one where politicians buy votes. Non net tax payers should have never been allowed to vote, it was never supposed to be this way. Its just assumed now, the same way the left now believes our country was founded on a poem.

Funny how that responsibility thing works out-

http://www.njjn.org/about-us/keep-youth-out-of-adult-prisons

People as young as 14 have been sentenced to life w/o parole.

Not to mention that we had universal white male suffrage before the Civil War & no federal income tax until 1913.

If Trump's claim he pays no federal income tax is true then he wouldn't be eligible to vote by your standards.

I'm sure you'll troll on in any case.

 

[dank69]

See, this is why these discussions never go anywhere. You are assuming I think laws and morals are the same. What I am stating is accountability, regardless of morals or laws. One chooses to follow or break a law based on their morals. Ultimately a moral is an opinion. Morals are not miraculously something you are born with. It is framed by your life experiences. A law is in most cases adjacent to moral opinion and is most cases is decided by the majority. You can't state 99/1 is fallacy when what I am describing is democracy. There are many laws that the minority don't agree with, moral or amoral. It really doesn't matter what you think NOW about a subject, it has to be in context of the majority of thought at the time. Whether that is right or wrong can be argued for every single law in existance and I hope we at least agree that it should be. You believe in democracy don't you? That's only 51/49. I've repeatedly said if you don't like the law it is up to the majority to change it. You change the law and the people you are concerned about are no longer in jail to begin with. I see that as a much more impactful scenario than 'giving convicts voting rights'.

We can apply this to many horrible events in history where the people oppressed didn't get to decide their fate but at some point the masses said 'this isn't right' and changed the laws. What we are talking about here is minor crime vs major crime, and you keep trying to twist what I'm saying into applying to everything. Why not abolish laws all together since those can and are abused? Why take their gun rights? Don't they have the same rights for guns as they do voting so they can defend against those authoritarians? It just goes on and on. You are basically saying 'but this and this can happen'. Corruption can and will happen either way, vote or no vote. It is and always has been that way. The key here is that most people are not going to vote against their interests. Everything from a drug dealer to a flat out terrorist is going to vote for whatever might get them lower punishment - even if what they did was as you say 'morally' wrong.

I think the clear difference in our view of this is you consider laws you don't agree with as oppression and there's that whole our government is out to get us mentality. You think that w/o votes it can be abused, while I think that with vote or without votes it can be abused because those people are already in a bad place and that position can be leveraged, with or without a vote. Ultimately, as I keep saying my stance is people should be held accountable for their actions. Whether they actually 'voted' or not prior to their conviction, they already voted on the law along with the rest of the country and then chose to break it. If you don't like the laws change them. I am in no way saying what I think is the 'right' way, most of my responses are simply why I think what I do. The issue I have is most people try the black and white method and automatically assume the worst when someone doesn't outright agree with their views.

I'm not assuming anything. You made it seem like you don't care what law has been broken, if someone chooses to break a law then they deserve what comes to them. I simply showed you how that thinking breaks down when we are faced with laws that are actually immoral. Now, for some laws we can argue about whether or not they are immoral, like laws against drugs, but for other laws that we have seen in the past, not many people are left that are going to argue that they were just.

On top of that, even if a law is just, it is possible to make the punishment unjust by making the penalty too harsh. I think our goal should be to remove as much subjectivity as possible from these equations. We need to stop legislating morality because as you and I both agree, what one person believes to be moral differs from what another believes. Instead, laws should have one goal: to stop people who's behavior infringes someone else's rights. The "punishment" should be the bare minimum required to prevent more occurrences, and in the case of damage to property, to make restitution when possible. Laws against things like drugs or suicide do not have this objective, and as such, violate people's rights. Then, we remove more rights as punishment for not allowing us to violate their rights. You can use whatever rationalizations you want to tell yourself that isn't immoral but I suspect you know deep down that it is immoral, just like everyone else that isn't religious knows. The fact is that millions of people have lost their right to vote because of immoral laws and you are trying to stay convinced that they deserve it because they "chose" to break the law. It may be true that many chose to break the law, but many drug addicts got hooked when they were children and using was no longer a choice for them. What they needed was help getting clean and instead they got permanent status as second class citizens and many transformed into hardened criminals just to survive. It needs to stop immediately and thousands like you won't even take the simple baby step in the right direction by at least restoring their right to vote. A right you admit restoring will have no ill effect.

 

[HomerJS]

The left is pushing for children to vote, down to the age of 16 and even further because rights have become disconnected from responsibilities.

We are very far down this path thanks to "progressives" who mindlessly fixated on rights at the expense of all else. And so now the system is one where politicians buy votes. Non net tax payers should have never been allowed to vote, it was never supposed to be this way. Its just assumed now, the same way the left now believes our country was founded on a poem.

I'd take it over being owned by Putin and the Russians. Your boy has already sold us out.