In the United States, eligibility to vote is left up to each individual state. Federal law/the Constitution prohibits states from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, age (18 years old and older), or ability to pay a poll tax.
Most states do not allow people convicted of a felony to vote, whether in prison or even after they have been released from prison. Do you agree with this policy? Why/Why not?
ORIGINAL POST DUE BY WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 17 at 11:59 pm.
TWO PEER RESPONSES DUE BY 3:00 pm SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 21.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
183 comments:
I do not agree with this policy mainly because a convict may have committed a small crime, yet he or she can't vote because of it? Many citizens of America may not have even committed the crime, but still got blame for it. If voting is taken away from a major chunk of America's population, then where is the "we the people" part? Never has the idea of democracy been so violated.
Plus, even though many believe that these people's judgment may be deferred, the fact that just because they went to jail does not mean their voting right should be taken away. Remember, they are still citizens of the United States and should not be discriminated: everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance. Convicts are not mentally ill, and can think logically; even if they rob a bank, they know that it's wrong. They only rob banks because they need money.
Essentially, statistics show that most convicts do not vote, but those that want to make a difference will vote. Take for example, Plessy vs. Ferguson. Plessy was ruled as guilty, and therefore, committed a felony for attempting to board the white side of the train because he was 1/8 black. Despite the fact that it would be hard for him to vote because of his race at the time, many states would still deny him the right to vote. Yet, all he did was fight for what he thought was right. Same with many other activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. who was put in jail.
Therefore, this policy for criminals is unfair and should be eradicated from State Law.
Well, my internet really sucks and I'm tired of typing my comment over and over again just to have the whole connection take a dump so I'm just going to say that they should vote if they haven't done anything serious and if they're not mentally retarded.
-ryman
I'm a bit half and half on this one.
I kind of disagree because I don't really see the problem in a felon or ex-felon voting. I'm pretty sure that the people that do decide to run for some political office won't be trying to legalize murder or drug/human trafficking.
I kind of agree because if someone has committed such a horrible crime then they should be denied certain rights such as voting.
But, since I've GOT to choose one, I s'pose that disagree is more the choice I'm leaning on.
Will: I do agree, but, not all bank robbers rob banks because they need money. There really are some nut cases out there or maybe they just like to take things that aren't theirs.
Ryan: Sorry to hear bout the internet and the typing. Also agree. Just thought I should say, anyone that's convicted of a FELONY has done something serious.
I don't know how important it is to have voting right since I'm not a citizen...but I think having a voting right is being a citizen of United States. So when a convict committed a crime, following this policy would mean that he or she is losing a major right of U.S. citizenship.
With this thought in mind, this policy is not fair to convicts who committed a small crime that nobody got hurt such as robbing. And most of convicts know what they did wrong and feel penitent. Taking the voting right away from them is too harsh for them to live with since it means that their country is denying them as citizens.
Therefore, I don't agree with this policy.
I disagree with this policy, at least in part. Convicts should have the option to vote if they are not serving a life sentence. If they, at any point, will be able to take advantage of their rights as citizens then they should be able to choose how they will be living. If the vote will affect their lives, they should be able to affect the vote. As proven in the Gore/Bush election, every vote counts. A felon may have made a mistake, but they shouldn't be stripped of one of the only ways we are connected to government. When they are released, they have the same rights as everyone else again, and should be able to live in a country where they matter, and their vote matters.
for the most part, voting is an inelianable right, right? because without the ability to vote then you are politically dead. its like mrs knight used to say, "if you control language, you control reality, if you dont speak then you are politically dead." or something. im sure julia will correct me. but the message is the same. if you cant vote, you have no say in government, so you are at the same time worthless in the political eye, and useless in societies eyes, so therefore, dead.
but on the other side of the arguement, if you commit a fellony, what gives you the right to still participate in society, you have already proved that you are incapable of upholding that responsiblity, which is why you ended up in prison to begin with.
for me, convicts will be convicts, whether they raped and killed women in parks, or laundered illegal drug money, they are convicts nontheless. they are in prison serving time for fellonies commited. and when you are reformed and are released based on the assumption you can properly behave in society, you can have your right to vote returned.
there are alot of things i would like to elaborate on but i dont want to post a huge boring post again.
oh. and btw will. i only rob banks because its fun.
i have to say that i somewhat agree with this policy.
a convicted felon is labeled a convicted felon, no matter the extent of their crime.
the person could have made a simple mistake, or a life changing one. in this case, we dont really know.
either way, the person has broken the law/laws our government has set in order to protect our rights as Americans. its obvious they have had trouble handling the responsiblities of being an American citizen.
considering that voting is a hugeresponsibility, and has a great influence in determining the outcome of America's future, then why should these convicted felons be able to vote?
why give them more responsibility then they can handle. it's somewhat like setting our country to fail.
but we must keep in mind the convicted felons who made a small mistake. they may have done something stupid and realized their life needed to change and are trying to do so. at that point, it's like our government keeping their rights from them. so it really is a tricky situation.
my suggestion: once a person becomes a convicted felon, they should not be allowed to vote (reasons explained above). this however, could change. the convicted felon will not be allowed to vote for 10 years after thier release from prison (at least two elections). if they are sentanced to life in prison, this doesn't apply to them. and after those ten years they can be eligible for it. if the person has not had any serious offenses during that ten year duration, their voting rights will be instituted again.
problem solved.
obviously im not thinking specifics here with this plan. its just a simple outline of what could happen with convicted felons after they have served thier time.
remember that in that brain of yours.
W. Fang made a good point with Martin L. King, which made it hard to decide, but I agree with the policy. Ferguson and King Jr. were discriminated because of their race, but this policy is against those who commit crimes, and I agree with it. What makes Americans American could probably be listed out on several pages, but one of the most important is the right to vote. We are given the right to vote and are no longer discriminated upon by our race, sex, or age (18 and older) but to commit a crime... (sigh)
I'm thinking of the Constitution that states no cruel or unusual punishment, but now we look back on that and ask, what were they thinking of when they wrote that? If we make a law now that says that only people who commit felonies can not vote, then that leaves the rest of the criminals that will purposely commit only small crimes to still bare(wrong one?) the privalige. I think trying to make a list of all the crimes that will gaurantee that their voting privalige will be taken away will only create loop holes where people will bend the law in their favor.
Now for the matter of voting being an unalienable right, I disagree with because not everyone gets to vote. (I actually disagree with the statement all men are created equal also. Look around, are we really as equal as the people we see? I mean, come on, they still had slavery at that time and still viewed women lower than men...anyway) Voting is a privalige, plain and simple.
If you commit a crime against just one person, you are commiting a crime on more than just that person, animal, property,store, or business. We citizens make up the American country. We are America. You as a citizen are commiting a crime against your country, and should lose those privaliges that you are given here in consequence to your actions. The most vauluable privalige that we have here, that people are murdered for trying to participate in or even speaking of, is voting. To me, theft is not a 'small' crime. How much damage to a person's life do you think identity theives cause? They're still theives, and they can cause absolute chaos for that family. I think it should be treated the same as murder in the sense that they lose their voting privalige. Anyway, this is getting long probably, so I'm gonna call it quits. (yawns) Why am I so sleepy? >_< Sorry if this is confusing, or makes someone mad. It is still my opinion.
I agree with this policy. By committing a felony, all you are really doing is saying that you no longer agree to be governed (or follow your social contract). Part of the contract is that in exchange for the benefits of government, you will follow its regulations.
If people want to withdraw their consent to the government, then they need to understand that the government no longer has to recognize them.
Also, if people are getting convicted for unfair laws, then losing their voting rights can be the best way to start a campaign against the unfair law. Rather than having one singular vote against some policy, a convicted person can round up more Americans to vote against a policy by showing how the policy negatively effected him/her.
Will: To clarify my arguement, i bring up your point bringing up Martin Luther King Jr. You are right, he did fight for what he thought was right. The law that was in place did not reflect the will of the people and needed to be changed. So, he practiced his right to "rebellion," got a whole bunch of people to realize what he meant, and got the law changed. Since the law has been changed, he would not be arrested today, and he would have his right to vote.
On the other hand, someone who, for instance, shoots someone he has has a problem with, is not disputing an unfair policy. He is infringing on someone else's rights, and not following the laws of the land. Therefore, he deserves no right to try to change the law he does not obey.
This article i just read makes it sound like convicts can get their voting rights back in any state, its just that they can't during their sentence, and may have to apply to get it back.
i am confused.
"their voting rights are automatically restored in 39 states" "the process of restoring suffrage...can be cumbersome"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14felony.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/14/us/14felony_map_large.jpg
Really funny how is a person committed to a felony have to do with voting?
I think that is just plain funny. A person might went to jail becuase of a small crime but what does that have to do with voting? This is a very good joke to me I did'nt know about this but now I know it just makes me laugh my ass off. This is the most silly law. I completely disagree with the states that dont let prisoners or people that convicted a felony not vote.
I mean america should be a freedom country not letting a person vote because they been in jail is pathetic and pitaful. That is another point to mock america :D.
I have to say that I do not agree with this policy. When a person commits a crime, he or she serves the punishment through jail time. The time that the felon serves is supposed to allow the person time to reflect and change. So after being released from prison, why should the punishment continue with the removal of the right to vote? Can't this be seen as an eternal punishment? Even though it is commonly said that those who "break the law should not make the law," ex-felons are expected to follow the law upon release from jail. Seeing that if they are now not breaking the law, shouldn't they have the right to vote and make the laws?
However, I don't believe that the right to vote should be restored right after the felon leaves prison. This would not provide a reasonable amount of time to determine whether the person has truly changed or is still living a criminal life. There should be a waiting period, and if the felon remains "clean", then his/her right to vote should be restored.
Response to Kevin Reel:
You said that "By committing a felony, all you are really doing is saying that you no longer agree to be governed...in exchange for the benefits of government, you will follow its regulations.
If people want to withdraw their consent to the government, then they need to understand that the government no longer has to recognize them." But when felons are released from prison, they are obviously still expected to follow the laws set, and most do. By continuing to follow the laws and living according to them after being released from prison, the felons aren't "withdrawing their consent to the government." Wouldn't you agree, then, that the government still has to "recognize them" by giving them the right to vote?
Would we not all agree that a DUI/DWI is a serious offense?
Take into consideration, a DUI is usually considered to be a misdemeanor, in the event that no person was seriously injured. A felony is 3 DUIs, and is regarded to be a serious crime.
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws state that a person, convicted of a felony, is not allowed to vote. As a convicted felon, they should lose the right to vote. Many are making the mistake in thinking that a felony isn't a serious crime.
With the technology today, I can't forsee a person being wrongly convicted of a crime.
In 39 states, a convicted felon has the right to apply to restore their voting rights. If a felon so chooses to do so and to take the steps required to restore those voting rights, then by all means should they be allowed to vote. States provide the right to earn that right back, to be recognized.
Response...
Will stated that "Essentially, statistics show that most convicts do not vote, but those that want to make a difference will vote." What is your source? It's one of the basic rules you learn in journalism: statistics mean nothing if not attributed to something.
Secondly, Adam,
You had Ms. Knight's quote dead on, and a really good quote might I add.
Last, I do have to give it to my sister. It's a very good plan. I think it's preferrable to the laws currently in place. However, it is not enacted. Thus, I can't change my opinion on something hypothetical.
Although most states do not allow people convicted of a felony to vote, I find this notion to be not only an infringment of our "inalienable" rights as humans, but also, a missing piece of society.
One of the grand predicaments faces in today's society is the people's 'unwillingness' to take part in political elections. Because Americans percieve their votes to be so miniscule, they believe that it wouldn't matter in the first place. In such a case, democracy rules under the policy that the government should rule "by the people, for the people." Although criminals and felons may have committed a crime,we must not forget that they are still part of our society.
Although people may disagree with such an opinion, we must not forget that humans are not perfect and are proned to make mistakes. Like William's reference to "Plessy Vs. Fergueson," a crime doesn't necessarily declare a person to be 'unjust' or 'immoral.' With that being said, although criminals may not have the greatest standing, their votes still play a factor into the American population.
As Americans, we are guaranteed the "unalienable" right to vote and express our opinions as citizens. And although our choices may not be the best, that is what constitutes our nation. So in the end, regardless of what kind of person you are, your vote still counts as a vote of the people of America.
I do not agree with the policy because even if a person could not get to vote for the cause of what wrong doing. How does that involve the right of choosing their leader of United States. To me, being able to vote and going to prison is two totally different views. And every vote counts for the presidental election for whom they want to be the right leader.
Even after the prisoner was relased they still could not be able to vote?! America is still supposed to have freedom from one of their human rights, correct? And even when they did the time of their punishment and still can not vote. To me, is extremely retarded and partially kiddish. Its like when a little kid does something wrong they will do it again. Adults are not kids, so I am trying to say felcons/prisoners should be able to vote!!
I think that it should depend on the degree of the crime. For the most part, I'm disagreeing with the statement of a felon not being aloud to vote. isnt it possible that their commited crime was something, well not small and harmless, but pretty much that. maybe they robbed a store, but used no force or weapon [which seems kinda odd not to use force, but whatever..], therefore their crime would, in my point of view, be small, therefore they should still be able to vote. but if that person had murdered or killed someone, thats when i would say that they shouldnt be aloud to vote. yes they are still counted as a citizen, and still part of society, but in society, who would want to know that some fellow voters may have been criminals? i would think probably make that citizen feel quite unsafe, it would make me slightly uncomfortable anyway. and from what i know, voting is a privilage, right? just like many other things, do something wrong or bad, you lose your privelage. concluding, 'felons' should be able to vote, depending on the extent of their crime.
I do not agree with this policy because even if you are convicted and charged with a felony you should still have the right to vote, after they get out of prison. After all there are people that are falsly accused and charged with a crime and they lose there right to vote as well, not just the people that killed others, all felons lose the right.
After all they vote from an ex-felon may make the difference in an election. Thats my opinion.
-Christl Leavitt
I agree with what Jessica says, it should depend on the degree of the crime.
-Christl Leavitt
I don’t agree with this policy either. I mean just because someone has done something bad in their life doesn’t mean they have no right or say in the country they live in. Yes, in some cases i think you have no right to vote, like for instance people who are murderers, but news flash most of those people are in their for the long hall so they aren’t voting anyways. But for those people who maybe robbed a bank, no im not saying they are go lucky people and im making them a sweater but i think they have a right to vote, circumstances are different for all people.
Maybe that guy who robbed a bank was a stock broker, lost all his money, clients money, and his job. So now his wife, three kids and dog named skip will no longer have a house to live in so he felt the only way out was to rob a bank, no im not saying his reasons are justified but i mean he is still a good person and maybe he reads about politics every morning with his morning coffee.
I mean everyone should have a right to vote, speak there mind, and have a say in as little as the say we all do have. That guy may not get out of prison for 30 plus years, but when he does get out he should vote.
Let's take a little less drama filled story, your 18 and you are caught graffitting, and now at the age of 34 you want to vote, but ya cant cause you were stupid in high school? That’s not right, i mean you made a dumb choice people who have the right to vote because they have dandy records make dumb choices everyday. Even ones about voting, they just don’t get caught and don’t get told they are dumb.
i feel like im rambling so bottom line, people make bad decisions, some that should haunt people for the rest of their lives, and those people thankfully, are still in jail. for the ones out and realize mistakes are stupid, they should vote just like every other average joe on the street.
I agree with the policy.
This policy is referring to people who have committed serious crimes, not a small one.
The people who have committed the crime basically neglected their duties as citizens to follow some of most serious and consequential laws, and should not be entrusted with voting.
Furthermore, there's even leniency in this policy. This policy does make room for those convicts who wants to regain their right to vote.
Even though voting is our inalienable right, what I'm seeing is that many don't even register to vote. If the convicts want to vote, then they will get the process filed. I don't think it makes much difference except prevent convicts from rebellious votes to the government. If convicts who will now take the government seriously want to vote, they can go through the process.
One of the important things that makes up the idea of "America" is that each citizen in the country has his/her own rights, which includes the right to vote. Even if a person has done wrong and committed a crime, they are still considered citizens of America. By simply "punishing" them through restricting their rights to vote, the government, in my opinion, has violated the criminals' rights in general. This policy should be deemed unconstitutional.
If the government thinks that people who break the law should be punished, then isn't that the reason why prisons are built? Plus, look at it this way. If we allow convicts to vote, then it could be viewed as an opportunity for them to make good decisions for our country in order to make up for their wrong doings in the past.
Maybe i'm just too optimistic and think on the bright side of everything :)
my first response west.
ok well putting my better judgement aside, im about to respond to kirsten, which btw kirsten i love you and im just doing it for a grade and since i disagree with you and i dont want to wait til someone else writes your the lucky one, so dont hate me :]
mk...
kirsten said... "the convicted felon will not be allowed to vote for 10 years after thier release from prison (at least two elections)."
why would that change someone? if they want to vote if they are out of jail, let them vote ten years isnt gonna let them sit, stare at the drywall and go yes....score now that im a justified citizen.
they should be able to vote as soon as they are out, whether they went to jail for reckless driving, robbery, assult, or battery it has nothing to do with how they feel about our next big guy up in the big white shiny house. I mean yeah they are stupid, and fell down the wrong path for a sec but i promise you and everyone else they did not do whatever they did to be like "hahaha dang...good thing now the president will hate me and i wont ever get to hear another word" im sure that wasnt there intentions, and i dont know if i care if someone is like well!! no please, give me a break..when you speed in your car none of you are like ha at least i will do over so much that i wont vote. its not crossing your mind. Which btw lets use that example....if you go 20 over the speed limit you can go to jail for reckness driving. is your classmate such a felon that they shouldnt vote?
anyways no time period, it just holds out on what is already theres...they should vote no matter how long, if your out you served your time..now if you would like you should vote.
its a prilage as much as it is a right, and no one should have the say over whether or not you "deserve" your rights. they are yours as much as they are the person telling you..so vote joe vote.
I do agree that while a person is in prison serving their time as punishment for a crime they should not be allowed to vote. They have shown poor judgment by breaking laws that have been established and have to be followed by everyone.
I am against denial of the right to vote for a lifetime. When sentences are completed, the right to vote should be restored. All humans make mistakes. There are all kinds of reasons why people get in trouble. What about first time offenders who trade a guilty plea for a smaller sentence? What about people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time? We can’t give up on people and say there is no hope for them to live a better life. We need to think of ways to include everyone not exclude “certain” people. Sometimes the best lessons are learned by mistakes.
Bringing people back into the community and into the political process gives them the opportunity to have their voice heard. Voting gives people without financial or other resources a chance to give their input in the making and implementation of political decisions. The cornerstone of a healthy democracy is fair elections with everyone participating.
The right to vote is a fundamental part of American citizenship. We are “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” I don’t want people to stay in a life of crime, I want them to work, pay taxes, raise families, and be active in the community to make it a better place for everyone to live.
Amber Kane
I agree with William Fang that "Convicts are not mentally ill, and can think logically; even if they rob a bank, they know that it's wrong. They only rob banks because they need money."
A person's choice to rob a bank may not be wise when he is caught and sent to jail, but it was through metal thinking before he planned to commit this crime. Say if he was a poor fellow, then he figures that robbing a bank would be the fastest way of becoming rich. In my opinion, it is definitely not the right choice, but a logical one to a certain extent.
This is obviously off the topic about whether the convict should have the right to vote, but I just wanted to point out that unless these convicts are mentally ill, which could possibly mess up the voting system by not knowing who and why they are voting for, then every citizen in the U.S. should have their legal rights to vote.
On the other hand, I do have to agree with Kirsten's suggestion:
" the convicted felon will not be allowed to vote for 10 years after thier release from prison (at least two elections). "
I think that it's a fair enough situation for both the convict and America.
btw MR. West, the "hideniseee" earlier was me, Denise lee.
just making sure.
Many people are saying that they do not agree with the policy because they think that the "felony" might be "pretty much harmless" when in fact felonies are serious crimes.
The legal definition of felony is "A serious crime (contrasted with misdemeanors and infractions, less serious crimes), usually punishable by a prison term of more than one year or, in some cases, by death. For example, murder, extortion and kidnapping are felonies; a minor fist fight is usually charged as a misdemeanor, and a speeding ticket is generally an infraction." (nolo.com)
So the people we keep in mind as we discuss this issue are not simply people who committed a parking violation, but they’re people who probably went through with an armed robbery resulting in injury, or maybe even kidnapping, rape or murder.
Should these 5.3 million former and current felons have the right to vote on future issues that may be more beneficial for them? No. (I will get to examples in my response to Stephanie later). If they can’t decide between right and wrong to stay out of jail, how can they make important decisions in voting? A person does not have the right to “make” laws if they aren’t willing to follow them themselves.
Besides, if felonies really wanted to vote and if they really changed, then they will have the incentive to request for pardon.
I would have to say I agree with this policy. If someone commits a crime, whether it is murder or a misdemeanor the person is well aware of the consequences prior to the act.
We all live in the free country, but of course there are rules or laws that need to be obeyed. Now if someone is in jail, why should they be able to vote? The inmate committed a crime and has to accept the consequences. Being able to vote is a privilege, some people don’t get that option. If it means so much to the person sitting in jail to vote, then they should have protected this right of theirs.
Bottom line is the convict was sent to jail for a reason. Convicts should not be awarded the right to vote, when whomever they wish to vote for is the person they see best fit to help enforce the laws that they just broke.
Once a convict does his time and wishes to vote after the fact they should be able to. Now I’m not saying the very next day they get out of jail they can go and vote. The person who was released from jail should petition to the government to get their right to vote back. If voting means that much to them they will do just that, but if that is to much of a hassle then maybe they should not have been able to vote in the first place.
RESPONSES:
Stephanie said, “I don't really see the problem in a felon or ex-felon voting. I'm pretty sure that the people that do decide to run for some political office won't be trying to legalize murder or drug/human trafficking.”
Felons can include those who are repeatedly in possession of drugs. Isn’t there an issue on legalizing marijuana? Wouldn’t the ability for them to vote maybe sway votes to their side? Of course, future issues may include regulations like how long a term for such and such a crime should be served or amount of fines on certain felonies. Wouldn’t, then, the ability for felons to vote have a great impact on the safety of other Americans? All I’m saying is, allowing felons to vote is a major responsibility and in a world where people usually do things for their own gains, giving them the right to vote may not be such a great idea.
Daren said, “I find this notion to be not only an infringement of our ‘inalienable’ rights as humans, but also, a missing piece of society… As Americans, we are guaranteed the "unalienable" right to vote and express our opinions as citizens.”
America does not let everyone vote such as children, mentally disabled, and noncitizens for a reason because voting requires the ability to weigh choices effectively and because of other minimums. If “unalienable” rights are not granted to every single person for a good reason, I don’t think a felon should have that right to vote either.
My first response is to Will.
If a person knows while robbing a bank that is wrong but they need the money, that is still wrong. Just because the person needs the money that is no reason for them to rob a bank. There are other ways that are legal for them to try to get moeny. The robber knows there are consequences to robbing the bank, so if he is not going to follow the law of the land in the first place, he shouldn't have the right to vote for these laws.
Also, the whole Plessy v. Ferguson statement. You make a valid point but the times are different now and he would not be put in jail because he was black. Plessy did fight for what he thought was right and in todays society he would not be put in jail for sitting on the white side of the bus....because that does not exist.
What I'm trying to say is if you knowingly commit a crime, your right to vote should be taken away for the given amount of time. IF you are framed and unable to prove yourself innocent then that is very unfortunate and life isnt always fair, but if voting means that much to you you will do what is needed to get that right back.
My second response is to Jessica Ogburn:
I do see what youre saying and with every law there always seems to be an exception for something. If the crime the person committed was harmless or whatever the situation than their sentence shouldnt be that long and trying to get the right to vote back also shouldnt be that hard. The convict knows, or atleast they should, what they did was wrong and getting their right to vote back isnt impossible.
so, im listening to EMINEM waiting for kevin to call me to do our speech.
and julia said "It's one of the basic rules you learn in journalism: statistics mean nothing if not attributed to something." thats a good quote, i should use that myself.
and i just think kirsten's plan is a little explicative! people make mistakes, and alot of times they are crazy, but that doesnt mean they dont matter, even crazy sociopaths need love too. let them vote, i dont think their vote will make a difference. but the convicts, once they are released, are men, and they should vote.
i think me and kevin are on the same page, sorta. cause yeah. when you break a law, you are breaking that agreement, but if you agree to go to jail, you are still agreeing to the contract, you willingly accepted your fate, being in jail means you cant behave in society, so no vote-y. but when you are released, i dont see the problem with allowing you to vote again.
I, for the most part, do not agree with this policy. I think it should depend on how serious the crime.
People sometimes get in a mind set that there is nothing else that will help them in life so,seeing this first hand, they result to crime. However, serving time is SOMETIMES enough to turn convicts around and get them on the straight and narrow. Therefore, I believe not every convict should be stripped of their right to vote.
I think it might be safe to say that most kids have parents that aren’t exactly scared of punishing their children, and under this assumption, let me ask a question: As a younger child, when you acted out did you not get punished for it? And when you acted out, and were punished, how were things after you were punished? At the end of your being grounded, or pulling weeds, or cleaning your mother’s car, or reinstated to being allowed to eat jello, your privileges were returned to you.
The punishment for acting out is a revoking of your privileges, because you have proved that under these privileges you neither have respect for authority, nor that you can handle said privileges. So, these privileges are removed from your possession. Upon fulfilling your punishment’s repercussions, you are returned your privileges.
In the same sense, once “suspect” has been convicted as a felon, his/her privileges are revoked, because they have revoked their consent to be governed. During their punishment, they are not, nor should be allowed their privileges. Once they have served their time in a jail or whatever other punishment should be enacted upon them, then they should be returned their full rights. They have had lots and lots of time to think about what they have done, and surely realize that what they did was wrong for society, along with the affected victims of their crime. So, while convicted felons are still serving their time in a correctional facility, they should not be allowed any of their freedoms, because they are incorrect, and are still being corrected. While on probation, I think they shouldn’t be allowed to do such things as vote, because they must be slightly out of touch with the world, and still need to do some catching up. By serving their time, they have suffered enough. Getting a job will be hard enough for them anyways, not many places hire convicted felons, why not let them vote?
Kirsten: After reading about your plan, hearing some more opinions, and reading the article on reinstating rights, i would say your plan sounds pretty much perfect. I still don't think voting rights should be reinstated right away, but something like a 10 year period seems adequate.
Codee: You nailed it with your statement about how "voting requires the ability to weigh choices effectively and because of other minimums" and how not all Americans can vote because of this.
Response to Jessica Ogburn:
I completely agree with you "that [voting] should depend on the degree of the crime". Depending on the circumstances and conditions, a felony-ist who attempted to rob a person's purse should not have his or her right taken, violating "unalieanable rights". Compared to a person who wounded many citizens, the person who stole a purse should have less severe rights to vote.
Comment (not response) to Adam:
Yes, robbing banks for the joy of it. I'll be your buddy, and we can ask Queen Latifa to drive us. And keep listening to eminem. hes cool
Response to Codee:
True, robbing banks no matter what is wrong, but that doesnt mean that just because they wanted extra cash in a minute, the action would influence their thinking of politicians or laws. Would it be fair if someone were to vote beforehand and then rob a bank? Plus remember, they arent only voting laws or right, they also vote for people. One president might want to treat prisoners really bad, but one might understand prisoners. Prisoners should also choose their presidents
I certainly do not agree with this policy
First, everyone have their natural right, if somebody has convicted a crime, it does not mean that this person has lost his/her natural right
Second, even if a person is a serious felony, it does not make this person lost their right to think, or can not make good decisions anymore
Third, there are always chances, if somebody makes a mistake, you don’t give them any more chances, it does not seem fair. And if there are people who really want to vote, and you don’t give this person any chance to vote for the rest of the life, it does not seem to be fair at all
People are born well, and everyone deserves to make a decision for them self
Alright, I've read through all of the opinions and I seem to get the feeling that some people are confused. The policy states that those who have commited a FELON lose their right to vote. Angelica posted the dictionary definition of the word, READ IT.
People who have commited a FELON have done something really really bad. Not like kicking a puppy (although that is evil >.>), but as stated, raping, murdering, kidnapping, armed robbery, etc. To judge whether or not they lose their privalige to vote based on the FELONY they have commited, is rather dumb. THEY DID SOMETHING REALLY BAD FOR IT TO BE A FELON. And, also stated, small crimes can add up. They have those evil little things called PERMANENT RECORDS that keep track of all those 'little' crimes. It's simple addition, right? 1 crime+ 1 more crime + 1 more crime of the same kind= jail time ( FELONY CHARGES)
And they don't lose the right to vote forever. FELONS can regain their privalige to vote after they go through the process. That means those people that get caught streaking, still get to vote after they get out of jail (if they go in the first place, that is) and those teenagers who graffiti still get to vote, even if indecent exposure and destruction of public property, it's NOT A FELON, and they DO NOT LOSE THEIR PRIVALIGE.
It only becomes a FELON if commited too frequently.
And these people are not voting on LAWS. -_-... Congress does that and the president can sign it or veto it, but those FELONS are not going to vote on a law that said indecent exposure is now okay and we can all run around naked. (That would probably result in more felons...)
And they don't have a time limit on it for a reason, it's when ever you want to get your privalige back. As I said earlier, their is no way to judge their crimes clearly on a scale and not have any complications to where their privilage has been stripped from them. Is a felony charge from too many DUI's less of a felon than rape? There is no way that people could agree on a scale. How many people do you think have been killed because of drunk driving? Now how many have been raped? Now do you think the victims or parents/family/friends are going to have their opinions? I'd say. They've got the best they can do right now, and if the felons really cared about their voting privalige, they'd get it restored.
Hope this can help some people out... And I've replied to Fang and Angelica, can I reply to more?
HOLY COW (moo) I WROTE A LOT!! >_< I'm sorry... >_>
I agree with the policy because a felon has complying with the laws and being good citizens. Therefore they don't deserve the right that good citizens have to vote. Its kind of a priviledge, not rights.
I don't agree because so what if they convicted a crime. We have the rights to vote or not to vote. Just cuz they did a crime doesn't mean they get punish not the right to vote. Its their priviledge to vote or not, what they did is their personal life.
I personally do not agree with this policy. No matter how little or big your crime was at the end of the day your still an American. Who we elect for president will affect the convicts that live in the United States. There are plenty of people who have commited crimes and can still vote. the only difference is that they didnt get caught. As long as your out of jail I think that you should be able to vote. If your still in prison then your right to vote should be taken away. are president wont really effect them because their in prison and the only rules they follow is the ones of the prision. You did the crime and you did your time then should be able to vote. Bottom line
___Diamond___
p.s
didnt check for spelling so sorry if alot of words are mis-spelled
I don't understand why people are not comprehending that a felony is a serious crime.
http://www.hmichaelsteinberg.com/feloniesmisdemeanors.htm
According to that above site (a suggestion to read), some felonies "are assault in the first degree or assault that causes serious bodily injury, all degrees of murder, rape or sexual abuse in the first degree, grand theft, kidnapping, embezzlement of large amounts of money, serious drug crimes, and racketeering."
How can a person justify committing any of those crimes?
Also, "Felonies are typically the most serious crimes in any system of criminal law. A standard definition of a felony is any crime punishable by more than one year in prison or by death. This means that any crime that has a sentence of only a fine or confinement in the local jail is not a felony."
Don't misuderstand me. If a better policy were in place, putting convicted felons on probation for a given amount of time, depending on the crime committed, I'd be in favor of it. However, I agree more with the policy currently in effect as opposed letting convicted felons vote.
Unfortunately, this is a policy I find hard to respond to; due to the vagueness and the fact that someone very close to me is considered a felon, and after five years, this will be his first time ever being able to vote. I know first hand that he is a lot more knowledgeable about politics and presidential sides and views than most Americans and greatly values his rights. I also know that he is an amazing person and that made a stupid choice. Don’t all Americans? He is just as, if not more, excited to vote this year as I am, even though he is considered a felon.
To be completely honest, I was going to come on here completely sure that a felon is still an American and every American has the right to vote. Then I read Kevin’s comment about how any felon has pretty much said that they don’t want to be governed by committing crimes. A good point, but they are still Americans.
A valid point that I see is a growing trend in these comments is that the murderers, mad-men, etc. should not be able to vote. I agree, and if you look at it, how would they? They are locked up and upon being locked up, their rights as an American are revoked. Why should they vote? Why should this even be an argument?
Also, one thing to take into consideration is that within the state, there is only reasonable discrimination as to who can and cannot vote, such as, mental handicaps and age. Who says that a felon cannot vote? He or she is very able and if they don’t want to be governed, no one is forcing them into the voting booth. They served their time, and saying they cannot vote is like saying Palin’s daughter has no say, because she is pregnant before marriage, and before “proper age.” This is virtually the same thing as restricting felonies in like that Palin’s daughter made a poor decision and now she must be mentally unstable to vote. Right? Isn’t that what this policy is stating just in hidden context?
-Ashlie
My computer is being a stupid computer.. so I will probably have to revise this later.
Hey West I responded to Keepin' it Reel's post in my post.
Even though you wanted it seperate..
It just worked.
I'm sure you understand.
S. Han,
You stated "I kind of agree because if someone has committed such a horrible crime then they should be denied certain rights such as voting."
But something you may not realize, is that the people that have committed these abominations or "horrible crimes," are either locked up and stripped of their rights or on the run and probably wouldn't risk their identity on something such as voting.
On the other hand, you made a valid point that the people running for office probably are not all for drug trafficking or YIPS! for murder.
So hopefully instead of HAVING to pick one side, you will just.. disagree.
And that's number two West.
I would probably do more... if my computer decided to act less like G. W. Bush's speeches and more like function and purposeful.
-Ashlie
Personally, I think that this policy goes to a bit of an extreme. For example, one can view a felony with Julia's examples of rape, DUI's, etc but then there is Nick's example of a child's punishment. Both are legit examples but I am leaning towards the side where the the convict may have the right to vote again. True, they have committed a crime but they are paying up for it in jail. That is the punishment given to them and they deserve that punishment to the fullest. But if they had the chance to start over after they were let out, they have that choice. Voting is a choice, it is not something that they HAVE to do, but something that they can CHOOSE to do. This is a privilege that they aren't given when they are in jail and if they want to have an input in who will run our nation next, they should take the time to re-register. If not, then it does not matter. All in all, they are still American citizens that committed a crime that they had to pay for. Once it is done and over with, they have their freedom like every other American citizen. But it is in their power to either use it to it's fullest potential or just go on living without a care to politics. William even stated that statistics show that most convicts do not take part in voting...and those who want to can take their time to re-register.
ANDDDDD SARO OUT!
Well in my opinion I agree totally with this policy. I believe that since theres people in this country that find it so easy to not follow the rules, no matter how small, should have the, not right, but PRIVLIGE to help run this country.
Well this is what I think is right =]
Kevin.Rodriguez
GO NAVY!!!!BEAT ARMY!!
Response #2 to Angelica Lai:
There are problems within your examples. You said, "Isn’t there an issue on legalizing marijuana? Wouldn’t the ability for them (felons) to vote maybe sway votes to their side?"
Just to let you know, the bills on marijuana are aimed at legalizing medicinal marijuana. They are not aimed at legalizing the use of marijuana for the general public, but for those who need it for treatment. So how does the marijuana stay out of the general public's hand? I know that the proposed bill in Ohio aimed at legalizing marijuana for medicinal uses also includes:
1.regulating the medicinal marijuana use
2.having a "cardholder system" so that those using marijuana have the legal right to use it
3.creating departments to regulate the use and handle the applications.
With these restrictions, only those who need marijuana for medical uses will be able to receive the drug. Also, the people do not vote for the bill; the representatives in the house and senate do.
Then, you said, "Of course, future issues may include regulations like how long a term for such and such a crime should be served or amount of fines on certain felonies." These are decided by the jury and judge in the court. We do not get to vote on such issues.
So, allowing ex-felons to vote will not sway policies towards them. Shouldn't they be able to vote after having finished their punishments in jail? If the ex-felons have truly changed, then shouldn't they have the right to "make" the laws they are now willing and required to follow?
Well in my opinion I agree totally with this policy. I believe that since theres people in this country that find it so easy to not follow the rules, no matter how small, should not have the, not right, but PRIVLIGE to help run this country.
Well this is what I think is right =]
Kevin.Rodriguez
GO NAVY!!!!BEAT ARMY!!
I do not agree with this policy. Just becuase someone has commited a felony does not mean they should lose their right to vote. Some felons probably have a better idea as to what's going on and the important issues at hand than people that do not have a crime record. Also, just cuz they're a felon doesn't mean they're not living in the country, they have to live with the same decisions that we have to live with. So they should have a vote on who makes them.
Response to Carina:
In 2002, Nevadans voted whether or not marijuana should be legalized for adult private use of up to three ounces.
So it's not only medical use. Anyone with voting rights could have voted for this.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6509/is_200209/ai_n25855156
In this article dated 2001, http://www.michigandaily.com/content/smoking-grass-time-now-push-pot-legalization, "Hash Bash attendees are hoping to collect the 302,711 necessary signatures statewide to put the Personal Responsibility Amendment on the ballot for referendum vote. This will allow voters to DIRECTLY determine whether or not marijuana should be illegal for personal use."
So voters DO have a major role on issues like these.
As for what I said about voting for terms and fines, I shouldn't have said it in that way and that was my fault. We don't get to vote for it, but we do get to vote for judges who DO have a say in it.
I believe that the convicted felons have served their time in jail, and when they have finished their sentence they deserve to have all the rights that they had when they weren't behind bars. Like if a person got caught j-walkin and went to jail, that would mean they don't have the right to vote for the rest of their lives. That's not fair for such a minor offense. And everyone in the United States who is a citizens gets the right to vote.
I believe that the convicted felons have served their time in jail, and when they have finished their sentence they deserve to have all the rights that they had when they weren't behind bars. Like if a person got caught j-walkin and went to jail, that would mean they don't have the right to vote for the rest of their lives. That's not fair for such a minor offense. And everyone in the United States who is a citizens gets the right to vote.
response #1 KEVIN REEL
alright, i have read through yours and many other people's responses and i have to say that yours was the one that made me see things differently.
when i first read this question, i didnt really do much research into it and therefore disagreed with the policy.
however, i then read your comment and you said that by "commiting a felony you are agreeing to no longer be governed". i completely agree with that.
now that i know that there is a process which these felons can go through to get their voting rights reinstituted, i have to say that i now agree with this policy.
way to go kevin, you changed my mind!
Before reading the prior posts, I agreed with this policy the millisecond I read the question. After reading about half of the posts above mine, I have to say that I still agree with it.
Why should a felon have the same right to vote as myself, who has not committed a crime? That seems really unfair to me. That's like saying that I can go out and commit some crime and I still have my say in what the government does or how it's run... that's a little mental, if you ask me. If they committed a crime, then they obviously don't respect the laws and the rules of our government.
Laws are put in place to keep order and peace, and by breaking it you are showing no concern for the laws or the government. If you go against these laws and regulations, then why should you have the right and privilege to vote FOR the government?
Yeah. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
I think that someone who commits a serious crime has to work for the governments respect again. We can't take the right to vote away completely, because that is against what this country is built on. Instead, we can make them work for it. If the person convicted wants to earn back the right to vote, then we should totally allow them to.
SUMMARY: I agree with this policy, but we should also remember that these people are citizens of the United States too - and they have every right to vote. If they break their commitment to this country and the government, then they should not be allowed to take part in government issues. However, if they wish to be able to vote again, then we should allow them to do so 100%.
I HOPE THIS MADE SENSE.
HELLO MR. WEST!
Harry Potter's Girlfriend, Karina Marshall
My first response :)
When Codee says that "if someone commits a crime, whether it is murder or a misdemeanor the person is well aware of the consequences prior to the act," I completely agree with her.
I've been skiming through some other comments and, like Julia said, a felony can be a very serious crime. The criminals know beforehand what they are doing, and they know they are breaking the law - that's why they try to 'get away with it.'
So yeah, I agree with what Codee had to say about this subject. And when she stated that "convicts should not be awarded the right to vote, when whomever they wish to vote for is the person they see best fit to help enforce the laws that they just broke," I agreed with her even more. Someone who broke the law should not have the right to vote for the person who makes the law! That doesn't even make sense!
However, I still think that if we had a way to make it so the convicts could gain back the right to vote, then everything would be superly perfect with this policy.
Harry Potter's Girlfriend, Karina Marshall
My second respsonse :)
OH EMM GEE. Ok so I just read Kirsten's comment above mine, and I read how her mind changed after reading Kevin's post, right? So then I read Kevin's post, and I saw that he made a point that I was trying to make the entire time. Yay, thanks Kirsten and Kevin!
And when Kirsten stated that "there is a process which these felons can go through to get their voting rights reinstituted," I realized that this policy does not have any major flaws that I can see. It punishes the convicts, but does not take away their rights. Love it!
[I hope it's ok that I'm posting my second one already...but I was too happy to NOT post to their comments :) ]
Harry Potter's Girlfriend, Karina Marshall
I guess I can agree with the policy that you are not allowed to vote while in prison. From what I saw in the posts so far (sorry if I'm wrong), no one really brought up the idea of voting while in prison. I mean technically you are still a citizen of the United States, even if you are in jail, and Mr. West said in class that in some countries they do (or used to) go around to people in jails and make them vote. Honestly, I'm not really sure where I stand on that issue. Because at the same time, they did break the law, so why should they have the RIGHT to vote? But then, if you want to take the view of the Athenians and try and get everyone to vote and participate in government, well that includes people in jails.... I don't know.
As far as not being able to vote after someone is out of jail, well I think that is ridiculous. Once someone has served time for the crime they have committed, they should be able to have their right to vote back. Not every criminal stays a criminal forever, like Joanna said, an 18 year old who made a stupid choice in high school shouldn't be punished when he older all because he was a dumb 18 year old.
Some people suggested having a certain amount of time after a person gets out of jail before they can have their voting rights back. While I can understand why that would be a good idea, I still don't agree. Yes, it would give them time to mess up again if they were going to, and then you would know whether or not they really deserve that right, but you are still taking that right away after that have rejoined society.
Basically, I think that if you have served time for the crime you committed, then you should have your voting rights back. I think it's only fair.
-Beverly- :]
This is a very interesting policy, i was hoping that i would have an instant decision of either one way or another but this issue is not just face value. Yea i believe there are some pretty crazy wacko's that are strung out on drugs and constantly in and our of jail for all kinds of issues and i don't think they should be able to vote because if you aren't going to act like a human and respectable citizen then you shouldn't have the rights of one.
yet on the other hand there people who maybe for example killed some one in a car accident and they are charged with man slaughter and a felony goes on their record. But i guess if voting is such a big issue to them they should move to a state that allows the petitioning of felony removals. So in all i agree with the law, it keeps people who don't follow the law from voting in people who make the laws, sounds reasonable to me.
I would have to agree with this policy. A convicted felon is a convicted felon. It might seem harsh, but they neglected the laws in the first place. To be honest, I believe that most of them would care less about voting.
Now, I am not saying that they are all bad, and that they cannot change, I am saying that they committed a crime, and need to be punished.
As stated above, 39 states allow felons to get back their right to vote. By all means, if they want their voting rights back, let them go through the process needed to do so.
People who committed small crimes should keep their voting privileges. Criminals who have committed bigger crimes should have to go follow the laws of the state that discuss voting privileges.
I agree with this policy just because I think that if you committed a felony you should not have the privilege to vote, at least not while you are in prison. If the felon didn’t care about braking the law then he shouldn’t vote (should of thought of that before). I do think the right to vote should be given back after the felon has been freed and has done something else like community service or something. Their should be some type of regulations for those who have been released from prison but I guess that depends on the state.
i agree with this policy because i think that anyone who commits a felony has not only threatened someone's life but also has damaged their privacy or property.
felonies are considered as very serious crimes and that's why the punishments may vary depending on the state. when a person has become a felon, they have gone against the law. they have not respect the laws of the U.S. or the rights of its citizens, so why should they have a say in the government. i don't think we can trust their judgement, if they have been in prison for a long time, then they probably don't know what's going on with the nation or probably they wouldn't care, after all it was the law that sent them to prison.
I don't really agree with this policy. Just because someone has been convicted of a felony doesn't necessarily mean they really have. There HAVE been false accusations, and people have been wrongly convicted.
Also, we talk so much about rights. Well, they DID have that right. Whether they've been convicted or not, you can't just strip them of their natural rights. They're part of the country and their vote really does matter. They could be the deciding vote if it were to come down to a tie.
Yes, felons are felons. Some change, some don't. But we also have to take into consideration that just because they've committed a crime, doesn't mean that they don't care about the government, or what happens to it, or who runs it.
I believe strongly in second chances. And by allowing them to vote, they're proving themselves to society that they CAN change, and they CAN make a difference.
I do not agree with this policy. I think that people should get all the same rights as people who haven’t been a convict. That is why they go on parole so that they can be free and outside of prison. I’m sure someone who just got out of prison probably has a say in who they would want to become our next president. Because, whoever would become the next president is going to take effect in their lives. To me it is like someone who is in a comma once they wake up they might not know everything that is going on in the world but I’m sure once they hear about everything and watch the news they would want to vote, or at least they would have an opinion.
In prison there are classes, books, computers and much more that would keep people in touch with the world. They probably even talk about who they would vote for while they are in prison. With the classes available in prison they probably even come out a better person or a different person.
A felon should not be taken away the rights they have as a U.S. citizen once they get out of prison. While they are in prison it is understandable, even though the president’s decision would affect them even if they were locked up.
So I do not agree with this policy.
Response#1 to gygaust1n:
“But i guess if voting is such a big issue to them they should move to a state that allows the petitioning of felony removals.”
I agree with Austin in this part. If it is really such a huge deal to someone whether or not they get to vote or not, then they should move to a state that would let them.
I also think that people who get out of prison aren’t thinking about politics constantly. It is probably the least of their problems. Especially if they were in prison for a long time. They probably have a lot of overdue bills and other problems they have to worry about before they fight for the right to vote.
Response #2 to sarochin:
“True, they have committed a crime but they are paying up for it in jail. That is the punishment given to them and they deserve that punishment to the fullest. But if they had the chance to start over after they were let out, they have that choice. Voting is a choice, it is not something that they HAVE to do, but something that they can CHOOSE to do.”
I agree with sarochin here. The people who go to jail don’t want to be there. Well maybe some like the bums and stuff. But when they are there they are paying for the crime all day. When they get to out they are supposed to be free of punishment. They should have a fresh start to life and be able to have all their rights back.
I completely agree with this policy, felons should not be allowed to vote, after all, they broke a law to become a felon in the first place, so why give them any say in who should run or country or who should be mayor of a town or whatever. And all the posts that say "they should still vote if they commited a small crime", that doesnt make sense because a felony is a serious offense, if you disagree with me, please name me one felony that isnt serious, don't worry, i'll wait...
thats what i thought, if you dont believe me, here's the list:
http://www.immihelp.com/immigration/aggravated-felonies.html
and i especially believe felons shouldnt vote if they're still in prison. my stand is, if you wanna go ahead and do something stupid with your life, your rights are DONEZO(denzel for shanith)
I agree with this policy. Why give the same rights to a person who has done something wrong and to a person who hasnt done anything wrong. That just doesnt sound right or fair to me.
We were all given rights and laws. Some do bad thigs others dont. but the people who do bad things shouldnt be given theirs rights back again. We have laws and thing for a reason, so that things wont get so crazy, people who mistreat that law shoud be punished and thats that. even if it was a small mistake, I dont think they should have their rights back. If it was so small then why even make the mistake in the first place, you shouldnt have dont it. One isnt forced to do a felony or anything bad, they have a choice. Since they made the bad choice they shouldnt have the same rights as the people who make the right choices.
And that is why I agree with this policy
I disagree with this policy because i believe that everybody deserves a second chance.Even though criminal committed a crime, they are still part of the United States at the end. Also being convicted of a crime could be of different level seriousness.
One could be imprison for 2 months because of robbery; while another person killed somebody and spend 3 years in prison. The thing is that i think it is unfair to classify all criminal under the same roof. Even though severity is a case i still believe that it is fine even for a murder to vote. The reason is because if he served his time in prison,he got his end of the deal. The person was punish and taking away his voting right is totally unnecessary.
As i said before everybody deserve a chance to redeem themselves. Taking away there voting because of one incident seems kinda harsh.
umm i dont agree with d.john because its like Discrimination not to mention how do you know that they werent wrongly put it jail. then what they loose their option to vote for a crime they did not commit. or maybe they went to jail because off self defense. or even if they did commit a harsh crime they did the time. once someone is out of jail their a citzen just like everyone else. Discriminating agaisnt an ex-convent is like Discriminating against sex or race
but thats just what i think
___Diamond___
p.s
once agian no spell check
A convict does not have the right to vote? I strongly disagree with this policy. No matter how serious the crime he committed, he is still a citizen of the state. A felon is a citizen of the state. He has the “right.” He/she probably paid his debt for his crime. A felon receives punishment that he/she suffered from and I believe that when released he/she might not changed but for the most part, they changed for the better.
For me, they are US citizens, even though they are felons, who must be a part of the government. It means that they still care for the country we live in and we must respect that. And it leads to “all people must have equal rights.” If a US citizen has the right to vote, a felon must have the same right.
Abolishing their right to vote is preposterous because in prison, they have changed inside the prison. In prison, they paid their crime and continue to move on. Voting is a part of their citizenship which the policy is unessential.
In which I completely disagree with the policy.
Personally I disagree with this policy. Mainly because it’s not like those felons are voting for something evil or crazy since everyone has the same choices to choose from when they vote. Although I think those who have caused a small crime that isn't a big deal they should be allowed to vote and express their opinions as long as they don’t kill anyone. On the other hand those who have committed a serious crime like killing someone shouldn't have that right because they have taken that right from the person they killed. As a result the ones that didn’t do anything bad, should be allowed to vote.
Personally I disagree with this policy. Mainly because it’s not like those felons are voting for something evil or crazy since everyone has the same choices to choose from when they vote. Although I think those who have caused a small crime that isn't a big deal they should be allowed to vote and express their opinions as long as they don’t kill anyone. On the other hand those who have committed a serious crime like killing someone shouldn't have that right because they have taken that right from the person they killed. As a result the ones that didn’t do anything bad, should be allowed to vote.
I agree with this policy because a felony is not a small crime and felons shouldn’t be allowed to vote. They already broke the law and shouldn’t have the right to vote. If they’re prison, they shouldn’t be able to vote because during the time they’re in prison, they are not part of society. This policy is not meant to be nice. People break the law, so why should they be able to vote on new laws? It’s not right. It’s a law that should be enforced to the fullest. If you want to vote, don’t be felon. Simple.Peace.
I agree that prisoners that are still incarcerated should not have the right to vote but those released from prison and are on paroll should be allowed to reapply at the very least
Now here is the deal. Everyone is allowed to vote but does everyone truly wants Everyone to vote? I think not. This includes people who have no Idea who they are voting for let alone where they are in their own mind. This means I really don’t care for an incredible crack head from prison to be voting. I’m not discriminating against druggys but for someone who has their own government with the voices in there head they have no reason to be voting for my government. I’m ok with some one who has been in jail a couple times under the influence of a chemical stained brain because God knows how many people do drugs now a days but there should be a limit to who in jail has a right to vote.
What im trying to get at is that everyone in jail should be allowed to vote? It’s their right.
But not the people who don’t know why they are in jail in the first place.
Vannessa F. :]
I do not agree with the policy of being in prison and not allowed not to vote. Who knows? Maybe the person was innocent but was judged as guilty. The crime could of have been so little and just with that your not allowed to vote.
But i may also agree with it too. They could of committed a big crime like murder and to see it this way would change my mind. So now I am in the middle of this, whether it is being with it or against it.
I agree with this policy. I see an ex-felon as someone who has disobeyed a law that all Americans should obey. As punishment for committing a felony their privilege to vote should be revoked. The main reason I see a felon should be revoked his/her right to vote is because he/she refuses to respect a fellow American's right. Punishment for committing a crime is serving time in jail and for disrespecting a fellow American's right, strips the right to vote. I do see that a few ex-felons understand their mistake and therefore should be allowed the right to reinstate their right to vote. I view this policy as fair as it can be. Although, the process of reinstating one's right to vote may be cumbersome, it still does not compare to the damage(s) that most felonies have caused.
I do not agree with this. I think that if you are a convicted felon you still have a right to vote. I dont think that if you are still in jail you serving like a life sentence you should be able to vote but if you are a free man/woman you should be able to vote. You are still an american. To me not allowing a convicted felon to vote is discrimination. They served their time in jail and they should be able to vote just like every other person is allowed to. Just because they are a convicted felon doesn't mean they are any less of an american citizen so they should be allowed the right to vote.
Thats all i have to say.
Nighty Night!
=)
Well I first started thinking about this blog I tried to figure out some pros and cons to it. What I came up with was basically that I would not be able to decide which I side with. Why because being able to vote is what you have a United States Citizens but like in a way feel like the criminal should not have a right to vote since they did break laws our country is based on, and just how several people say well they broke the law and now they pay for it in jail/ prison.
Well the government that they are trying to vote for is still being civil with them in giving them food, shelter, education, religious time and even able for most to get a GED in prison. So why not be able to vote if they are able to do so much while in prison. So for my siding I will have to say that prisoners should be able to vote based on the extent and how much of the “line” they had crossed. Because for a lot of criminals that are citizens can gain parole from prison and will still be able to vote in certain states… So yes I say they should be able to vote, some change, some don’t, some never make it out.
-R.Velasco
in response to bboydelgado: I agree, this policy is not meant to be nice. I believe the purpose is to discourage people from breaking the law. Although, Most felons probably would not care if their right to vote is revoked, it's just another way to prevent people from breaking a law.
agree with the policy because I dont think that a person convicted of a felony should be allowed to vote. A person who is convicted of a felony committed a serious crime and they know that what they did was wrong. Why should we allow people who break the law to vote on who runs it. Even if they are out of jail i still believe that it makes no sense to allow them to vote because voting is like a privilege and they lost their right to vote when they decided to express themselves through crime.
i feel that the felonies that are in prison should be not allowed to vote. since they are in jail then there are technically not part of society.
even if someone is wrongly accused they are still going to be put in jail and not be part of the outside world therefore they really shouldnt have a say in an environment they are not a part of. i feel that they should regain their right to vote when their sentence is complete. since they are returning to society they should have a say in it.
I strongly agree with this policy. These convicts committed felonies, meaning they have done something quite horrible, and not just some misdemeanor. Chances are, they probably violated someone else’s natural rights. They have broken their social contract with the government and the society. It is only right to have their privilege to vote should be taken away. Why should they have a say in the government and society where they clearly have no respect for? If they are willing to commit felonies (which creates chaos, and suffering) what’s to stop them from voting for say, the village idiot who decided to run, to create even more chaos and suffering?
~Louis Rotea
I do agree with this policy because if you are a convicted felon it means you did something wrong. It may not have been your fault or you may just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time but that's your bad. so if you committed a felony then you basically are saying i'm not going to obey the law so why would they be allowed to vote and effect it? i'm not saying that all convicted felons are bad but if they really want to vote then they can apply for it and get their right back that way otherwise i believe they shouldn't get a say.
In response to h.ng: I do not view this policy harsh at all. Since a felon has chosen to disobey the law, commit a felony, and violate a fellow American's right, it is only fair that he/she serves time for committing a felony, and revoked his/her right to vote for violating a fellow American's right. In fact, I see this as more than fair. Only 2 of the 3 faults are repented for.
Also, I do not believe a murderer should be allowed to vote (he/she is probably unable to anyways because of a life sentence.) If a murderer were released from prison, I'd still view his vote with disdain.
I don't agree with this policy either just because it doensn't seem fair at all that just because a convict has a created a crime, they should be deprived of their given rights.
I belive that voting is equally important to everyone as being a citizen, so not having those rights, it just kinda strips everythign away, like I hope you all get what i mean by that.
ANYHOW, my point is that its unfair, you shouldn't take actions upon someone else who has done something wrong and then just take away what is naturally theirs.
okay, in response to those who were in the middle zone about whether you agree with the policy or not, I mean - i can definetely undersatnd where your your ideas are coming from. and why are you stuck in the "middle" about the decision - umm...I really can't think of how to respond to that, but i just think that we aren't that lineant to convicts anyway, but they are still human, no matter if they did right or wrong. You cannot judge someone and tell them they dont know what responsiblitiy is because you have to Learn what responsibliity is and sometimes people make mistakes..for a reason i guess..but i probably sound realy lineant when i say they shoudn't be deprived of their rights like that,but it just really doenst' seem fair....
I agree with this policy. If a person is coming out of prison, then he or she must have committed some kind of a crime. Even if its a small thing like stealing a 12 pack pepsi from Albertsonos. Voting is a privilege, so if someone commits a crime then that means they dont care about the privileges he or she has as a U.S. citizen, and dont deserve it. Why should they get their rights back, just because they are coming out of prison? If a person is coming out of prison because he or she stole a 10 lb of meat from Smiths then they shuoldnt vote, cuzz they are pretty damn stupid to get caught stealing meat. -_-
And for the people that are convicted for something they never did then it sucks for them, world isn't fair and never will be, but I guess they should go through some kind of process when they come out of prison to try getting their voting privileges back, such as a 12 page essay explaining why they should vote again, using proper grammar.
I do not agree with the policy.
From Wiki, lol:
"Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud."
Felons should still have the right to vote. What makes burglars' or kidnappers' judgment any less than other citizens'? They may have had poor judgment in a decision they made at a point in time, but these decisions are in the past.
I understand why people would not want to count the vote of a psycho sadistic murderer. But what about the people who have committed less extreme crimes, such as fraud or burglary. Do they have no idea about what's good for their nation just because at one point, they made a wrong choice?
And actually, it's not impossible for a psycho murderer to have a better or more mature view of politics than do some law-abiding clueless innocent citizens.
Also, allowing voting rights to felons will actually give many of them a chance to change themselves and the world around them for the better. And zhat ees goooood.
No I do not agree with this policy. I mean we are already dwindling in our current number of voters and then we're going to take away the voting rights of even more people cause of some stupid mistakes that a person has made in the past? And this mistake may not even have anything to do with our government or politics so really I don't see how some felony should affect one's voting rights. I mean I do see a point in taking away that right while they're in prison but once they're out and have served their time then all of their rights should be restored including their right to vote. This is really just a very stupid policy.
-Andro Scharosch
I disagree with this policy, simple because
it seems like they are taking their right to vote.
yes they committed a crime, but when it comes to voting it’s
something totally different. Now in the Constitution it quotes “that men are created equal” well if they take away that right then obviously they
don’t have equal rights anymore. Not every prisoner had committed
a really bad crime but when we put this and voting together..What is the relation between that? I really don’t see any.
Also, we are human… we make mistakes… and we should be forgiven for that.
Some do realize what they have done but what does that have to do with voting?
They might actually be really smart and vote for the right president and by that they can actually change for good.
At this moment shouldn’t we be caring about having people voting
and not looking at what they have done in the past and depending on that
deciding whether or not to let them vote.
It’s just not right to take away that right.
-erica c.
NO!! i don't agree with that policy because i mean one vote cn be the determinig factor of who wins an election and jus because someone did a crime doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to participte in something as important as a presedential election. I'm not sayin they should still have full benefit of the doubt but they should not be removed from their voting satus over something like that.
I agree with the policy that convicted felons shouldn’t have the right to vote. They chose to commit that crime and there must be consequences, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. When someone runs a stop sign or speeds…they get a ticket that is the consequence for breaking the law. I believe the bigger the law you break the bigger the consequence. Would it be right to give a killer a ticket for killing someone? No, so taking away their right to vote is one of the consequences. Simple as that :]
The point of getting out of prison is to become a part of society. I feel that you should not lose your right to vote on the things that many affect the world that you are going into or have hopes to be a part of again. Yes THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE HORRABLE and I hope that the ones that are guilty never get there rights back. BUT no I do not agree with ALL felons not having their rights when they get out.
All men are created equal and that is something that not every law enforces but it is one base of the constitution. Prison is, by definition a building for the confinement of persons held while awaiting trial, persons sentenced after conviction, etc. Imprisonment is by definition to confine in prison as punishment for a crime.
Our rights were meant to not be taken away. But when someone commits a felony is a crime declared by statute to be more serious than a misdemeanor and deserving of a more severe penalty. Conviction usually requires imprisonment in a penitentiary for longer than one year. So for the people who are wrongly imprisoned and I mean not only by mistake but that did something that the law mite not see fit but the humanity does.
Think about you being a father and you see your little girl getting hurt and you try to have her in the process you end up hurting this person maybe even killing him but you get the wrong side of the court and get hit with a felony.
When you get out and see your family you still don’t have all your rights even after serving your time. You’re looked down on and decimated against even when it is against the law. Yes they did break the law and they served their time they should be giving another chance.
There are people that do no deserver there rights and should never get the back but for the ones that do get punished for the ones that don’t when everyone should be equal. Once there time is over they should get another chance to try again to be a citizen. We should not punish everyone just because the law in incapable of sorting them one that desever it and that don’t.
In response to Micheal Hsu. Actually you can't just simplify everything down to someone violating a fellow American's right. It's a lot more complicated than that. There are many people who are falsely convicted and many others who are arrested for stupid crimes. Also, there those who can avoid prison because they are advantaged. For example, some with a ton of money who gets convicted can hire a really good lawyer to keep them out of prison (OJ Simpson) so they can still run around and vote. Where as someone who isn't as lucky is almost guaranteed to go to prison. In some cases they'll even get convicted for something they didn't do if they have a real crappy attorney. Just ask Guillermo (I don't know if that's spelled right). So what I'm trying to say is you can never be sure about who's guilty and who's innocent. There are still many people out voting (and holding important government positions) who should be in prison. So it really doesn't make a difference if people in prison can vote. It's not like prisons are filled with nothing but democrats or vice versa.
And in response to J Kofford. Read what I wrote above.
By the way, I totally agree with jeanie hardy. Kevin said that someone who breaks a law is no longer agreeing to be governed. That is true, and while they're in prison, they are not being governed. In response to breaking that social contract, they in turn have all of their natural rights violated while in prison (with the exception of life, unless you get the death penalty). So once they come out of prison, they are in turn agreeing to be governed again so that social contract should be reinstated. If they choose to break that contract again, then they will have their natural rights violated again. But any ex-convict should be able to vote. Period.
I strongly disagree with this policy. There are several reasons one can be sent to jail, some even by mistake. Voting is a privilege and although they did commit a felony, that does not change the fact that they are citizens and have a say in their future. Although someone committed a felony, that does not mean they have completely lost their mind (just to an extent!) and they are still able to have thought. They can still make judgments and have opinions. Despite the fact that a mistake was made, being allowed to vote should still be an option.
I also believe that people can change. Being locked up can help one realize that they need to get themselves together. So if they are being punished by not being able to vote because they were bad, people can always make themselves better. So therefore, voting should be allowed. Most people don’t carelessly vote. If they don’t care to vote, they won’t. So by allowing convicts to vote, it gives opportunity to those who care. If the case were that they were sent to jail because they committed a felony being mentally ill, that’s a different case.
SARO TO C.CHANG <3
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THE TIMING ASPECT OF YOUR POST. She said that if a felon's record is clean after a period of time, then their voting rights can be restored. It just makes sense! Her view on Kevin's post makes the most sense to be because it is expected of a person to still follow the law once released from jaw. Therefore, the government should recognize them by allowing the privilege to vote again.
I have to agree with Jeannie when she says that to point of getting out of prison is to become part of the society not to lose your rights completly. I also agree that some felons deserve to lose all their rights...after all most of those criminals are in prison for life anyway
-Christl Leavitt
SARO TO K.REEL <3
You make a very good argument when you said "He is infringing on someone else's rights, and not following the laws of the land. Therefore, he deserves no right to try to change the law he does not obey." BUT, let's think about the "what if's" in this statement. What f this felon did his/her punishment, are they not following the law of the land when they are serving their time in prison? Therefore, shouldn't they still have the right to vote after they are released because they have served their punishment as an individual under the law. And under the law, it is applicable to all citizens in America...including the convicts.
i am terrible, i am late,
i am terribly late.
argh i'm sorry D:
again i'm just going to be repeating what everyone else has said.
BUT
i think this policy is great, for the most part.
as americans, we have rights.
but to recieve those rights, we have to follow certain rules.
one of the rights we recieve as an american is the right to vote.
one of the things we are NOT allowed to do is commit any kind of felony.
if you choose to not follow the rules, you are basically giving up your rights.
also, felonies are huge crimes, like murder, rape, fraud, etc.
its not like this law applies to misdemeanors... if it did i would definitely be against it.
i kind of don't like that that they can appeal to get their right to vote back... i'm not gonna fight against it or anything though.
when you make the conscious choice to commit a felony, you should be weighing the consequences in your mind.
while jail time is probably the main focus,
they person should also think about the fact that by commiting the crime they are self-revoking their rights as an american.
ok i think i beat it into the ground.
its just seems ridiculously simple and obvious to me.
sorry once again for my extreme tardiness.
the end (:
in response to erica:
you said " Not every prisoner had committed a really bad crime"
thats true.
and this doesn't apply to every prisoner.
it applies to FELONS.
that means rape, murder, etc.
thats the kind of thing that shouldn't be forgiven... at least thats what i believe.
i mean its not like you're gonna get your right to vote taking away for a freaking parking ticket.
this is serious stuff.
in response to c. lai:
you said "And actually, it's not impossible for a psycho murderer to have a better or more mature view of politics than do some law-abiding clueless innocent citizens."
you have a good point there.
but who's to determine what a "mature" or "clueless" view of politics is?
a lot of people think george bush is clueless.
but yet he is in office which means that a lot of people think he's mature enough to have voted for him...
everyone has different opinions so that really doesn't have much weight in a court of law when it comes to determining if felons get their voting rights back.
late? what? jessica isn't late? bah, thats habberdash.
but. my opinion, i agree, because, really. do we want a felon voting for our future? Yeah, its not like they can vote to legalize murder or to make crack cocaine an OTC drug, but still. I think it's not really sensible to have felons vote. it just...its not right. they knew what they were doing when they comitted their crime, they knew what they would give up if they got caught, and the right to vote is one of those things.
oh, sorry mr. west. i do not remember my google account, and my aim is up there. its jessica pruett =)
and, will, its only for prisoners who have committed a felon. like murder. like mr. west said, youre not gonna lose your right to vote cause you jay walked or got a parking ticket =)
okay I found this on a debate website called legalaffairs.com, and I can't bet my life that it's true but it seemed reliable.
"... Forty-eight states prohibit their prisoners from voting--Vermont and Maine are the exceptions--and seven terminate the voting rights of ex-felons for life.
After the 2000 election, several states moved to curtail these restrictions. Some, like Delaware, shortened how long prisoners could not vote after their release. Others, like Florida, are immersed in legal battles over the topic."
I believe these exception states of Vermont and Maine are rather ignorant. I do not believe that crimilals in jail, whether it was felony or not, should be allowed to vote. In jail you give up all your rights, or DUTIES, as a citizen, including the ability to own personal property, to work, to pay taxes, etc. Basically you are losing you garantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness most literally. Thus, it only makes sense that the American duty of voting should also be lost.
Though I do beleive that after any criminal has received their just desserts and served their time that their voting rights should be immediately returned. They've done the crime, they've served the time, and now it's their chance to get back to a normal life, and they should be able to do, as any Joe Shmmoe can, vote and perform their civil duty as an American.
this is the second time I have been late, maybe a nose dive off my roof will teach me a lesson?
"I do not agree with this policy mainly because a convict may have committed a small crime, yet he or she can't vote because of it?"
I horridly disagree with Will. The "commited of a small criem part" is entirely innacurate because the question asks about those "convicted of a FELONY" which includes but is not limited to embezzlement, grand theft, illegal drug abuse/sales, rape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, battery, arson, burglury, and assault. Now I do not believe crimes of espoinage and rape are "small cromes".
"for the most part, voting is an inelianable right, right? because without the ability to vote then you are politically dead. " said Adam
well, rights are only inelianable intil you infringe on others rights, if you make a person literally dead then you deserve to be politically dead, until you have served your sentence
"I mean america should be a freedom country not letting a person vote because they been in jail is pathetic and pitaful. That is another point to mock america :D." Chen Edmund
Well Chen, American IS a country based on the ideals of freedom, thus if a persons' freedom is impeded by another, there should be consequences. Jail isn't a place where you wave your flags and recite your given rights, you are NOT free in jail, you lose your natural born right to liberty when you commite a felon. The fact thar people believe that felons are citizens like me and deserve the same rights of freedom is "pitaful"
"Will: To clarify my arguement, i bring up your point bringing up Martin Luther King Jr. You are right, he did fight for what he thought was right. The law that was in place did not reflect the will of the people and needed to be changed. So, he practiced his right to "rebellion," got a whole bunch of people to realize what he meant, and got the law changed. Since the law has been changed, he would not be arrested today, and he would have his right to vote."
I agree with Kevin's arguement against Will, and many others used the arguement fo "falsely accused". MLK is considered a hero in this day and age and their no dout that he would not be classified as a "felon" so your arguement is void.
In response to jplambabyy's comment- "I believe the bigger the law you break the bigger the consequence. Would it be right to give a killer a ticket for killing someone? No, so taking away their right to vote is one of the consequences. Simple as that :]"
I believe that they should get the right to vote still because you say bigger the law that is broke then bigger the consequence and like the government gives people so many things...while in prison. So your saying if they took his right to vote away he would still have the rest of his rights back...? Just not voting... confusing very confusing..
Response to jee lee's comment "With this thought in mind, this policy is not fair to convicts who committed a small crime that nobody got hurt such as robbing. And most of convicts know what they did wrong and feel penitent. Taking the voting right away from them is too harsh for them to live with since it means that their country is denying them as citizens."
I agree with what you have to say in which for small crimes peoples still do end up in prison.. so why would you take such a big right from everyone that has been in prison for a little mistake such as robbery or grand theft auto, you cant compare to murder two different scales.
Kirsten Cabal response:
i agree with Kristen on the matter that this cant be solved by just a straight across answer. I somewhat agree with the law but in the back of my mind i think some felonies were accidental and the ten years of being readmitted is needed. Over all i have to agree with kirsten.
BrittanyRapone response:
The fact thar people believe that felons are citizens like me and deserve the same rights of freedom is "pitaful"
i agree a felon isn't like me , i have had the discipline and respect to follow the laws of the land and i have stayed steadfast in protecting my rights by doing the right thing . It isnt that the Government is taking away people's rights when they act in prosecuted felonies , but instead it is the people who give up , willingly give up their natural rights when they invade others and break laws.
in response to Kendraya
denying someones right to vote isnt saying their not american, its saying that they have done something wrong and need the consequences for it
in response to kirsten
i agree with you on that system. but my heart goes to those wrongly convicted that have a life sentence and will NEVER get to vote again
in response to suzy t my heart goes out to the people that were wrongly convicted. for that reason i feel like if your convicted of a crime you should be able to vote. now all the people that didnt do a crime but was convicted cant vote.
___DiiAmOnD___
@ Kirsten
I am going to have to agree with what you said above. After a felon is released, their voting right should not be given back to them until a certain period of time has passed. This is a viable punishment with a fair outcome.
@ K. Reel
You definitely made a good point and you brought out the article that stated how 39 states will reinstate the voting rights to felon. I have to say you helped me make my decision more than anything else.
In responses to Suzy T's response to my comment i know that it isnt saying they arent american but whoever committed a crime has already suffered the consequences. they were in jail for however long. so after getting out they still should have the right to vote.
In response to Julia:
I think most people understand fairly easily how serious a felony is. Really. We get it. But neither that, nor whether or not a criminal can justify committing their crime is anywhere near the point. The question is whether or not a convicted felon should be allowed to vote. They have had time to think about their crime. Surely, after their "one or more" years served in prison for their felony, they have realized that what they have done is wrong. Yes, as Kevin said, they violated their social contract, but isn't that what prison is for? By agreeing to go to prison, which in many cases is really only one option of what to do after committing a crime, they agree to try and change, become better people, and reflect on what they have done and who they have hurt. Not all criminals who are committed of a felony committed their felony with malicious intent, but perhaps a poorly placed, poorly judged action and/or impulse. It isn't necessarily true that they were like "Alright, screw this social contract. I'm gonna go ruin some lives." In fact, i'd be willing to bet that very few criminals think about that.
Response to Carina:
You basically summed up what I was thinking about how the released convicts are returning to being a functional unit in society. Hence the term CORRECTIONAL facility. Since they are going to be participating in the normal aspects of life, they should be recognized, and allowed to vote.
Response to C. Lai:
I like the definition that any crime can be felonies, small and big. Thus, I do not like this policy because it seems too extreme. Like you said, "they may have had poor judgment in a decision they made at a point in time." I agree with you that giving felons voting rights is the chance for them to change. ^^
Response to A. Hoang:
I understand that a convicted felon is a convicted felon. But, I think it's too harsh for them to loose their voting rights. I think they get enough punishment in the jail. If they get punished by loosing voting rights, what's the point of going to jail? They go to jail to get punished for whatever crimes they committed.
And most of time, their crime can be a (big) mistake. But, mistakes are mistakes. Nobody in the world are perfect. Anyone can make mistakes, they're just extreme version of mistakes that we normally make in daily life. I think it's good to give them one more chance by givning them voting rights.
i still agree with the policy but Kirsten brings up a good point about some people do make mistakes so there should be some sort of solution to earning you voting right back.
K. reel even proves that a convicted felony can earn his voting right back by the process of restoring suffrage. Which is great for the people who might have made a mistake and have learned.
But while a convicted felon is in prison i dont think they should have the right to vote.
second response.
to a hoag.
whoever that is...
alright you said that they should by all means go through the process to get their right to vote back..
that is totally nonesense. and im sorry but the people who keep switching your mind? stop cause you need to keep with your opinion lol its hard to resond to you when you like both..
ok anyways. lets go with an example, its a personal one to..
my cousin in the 9th grade brought a cap gun to school, now it was for a school project and the teacher at first agreed to it, then the day he came into school he got a different response from the teacher, leading him to be arrested and getting exspelled from school. The entire school then made shirts, flyers, and had petions to bringing my cousin back to school. Since he brought a cap gun to school for a project he is a felon. So now he doesnt get the right to vote? are you kidding? he wasnt like wow well lets weigh the pros and cons of my rights, it was for a grade. So i really dont think he should go through a process and seen as unworthy to vote, he looks at politics every day and he can carry a converstation on it for hours, i dont see that what he did was wrong, i dont see a guy who gets a hefty speeding ticket who ends up in jail unworthy to vote, the people who are unworthy to vote are the people who are in their cells for life so they will never get the chance anways,
bottom line, once your out you should vote. People who are "perfect angels" in school do things that could get arrested on the weekend and end up being a felon (sorry west but its true and im attempting to make a point). Your "bestie" shouldnt be taken away their voting rights, they didnt do anything to affect the soon to be president. So those people who are so quick to judge others and take their votes away judge yourself first, make sure you are picture perfect. Because just because you dont get caught doesnt make you any less of a felon.
should you be voting?
hmm. questions questions questions.
k sorry west if i changed your image of your students. haha
peace out voters,
joanna
RESPONSE to Louis Rotea:
I completely agree with you. You bring up a point that not only are the convicts violating the laws, they are violating someone else's natural rights. More the reason why this policy makes sense.
RESPONSE to D. Gallegos
I just want to point out that you said "Therefore, I believe not every convict should be stripped of their right to vote." I think if a convict truly wants to be involved, they could always try to get the documents that guarantee their right to vote again.
I just want to add this:
If we let people who have done serious crimes in the past, where can we put standards to voting and control over society? Yes, the right to vote is inalienable. However, should that truly make anyone be capable of voting? I'm pretty sure the current government has thought long and hard enough to put a policy that best manages society and involvement of citizens. This policy is not all about stripping people's right to vote, but it is a pretty lenient policy that does put to an alternative that the convicts can petition to gain their right back.
Can we respond to a response to a another person?
RESPONSE to Jee Lee's Response to A. Hoang:
You said that it is too harsh for a convicted felon to loose their voting rights. This is a bit extreme but lets say someone got raped. Would that person say that this is a "too harsh" of a punishment?
You also say that "If they get punished by loosing voting rights, what's the point of going to jail?"
By committing a SERIOUS crime, convicts have violated a person or many people (in case of robbing a bank, let's say), and they've violated the law.
That works in two ways: violation of another individual and violation of government.
I see jail time as punishment of violation of another individual while the government's act of taking away the right to vote is a punishment for violation of law and government.
You say MOST of the time, crime can be a big mistake. Can you really justify rape, murder, and unjustifiable conscious decisions as simply a big mistake? You say nobody in the world is perfect and that "anyone can make mistake" but CONSCIOUS CHOICE of COMMITTING A CRIME is not a mistake.
In response to L Rotea
I agree that the person committed the crime might have somewhat violated the other person natural rights. But this person was only do what he wanted "pursue to happiness". If you dont let him do what he wants you would have broken his natural rights. Also if he was punish for his crime he also lost a lot of opportunity in life. He served his time in prison at least give him his natural rights back.
response to d endy
i agree with what he said that no matter what they are still a citizen of the United States. Also that right and wrong is based on society. In the past they view slavery as a moral thing to do. Abolitionist helped free slaves and they were consider as criminals. I not trying to say that today's criminals are right , but sometimes government could be bias on their decisions. The fact is we all like a pixel in a tv screen. If you dont let someone vote we just cant get a clear picture of society.
my respond to n. weisers responds to julia.
thats a goood point theres alot of people that have been at the wrong place at the wrong time and thats exactly why they shouldnt be allowed to vote they have made a wrong judgement calll for society who says they wont do it again in the voting booth? i dont want the future of my kids in the hands of someone who has done wrong with those hands.
not to mention the fact that these people have been in jail for god knows how long, they have been forced to know how to survive like a criminal theyr minds are criminal afterwards.(they should just call jail criminals paradise were you can go and get trained to be a better criminal-this is were the death penalty comes in =]
navy 23 rutger 21
response to H. Ng
this is were the never endind cyrcle of natural rights violations begins. whos violating who if somone decides its theyr pursuit of happiness to kill everyone should that be allowed even though it denys someone elses natural right to life? and is locking someone up a crime for denying them theyr natural right to pursuit happiness? well in my opinion i beleive that if your not god you cant take life and that means if you like killing thats too bad its wrong and you should go to jail and not be allowed any priviliges
=]
Response #1: KRod's response to Nick W.'s response to Julia
Just because someone has been in jail doesn't mean that they think like a criminal. So if that's your reason for not letting someone vote once they've been in jail, then I don't think it's legitamate. I mean yes, jail is not paradise or anything, but not everyone in there is a bad person. Some people just make mistakes, so that doesn't mean that once they get out they are going to think "like a criminal"
response to BShrib's response to my response to Nick W.'s response to Julia.
well i dissagree
when your in jail its like a jungle sort of like darwins survival of the fittest,those people or we could even go far enough to call most of them animals have to learn to survive in an enviroment full of rapists, murderers,etc. so once theyr out theyr minds are embeded with the criminal way of life and thats just the sad truth,they leave jail they bring theyr hood-hardened mind to the streets and not just put it to use but they pass theyr knowledge along to our tender youth.
they shouldnt be allowed to vote,most of them shouldnt even be alowed to dwell in our citys.
I agree with Chen Edmund Harmie. I don't believe that voting has anything to do with committing a crime. Sure they violated law, but that doesn't mean they lost their mind and therefore cannot vote.
Carina is the best [: She's amazing! A convict serves his time in jail, that's his punishment. Voting should not be taken away. Her argument is one that I completely agree with and is put to words well.
In response to Jcrolli:
I agree with your example of a stock broker. I mean not all crimes are made to just hurt, or harm another human being. Some crimes are made out of desperation or just from making a stupid mistake in their youth. Other people are just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that shouldn’t mean that after they have served their time that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. To me that would seem like a cruel and unusual punishment.
In response to Denise lee:
I agree that every citizen has the right to vote and that criminals are still citizens and should be able to vote. I completely agree with you that this policy is unconstitutional. I really loved your optimistic view at life, because without that view life just seems so depressing all the time.
In response to Alex D.
ok now you said “If they’re prison, they shouldn’t be able to vote because during the time they’re in prison, they are not part of society.”
I agree with you…but once they are out they should pretty much be able to vote.
They served their time in prison…they got punished for what they did.
Yes I know felony is a serious thing….put they are agreeing to go to jail and
Stay in jail until their punishment is done. Doesn’t that say that they want to change and they are willing to go to jail for what they did? We are human beings and we should be forgiven for that especially if we want to change for good.
Erica C.
In response to Kristen
what if a person was sentenced for life for something they didn’t do, or maybe not for life but was still convicted as a felon, their rights to vote should still be taken away, why?
That’s really wrong and it wouldn’t be fair.
As for the ones who did commit a horrible crime….they are still willing to go to jail,
So doesn’t that say that they want to follow orders that are given to them.
Yes I know that they picked the wrong path…..but when they are punished they are willing to take the responsibility for what they did and maybe they want to make it right by going to jail. They are still human beings like you and me….. why not give them a second chance to make it right after they are done serving their time in jail?
Maybe by their vote they can make this country a better place. It is a free country isn’t?
So why not let them vote?
Again I still disagree with this policy.
Erica C.
i dont agree with jee lees comment. even if they did commit a small crime that didnt hurt anyone else it was still a crime. it was against the law. those people knew what they were about to do was against the law but they still did it. since they did commit the crime there has to be punishments. and so the right to vote to gone. thats the way i see it. if you do something against the law you have to pay for it.
Response to Jessica Ogburn:
I agree with Jessica because some convicts might have just been at the wrong place at the wrong time. How severe the crime the convict commited should determine whether he/she can vote again.
Response to Carmen =)
I agree with Carmen because we honestly don't know if a "psycho murderer" does or doesn't have a better view of politics than someone who hasn't committed a crime. Maybe those are the people who understand politics and have a good reason to vote for someone.
#1: in response to Jee Lee:
ok so i agree w/ u that if they committed a small crime, then they shouldn't have their right to vote taken away from them, but if they murdered someone that's another thing. like u said "anyone can make a mistake,nobody is perfect." ok true, but not everyone goes to jail 4 committing a crime only those who really committed a felony and deserved to go to jail.
#2:In response to jessicadmiration:
i agree w/ u, we don't want a convicted felon deciding our future. it's true when u said that they knew what they where getting into when they commited the crime, nobody forced them into it. it was their choice, they knew the consequences, so they shouldn't be surprised if society doesn't accept them back once they are punished by the law.
Response to J. Crolli
I agree with you that different circumstances for the crimes should be taken into consideration when determining if a person has the right to choose how their country is run, but do you also believe that they should be able to decide while in prison? I do. If a person is capable of making a rational, intellectual decision, then they should be able to decide how their country runs, even if they are not able to participate in in right away, because decisions made now will most definitely affect decisions made by later executive office members.
Response to potatonessa:
You bring up a great point. People who don't know, or don't agree that they've done something wrong are the truly insane ones. They obviously do not have the mental capacity or emotional development to make an informed, logical decision about their own life, much less our nation. I would trust a murderer who was truly regretful of his actions, more than a thief who showed no remorse.
In Reponse to Cabulia:
I've been looking through the reponses, but I believe Julia's quote has to be the one that really caught my mind.
According to Julia: It's one of the basic rules you learn in journalism: statistics mean nothing if not attributed to something. I heartily agree with such a notion. One summer, I took a class on political argumentation. What was really interesting was what point my teacher made on statistics. What he told me was, in many instances, although statistics may emphasize an argument, many times, they are just estimated numbers taken from a group of people.
For example, if one were to say that 99% teens crash when they have their first car, who can truly prove that. Did someone interview the 4944465432165465465442486 or whatever teens in this world, and document every crash?
This just goes to show that one cannot be proven guilty unless, of course, one IS GUILTY.
In response to jcrolli:
I very much agree with jcrolli's point of view that although a crime can be of bad standing, sometimes the act of the crime in a sense, can be for better of society. Like what this user said, sometimes a person is convicted of a crime strictly because the person just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
In one example, Ghandi, through his preachings of civil rights, was arrested because the government found his protesting to be demeaning. But in reality, Ghandi, in the end, made a crime for the greater good of all people.
For this, who is to say that doing a crime is necessarily a bad thing? Without those dedicated people to break the laws, many of the 'civil' laws we have today would not even exist!
I agree with codee if you are commiting a crime then you know that its wrong. Therefore if you willingly disobey the law then why should you get to vote?
and yeah life isn't fair it sucks but hey deal with it
In response to Julia:
I know that it may seem like people don’t understand what they are doing when they do it only when they get punished for it BUT I think that to some extent they do. When I wrote out my initial blog I referred to people who were driven by so much anger of fright that they could not even come close to comprehending what they did just that they had to do it. Ask and father or mother if they would KILL for their children? I can almost guarantee the answer is yes. So let’s say the commit this crime and they did it and there is no way of denying it, so they take whatever punishment is given to them. This does not mean they didn’t fight to tell their story or they are not upset by it but they take it. Once they have severed there SO CALLED CIVIC DUTY they should get back what they lost.
Besides you say that everyone knows what they are doing and that you can’t justify a FELONY. Well you are also assuming that the justice system is DOING THERE JOB which does not always happen…. People that are defending themselves OR HELPING OTHERS have been thrown into jail for what…. BECAUSE maybe they didn’t have enough money for a good lawyer or maybe they had a past that was brought up and weighed too far against them, so they got convicted. I just think that no matter the reason once they give back whatever it was they needed to they should be able to get there rights and freedom back. It should not be question it is a RIGHT. They agreed to go to prison and to repent to some extent and it does not mean that they were right in what they did but just because at some point in their lives they MADE A HUGE MISTAKE does not mean they can’t change and that they don’t want to. So we should give them the chance to be, isn’t that OUR CIVIC DUTY!
Response #2: Erica Calva
Ok Erica I totally agree with you! If someone is willing to serve their time in jail for the crime that they committed then they should be allowed to rejoin society with all of their rights. If they are willing to serve their time, and they get out of jail and are trying to change and become better, then they deserve to get their rights back to vote.
:]
Response to KRod:
I still disagree with you. Not everyone who goes to jail is a bad person. Some people who go to jail may not have even been guilty, so it's unfair to say they are like "animals" Yes I agree that jail does horrible things to you, but not everyone is affected that way. Besides, what about someone who is in jail for a couple of months? You think in two months that they have lost their mind or something and now they don't even deserve to live in our cities? That is completly unfair and wrong.
In response to Kevin:
I think that people make mistake and YES there are people out there that chose to commit a crime even a felony but no one but them knows the reason why. There may even be someone out there that commits a felony just to prove that they cannot be governed. But to but everyone in the same un-caring group is just plain unjust. And yes I do understand what he is saying as that there are many that wish to no longer be governed and therefore should no longer be recognized by the government itself. BUT TO SAY THAT EVERYONE THAT COMMITS THIS CRIME IS DOING JUST THAT SEEMS UNFAIR. It might not mean a lot to many people that cannot vote whether they are in prison or not but when they get out they should have the rights of every citizen. I mean what makes these people want to repentant if when they do they are still treated like a felon. They will be looked at in a different light for the rest of their lives and we don’t even want to give them their right to vote. What faith? I would want to chance to change.. wouldnt you?
to annkang1005
i agree with what she said
"The people who have committed the crime basically neglected their duties as citizens to follow some of most serious and consequential laws, and should not be entrusted with voting."
i think thats totally right. but she also says how not all people register to vote. and if they really really want to vote then they should go through the process of voting.
some people are saying that they change after their punishment and should be able to vote. that maybe true but in some cases they dont change and still do bad things. so i liked what annkang said about if they want to vote that badly to file it in court or whatever and then vote.
In response to vanessa f, i agree that the right to vote for a felon must be limited. Most of the people who used drugs are not allowed to vote. Felony like drug addiction is a serious crime, for it must be the limitation of the policy.
In response to h. ng
you say that when someone commits a crime it may violate someone elses natural rights but you also say that the one committing the crime was only doing what they wanted to "pursue happiness," and so if we don't let them do it we are violating their rights. So what you're telling me is that if someone rapes, murders, or robs a bank that we should just let them do it because they are pursuing their happiness, thats ridiculous!! And yeah they will lose a lot of opportunities in life but that's because they were being really stupid and maybe they should just be held up in "time out" for awhile. And again its not like the right is taken away forever they can get it back if they want it that bad and i have no problem with that.
Response #1 gygaust1n
“Yea I believe there are some pretty crazy wacko's that are strung out on drugs and constantly in and out of jail for all kinds of issues and I don't think they should be able to vote because if you aren't going to act like a human and respectable citizen then you shouldn't have the rights of one.” I agree with Austin, people have to act like a citizen to have the same rights as citizen. It’s kind of like respect: you have to give respect to get it. If the people with felonies want a second chance, then they should move to a state that allows them to get their rights back.
My 2nd response to r. velasco. I would agree with him. They might change or not inside. They did suffer in prison and somehow, realize that this is their consequence for their wrong action. They must be allowed to vote.
so i'm gonna be lazy and put both the peer responses in one, just to let you know. :P [though im sure others have too]
my first response would be to amber kane: she said: "When sentences are completed, the right to vote should be restored. All humans make mistakes." as said, all humans make mistakes. the person may have been so messed up psychologically, maybe they didnt consiously realize what they were doing. [sorry that was my own side comment, no relation to what amber said...-_- oh well]. but as she said, the person could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and first time offenders that traded "a guilty plea for a smaller sentence" should still have the right to vote. And one more thing i agree with her on, we should try to find ways to include everyone in the community and not block certain people out. maybe those felons cant vote, but maybe they can find a way to help somehow else in the community.
my next response would be to joanna c. i liked the example that she used, especially since it was personal. just because he brought [from what it sounds like, and kind of assuming] a toy gun into school for a project, and the teacher agrees then turns around and gets him into trouble, should he be really stripped all his rights? well since he was in still in school when it happened, [im probably taking this completly out of what had actually happened, but trying to use an example not so severe...] taking away lets say his ability to interact and be involved with school activities, sports, clubs, etc. that would be like taking away the felon's whose crime was small voting rights. he knew what he was doing, and assumed it was ok because the teacher said so, but he got in trouble because of what he was told he could do. just doesnt seem right.
and response to another of joanna's posts: the one with the stockbroker who lost his job. in a way its reasonable for that to happen, trying to find money to temporarly support the family without having to lose everything you own. he knew what he did wrong, but because of the situation he was in, it was pretty much his last choice. well he couldve looked for another job... but maybe he couldnt get it in time to pay the humongous amount of bills sitting at home. well thats my opinions so...yeah. :)
btw, sorry if theres mispellings or if nothing makes sense... i cant see without being like 4in from the screen...:( [broken glasses...sniff sniff]
Response to W. Fang’s original post:
Hey Will, sorry, but I must disagree with you. We’re talking about felonies here, so those aren’t small crimes. A person convicted of a felony should not just have the privilege to vote automatically; felonies after all, are quite serious. The fact that they committed felonies means that they have no respect for our society, therefore they should have no say in it.
I agree though that they deserve a second chance, but voting can affect too many people to be given to a person who is willing to disrupt other people’s rights.
As for your examples, the reasons they were put in jail were racially-motivated. In this day and age, I don’t think, or rather, hope those things will happen again.
Response to Jee Lee’s original post:
Again, felonies are serious. I think criminals who committed misdemeanors can still vote.
Also, in my opinion, voting is a privilege, not a right. The government should be allowed to take it away from people who do not deserve a say, from people who have no respect for the society.
~Louis Rotea
in response to Suzy:
i agree. they're convicted felons. however if they get out of jail, that means they're on good behavior. and i'm one to give second chances. so give them their second chance in society.
in response to delgado:
agree to an extent. i agree with the "you have to give respect to get it". especially with the matter at hand. if they want to screw up their life and go to jail all the time, then they can. but they shouldn't be included with the rest of society because technically when they're in jail, they're not IN society. they're not a part of it. they're simply a tag along.
Response #2 Jessica Ogburn
“I think that it should depend on the degree of the crime.” I totally agree with Jessica on this one. It depends on the type of crime committed. There is a difference between assault and kidnapping or rape or murder. There should be a process they should go through to access the grade of the felony. There just isn’t a close comparison on a felony where people got hurt to a felony like grand theft auto.
Response to bridget
She said "If the vote will affect their lives, they should be able to affect the vote" but their vote is going to affect other peoples lives as well not just their own, so if it was because of felons who voted that George Bush had 2 terms in the office, we were all stuck with him. So if felons didn't vote we might have had a different president, and wouldn't be stuck in all this stuff today.
Response to Carina
Carina said "The time that the felon serves is supposed to allow the person time to reflect and change. So after being released from prison, why should the punishment continue with the removal of the right to vote?"
First of all barely any felons change, its a proven fact. It has been shown that 65% of the felons go back to jail after their release. Why would we give them a right to vote if there is a higher then 50% chance that they gonna do somethin stupid again? Someone would say we should be nice, and bla bla bla. Nice is stupid and stupid is never smart. To prevent stupid decisions we need to think in advance and ask ourselves "what if?", because everyone is affected with the decision being made.
NO!NO!NO! If the person who committed this haneous act does not deserve to vote. Notice it said FELONY.... Which is a big crime not some petty steal bubble gum from 7 11.. Plus the only reason this person probably committed this crime was because he was uneducated or a drop out. Maybe not i dont know is that he will not vote. Oh so i guess im saying i agree with the policy.. not like anyone is gonna read my blog anyway... ha ha
a little late...but i agree with xsana and sarochin.i believe that the people who have convicted a felony are paying for it during their time in prison.They are not fugitives they are prisoners who are serving their time. i believe that taking their right to vote is taking a big part of their citizenship as an ameriacan. after all prisoners are only people who have been caught of commiting a crime.what about the people who have committed a crime but have not been caught? they have the right to vote though they're not serving time.so i believe that convicts should have the right to vote.
i also somewhat agree with k.cabal.
this is a tricky situation. because there are many situations in wich people get convicted for a crime they did not committe.but i still believe that they should have the right to vote.
original post: i do not agree with this policy because i belive that everyone should get a second chance. after all justice is being served while they are in prison. though this does not erase the fact they they impacted someone's life by committing a crime they have agreed to do their time.unlike the many criminals who roam the street with no justice being served.
I agree with w.fang, because we share view points. Of committing a small crime and being blamed for a crime that the person did not do. You stated a great example like plessy vs. ferguson. You seem to back up your argument to the fullest.
Chen, what is so funny? I do agree with you even though it sounds like a joke. But reading what you said sounds like you have something against america. Would you laugh your ass off if criminals that committed sineous crimes be able to vote. Well chen this is my opinion of what you had to say.
Ann's comment made me rethink my view. I agree with her arguments. It makes sense for convicts to have to regain their right to vote after violating the law.
However, a "felony" is not always a "serious crime" as Ann said.
As Julia posted, 3 DUIs are considered a felony. But they are not anywhere near as "serious" a crime as murder, etc.
@ Michael Hsu:
But shouldn't a felon be given a chance after he/she has already served time in jail? Jail in itself is a punishment. The felon should not be punished his entire life for something he/she did at one time.
I also don't agree that a murderers' vote should be viewed with disdain. Just because I hate someone enough to kill him/her, does not mean that my views on my government are wrong or injust.
Ultimately... convicts deserve the right to vote, but should have to EARN the right back.
so was just shutting down my computer and i saw this page behind everything and i realize my post never postedfrom the other night . . . i dont know if its worth anything but whatev
i dont agree with this . . . because so many people who go to jail use it to better themselves and come out with a new outlook and a great education. for example malcom x who went to jail and came out knowing how to read and became very involved in activism and politics to a certain extent. also, a criminal who wants to get involved is a positive thing. if they want their thoughts to be heard then let them and if they dont care then they wont register.
every citizen has the right to vote as long as they are able to have natural rights then they hsould be able to vote
i have to disagree with will. Voting is more of a privelage than a right. The people that commited the crimes is against society so why should they participate. If they are found not guilty then they will get their rights back. No prob.
My 2nd response is to Kirstens. I agree with her logic. A person can win back their rights with good behavior.
I do not agree with this policy, if a person has committed a felony and has done his time then he/she should be able to get all his/her rights back and be able to vote. They shouldn't be punished for life. Hopefully they've learned their lesson by spending however much time in jail. That person is still a citizen and should be able to vote.
In response to James
Yeah they committed a felony but they did their time and that person should be able to participate in voting again.
In response to Will
I agree with what he said, everyone makes mistakes and deserves another chance. Convicts still have a mind and can make the right decision and know and vote for what is best for our country and vote
Post a Comment