31.2% of all black men in florida have been BANNED FROM VOTING FOR LIFE

[unblock]

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o-01.htm#P101_2428

nationwide, the rate is 13.1%.

frankly, you've got to be either oblivious, or a hardcore republican, or both, to think that disenfranchisement of felons and ex-felons isn't politically and racially motivated.

i have a 'modest proposal'. why don't we just go back to the original drafting of the constitution and treat blacks as 3/5th of the rest of us? in fact, in florida, it seems we're approaching those numbers.

this is inexcusable. there is absolutely no compelling reason to strip any citizen of the right to vote and it is plainly, obviously, evidently opens the door to political and racial abuse.

does disenfranchisement lower crime?
does disenfranchisement help anything at all?
does disenfranchisement deter criminals?

no. all it does is make it easy for republicans to turn blacks and others they figure more likely to vote for democrats away from the polls. nevermind the ability to strech the disenfranchisement by having republican corporations screw up the lists and turn away even more likely democratic votes.

this is all bull.

end disenfranchisement NOW!

[spooked]

1. maybe that's what's behind

3 strikes and you're out?

[HamHocks4Kerry]

8. Of course it is.

[Revolution1]

161. Are there any white felons that are allowed to vote?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

164. I don't know - do you?

:shrug:

[thisismyboomstick3]

196. I'll bet they are.

Would it suprise you if they allow white felons in Florida to vote and not blacks? They probably are a bunch of inbred *-loving rebs.

Methinks it be a conspiracy.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

197. Hmmm- interesting theory

hmmmm

[Pachamama]

222. My understanding its "Felons" - but since the large majority of Felons are

minorities (versus Caucasians) then they have that covered real well.

[spooked]

2. maybe that's what's behind

3 strikes and you're out?

[Mojambo]

3. I'm shocked they haven't burned that entire state to the ground

I would.

[Revolution1]

163. That is illegal

And doing illegal things is what gets a person in prison in the first place.

[Frodo]

4. Of course there's a simpler alternative`

Tell people who you think will vote Democrat to maybe....


I don't know....


NOT commit felonies?

[Cheswick2.0]

10. Sure Frodo, lets pretend that this isn't a racist country

Let's pretend that black people aren't being accused of and punished for crime they did not commit at a higher rate than any other group. Let's pretend that black men who commit crimes aren't more likely to get arrested and charged with more serious crimes than the white guys they give chance after chance to go straight. Then let's pretend that the charges for Crack and Cocaine aren't different because of racist drug laws.

[Frodo]

16. "Let's pretend" something else?

If you DIDN'T commit a crime, then you don't need a change in LAW to get your voting priveledges back.


And PLEASE let's not pretend that only black folks commit crimes?

[RetroLounge]

49. Pure and total bullshit

RL

[Frodo]

51. Thanks for the thoughtful input

:hi:

[RetroLounge]

53. You get what your post deserves

and next time try spell check...

:bye:

RL

[Frodo]

55. So you're saying....

that the solution to people being FALSELY accused of a crime is...

... make sure they get their voting rights back after they serve 20 years in jail??

[unblock]

59. so you're saying ...

that we might as well leave in place a political reward for falsely accusing someone of a crime?

[Frodo]

62. You think it's a reward?

I'm pretty sure falsely accusing someone of a crime IS a crime.

Again, the solution to the problem is NOT getting rid of the punishment for actual crime. It's in punishing ACTUAL CRIMINALS.

[unblock]

64. it's a reward for political partisans

to deprive the vote from someone they think is not on their side of the political fence. and i think giving the police, or a prosecutor, or a judge, or a jury even, a partisan reward for framing someone is a BAD IDEA.

if someone has committed a crime, by all means, lock 'em up. but dangling the carrot of influencing the next election in front of people is an invitation to false accusations and other travesties of justice.

[kiahzero]

86. "If you're law abiding, you have nothing to worry about!"

"If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about!"
"If you're not a Jew, you have nothing to worry about!"

All examples, progressively more egregious, of the same kind of thinking: "My civil liberties are the only ones worth protecting. It could never happen to me!"

[Frodo]

105. BZZZ! Wrong answer. No partial credit for showing your work

These are not "the same kind of thinking". Commiting a crime is something you DO (including terrorism). Being a Jew is something you ARE.

Or are you saying blacks ARE criminals???

[unblock]

106. bzzz! wrong answer. you're waaaay to naive

think of gays. they can't so easily get away with discriminating against people because they ARE gay, but it's much easier to discriminate against people who DO gay things.

note, specifically, that certain homosexual acts are felonies in some states.

they could just as easily deny the vote for wearing a yarmulke by making THAT a felony. fortunately, jews have enough political clout to keep that one from happening. at the moment.

this goes back to the crack vs. cocaine thing. they apparently figured out something that blacks do more so than whites, so they made that one the felony.

[Frodo]

110. Riiiight. Cocaine is a felony BECAUSE blacks do it more than whites.

I really buy that.

Can't think of ANY other reason why crack dealing should be a crime?

And your "gay felony" example is begging the point. Notice how it's being addressed? They're working toward making homosexual acts NOT crimes instead of leaving them as a crime and lessening the punishment. Your argument would LEAVE sodomy a crime... just not take away their voting rights. I'm sure they will be SOOOO pleased.

And I can't think of any examples of it actuall happening that people lose their voting rights for being gay.

[unblock]

112. frodo, stop putting words in my mouth.

i never said crack was harmless, nor did i say it shouldn't be a felony. what i implied was that cocaine should be treated that same as crack, and it's not. and, gee, coincidentally, cocaine is used more by whites and crack is used more by blacks. so i just wonder about the legislative wisdom there.

as for homosexuality, it may shock you to find out that i have positions on issues other than disenfranchisement, and i happen to believe that homosexuality and all homosexual acts should be legal. this position has nothing to do with disenfranchisement.

when exactly did i imply that i was a supporter of ever stupid law in existance other than the disenfranchisement penalty?

as for examples of gay disenfranchisement, there aren't many examples because felony sentences for homosexual activity are rare, as you pretty much have to catch someone in the act. however, it does happen. bowers v. hardwick, the georgia sodomy case from 1986, pertains to one example. i don't think disenfranchisement came up in any of those proceedings, but it happened automatically.

[Spiffarino]

117. Exactly: Cocaine is a "white" drug, crack is a "black" one.

Or more specifically, crack is cheap and poor people (who are often minorities) can afford it.

So Frodo, explain to us why a vial of crack will always land a person in jail whereas a gram of cocaine often gets a slap on the wrist. Both are felonies, right? Both are crimes committed by choice, right? Are you saying that there is no racist element here?

Please explain your logic, because all I sense from your posts is a puritanical shame/guilt/punishment worldview. In other words, people are all bad and can never change so why not punish them eternally?

[Frodo]

119. According to ferderal sentencing statistics

Powder cocaine offenses are 50% Hispanic, 32% black, and 18% white. So WHERE exactly is the "racist" element?

That's still a pretty big imbalance. And I find it hard to make the case you didn't realize you were making that those mean republicans were trying to take away black votes but are just fine with hispanics. I also point out that the sponsor of the legislation to normalize penalties between crack and powder cocaine was a republican. AND I point out that the mean sentence for POWDER cocaine is six years. You would lose your voting rights just a quickly at six years as a ten.

BTW - Weapons were involved at twice the rate in crack cases and crack is more addictive.

My prefered solution would be to make both punishable at the level crack is at now.

[stickdog]

124. WE ALREADY LOCK UP MORE PEOPLE ON DRUG CHARGES

THAN ALL OF EUROPE LOCKS UP ON ALL CHARGES!!!

It's not working, dude. It does NOTHING to solve the problem. NOTHING. It just makes the problem worse.

Treatment works. Jail doesn't. It's a HEALTH issue. It's only a crime issue because people like you want it to be punished more severely than manslaughter or aggravated battery.

I'm not saying to LEGALIZE crack and heroin. What I'm saying is that users and PETTY dealers (as in tiny amounts for you and your addicted friends) and all nonviolent criminals for that matter, need to be treated differently than violent criminals and organized crime rings. Criminal justice for small-time nonviolent offenders should stress REHABILITATION, not punishment. And REHABILITATION includes the ability to win back your right to vote.

[Frodo]

126. Is "kiddy porn" a non-violent crime?

Nope. It really isn't. REALLY

And neither are drugs. You think people are dying in our streets because drugs are illegal? Are they dying in our streets because they have guns or knives?


They're dying because of DRUGS. You can pretend that your personal little habit isn't killing people if you want. But it will get no more sympathy from me than the kiddy porn addict who claims that all he does is look at pictures. HE never raped any of those kids.

And I NEVER said drug usage should be less severely punished than manslaughter or aggravated battery.

[kiahzero]

130. An argument advanced in the 1920s

"They're dying because of ALCOHOL!"

Prohibition didn't work then, it doesn't work now. But feel free to stay on your high horse while simultaneously having your head in the sand. It's entertaining to watch.

[Frodo]

147. Ding ding ding! Give the man a cupie doll

Almost 150 posts before somebody claimed "crack is no worse than alcohol"

I'm shocked we haven't seen tobacco in that mix yet.


Thanks for bringing a little humor to the party.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

156. Yes, of course, crack is the only drug there is.

Marijuana doesn't exist, no siree. And if it did exist it would be AS BAD AS CRACK!!! Yeah, right.

You're arguing by fallacies and you know it. The poster you replied to never mentioned crack. That's called a straw man.

[Frodo]

167. "Straw man"?

You didn't happen to notice the subject of this line of posts did you?

Is posession of marijuana an automatic felony?

Lastly, your "argument" ("Marijuana doesn't exist, no siree. And if it did exist it would be AS BAD AS CRACK!!! ") fits your description of "arguing by fallacies".

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

175. Don't insult everybody's intelligence by pretending not to know...

...what sarcasm is. And implying that people are defending crack when they're not IS a straw-man argument by its very definition. Not to mention the venomous innuendo of using the phrase "your personal habits".

[Frodo]

181. You read selectively, eh?

The "your personal habits" was in direct response to a similar comment to me. Neither was intended to say the other person was a crack-head. But if it was, why would you be upset? EVERYONE does these kinds of things, right? We just don't all get caught?

And we were in the midst of a discussion of the effects of crack habits on the inner city. I said it was KILLING our children. The response was that the same argument was made about alcohol during prohibition (it wasn't, but who cares). What IS that saying if it isn't saying crack is no worse than alcohol?

[kiahzero]

207. Straw man

They're dying because of DRUGS. You can pretend that your personal little habit isn't killing people if you want. But it will get no more sympathy from me than the kiddy porn addict who claims that all he does is look at pictures. HE never raped any of those kids.


This argument is unclear, but it seems, in junction with the paragraph above it, to be arguing that drugs are responsible for the violent crime of the dealers. I responded by pointing out that a similar argument could have been advanced in the 1920s, during prohibition, when mafia violence was funded in part by bootlegging.

I was in no way claiming that "crack is no worse than alcohol." Of course, had you recognized that, you wouldn't be able to ignore the point entirely in favor of a sarcastic "rebuttal."

[stickdog]

131. My PERSONAL habit?

:wtf:

My friend, that is way out of line.

Yes, many drugs are bad. That's why the people who use them need help.

Do you wish to convict me and lock me up in jail, too, just because I believe this?

[Frodo]

146. lol. If you had an Internet connection... how would I know the difference?

As for "you're personal habit". I meant it long the same lines as you saying "you and your addicted friends" in the post I replied to. :-)



And no, I don't have a problem with fixing disparate treatment in sentencing or (an equal problem not yet addressed) dissimilar treatment on who get's CHARGED with a crime (I suspect middle-class and up often don;t get charged with some crimes a poorer person might).

I'm just saying the solution is to change the sentencing guidelines where they are improper. Or to loosen the re-enfranchisement process for some types of crimes. NOT argue that we toss out rules that say murderers don't get to vote.

[stickdog]

149. If you are in jail or even on probation or parole, you don't get to vote.

That's fine with me.

Any more than that is Jim Crow redux.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

157. I EAGERLY AWAIT FRODO'S ANSWER TO THIS POST

Come on????
I'M WAITING!

[Frodo]

165. I would prefer.

"While on probation or in jail (for a felony)". After that you can petition a "citizens council" (effectively a jury of peers) to regain your voting rights. That council would give non-citizenship crimes preference for returning voting rights.

"Non-citizenship" crimes are crimes against yourself and only impact your "respect for the law" as opposed to "citizenship crimes" that harm other people (assault, rape, murder, theft above some amount, stealing elections, etc). Drug dealing would fall in to that category in my book... drug possession/consumption would not.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

169. Keep in mind that the sentence + probation is FINITE.

And the state chose to LET THAT PERSON OUT after that. I fail to see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. What harmful effect could come out of that? It serves as much the public good as not allowing them to have a phone or Internet access or driver's license. What's the point? And this state bureaucracy you propose seems to serve no other goal than allow discrimination and politicking. There's too much state bureaucracy as it is.

Now, if you believe that sentences that are finite shouldn't, then it's another discussion.

[Frodo]

173. Not always

You're associating "punishment" or "sentence" with merely the time served in jail. But in many states you can't EVER own a gun again for certain crimes (regardless of whether your jail time is over). The "sexual predators" list doesn't clear up when your parole is over. Certain crimes carry PERMANENT loss of driving priveledges.

All of this is perfectly ok (with me). And some states say if you commit certain crimes (felonies in this case) you permanently lose your ability to vote. If there is some mechanism for appeal of that PART of the sentence or demonstrate renewed civic duty, then I don't have a problem with it. If you want to keep the right to vote, don't do the crime.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

177. Access to guns, cars, or potential victims, may cause harm to innocents.

How does that apply to voting?

[Frodo]

185. Wait.... but they've "paid their debt" to society!

They shouldn't be treated like they are STILL criminals!

Voting allows them to influence the creation of laws that they have already shown they do not respect. The two-time felon doesn't like "three-strikes-and-you're-out", so he votes against it. The drunk driver doesn't want to automatically lose his license the next time he does it. The statutory rapist wants people to understand that 12yr olds really CAN consent. The crack addict would like to de-criminalize drugs so he can buy better quality imports at lower prices.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

190. I don't like three-strikes law either.

What's wrong with voting against it?

For the truly outlandish cases, it's them against the bulk of society. Do you seriously think a politician that advocates a 12yo age or consent will get very far? Unless 60% of the population is sex criminals, in which case society has a much bigger problem than voting rights.

[Frodo]

192. Me neither. So we agree on something?

Nothing is wrong in voting against it. But you wouldn't want the man guilty of a crime influencing whether it WAS a crime the next time he did it.

12 years is exageration to make a point. But the age-of-concent laws ARE something that gets voted on, and there ARE politicians who would like to decriminilize behavior that currently falls into the category of felony today.

[wuushew]

204. I fail to see your point

All members of a society that are able to vote should be able vote on issues that affect them. People have different opinions on the appropriateness of drug use, consensual activities, personal freedom laws and the harshness of punishments. No doubt you will now raise the objection that small communities need their prison money. I disagree, no one is forcing these communities to build or even maintain these facilities and I would argue that if one would weigh the two issues full enfranchisement is more a "right" than a community's desire to bring in more revenue and jobs.

All the laws of our country are the result of a majority opinion. When we purposely deny the vote to those who it may affect we our doing ourselves a disservice by limiting public input. An ex-felon may have valid opinions on local and state tax issues, zoning variances, etc. The Ex-felon having experienced the criminal justice system first hand is somehow not entitled to have an opinion on the process? You seem to think that all personal behavior is selfish and against the public good, but the last time I checked this country had not become an Ayn Rand libertarian fruitopia. Is this not true of felons as well? The hypothesis is easy enough to validate by looking at the voting results on similar policies between states that enfranchise ex-felons and those who do not.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

179. Dupe - self deleted

[Pachamama]

223. If someone has served their time for a crime & still a citizen, why should

they not have the rights of other citizens and still be able to vote? I mean, if they had a sentence, served it as dictated by a jury of their peers already or judge, and then come out of jail (even if on parole) and are working and paying taxes, shouldn't they as tax-paying citizens have the same voting rights as others? Isn't that taxation without representation without the right to vote? Where's the constitutionality in that?

[DoNotRefill]

123. if you look at the disparity in sentencing....

between powder cocaine and crack cocaine, I don't see how you can conclude that it's anything BUT racist.

If you get convicted of having X amount of powdered cocaine, you get sentence #1. If you have exactly the same amount (X) of powdered cocaine that has been turned into crack, instead of getting sentence #1, you get a far stiffer sentence. The amount of drug is the same, it's the nature of the drug (one being viewed as a more "black" drug) that gets the increased penalty. Either that, or the legislature has decided to severely penalize the possession of baking soda with the possession of cocaine.

[Frodo]

128. I've looked. It appears to be racist in favor of Hispanic against blacks.

[stickdog]

132. So that makes it OK? That it treats Latinos even worse makes it OK?

Please explain your logic.

[Frodo]

145. Ok (but it isn't MY logic, It's statistics applied to THEIR logic)

The rationale cited here implies that crack is a "black" crime and powder cocaine is a "white" crime. And that, since whoever wrote the sentencing guidelines is a racist republican, one gets punished worse than the other... particularly since, in this case, it will result in fewer Democratic votes.

My post was pointing out that NEITHER is a "white" crime by that standard. THe statistics showed that crack is an overwhelmingly "black" crime (I don't buy the definition, but the numbers imply it), while powder cocaine is overwhelmingly hispanic and black (with a larger, but still tiny, percentage of white abusers).

That doesn't fit their assumptions. Why not "kill two birds with one stone"? They could disenfranchise FAR more Democratic voters by having the same sentencing standards.

No, it's far more likely that the disparate treatment is the result of HOW crack came about as a political issue. At the time it was considered FAR worse (more deadly, more addictive, far cheaper), so politicians (as they are known to do) jumped on it in the only way they know how. They can't solve the problem, so they pass SOMETHING to make themselves look good. Like "we can't ban guns, so we'll raise the sentencing guidelines for any crime commited with a gun". As if murder with a knife is less dangerous than murder with a gun.

[stickdog]

150. The point is that FAR more WHITES get busted for coke than for crack.

That's why the penalties are much harsher for crack than coke.

Rich politicians' kids might get busted for coke, so the penalties are a little more reasonable -- even against the political pressure of millions of braindead "war on drugs" super-zealots like you trying to give every user the death penalty.

[Frodo]

151. Yeah, but

it's still way more blacks (and particularly hispanics) than whites. So if the goal was to impact the electoral outcomes, wouldn't you use both?

[Tight_rope]

214. Keep dreaming Kiahzero...being law abiding have nothing to do with it!

It's pure racism...and until you have been part of a group that has been racially profiled to do harm against or picked on you can "NEVER" understand what Blacks (People with dark skin), Mexicans, or even orientals go through.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Oh! I understand!

You believe that people who are convicted for felonies actually do commit felonies.

Sadly, the poorer the defendant, the higher the rate of wrong conviction. In many places -- Florida, for instance -- false arrest and conviction rates among the poor and black may exceed 50%.

And THAT'S a crime.

--bkl

[unblock]

13. this is yet more bu**sh**. why do they even face that test?

of course no one should commit felonies at all. DUH!
the point is, there's no earthly reason to take away their vote other than they know it tilts the playing field in their favor.

what if democrats had the power to selectively disenfranchise people and they decided that only white collar felonies deserved disenfranchisement, and also that anyone who traded more than so many dollars in the stock market also gave up the right to vote on the grounds that that much money corrupts the political process of some other feeble excuse.

the point is that it's not about the felony. no one thinks about disenfranchisement when the commit felonies, though i'd bet prosecutors think about it when they consider what charge to bring. and politicians think about it when they decide which crimes warrant disenfranchisement. and since none of these crimes have anything to do with voting, they consider only such things as which crimes are committed more by blacks and other suspected democrats.

our founders would not at all have liked the idea of politicians picking and choosing who gets to vote. furthermore, the trend has been to widen the vote -- to blacks, to women -- and now to start restricting it?

it makes no sense at all. it's terrible government. the only thing it's good for is to make it easier to get republicans elected when the people would rather have a democrat.

[Frodo]

20. "No other reason"?

How about we don't want felons determining public policy?

[unblock]

38. banning felons from GETTING elected is another thing entirely

that one's not nearly as unreasonable. though it, too, is subject to potential abuse, at least any such abuse would be fairly public, and hence infrequent.

felons and ex-felons are as affected by governance as anyone else. letting them has a say in who runs the state and country is hardly opening the door for mayhem. please try to show one example ever in history of ex-felons even coming close to tilting the vote in a damaging way?

[Frodo]

42. Lol! Ummm 2000?

First of all "decisions are made by those who show up". The concept of democracy is that the voters (when it works anyway) control public policy by who they elect.

As for your second question. I think it's pretty obvious that if Florida did NOT forbid felons from voting, Gore would be President with no doubt about court decisions. So there's your "one example".

[unblock]

46. are you saying that president gore would have led to mayhem??!?

of course i'm acknowledging that disenfranchisement has an impact.
you had argued about felons voting leading to mayhem.

you're saying that if they could vote, and the gore won, that we would have mayhem??

[Frodo]

50. I didn't say felons voting led to mayhem

The example I gave was in regard to felons still in prison.

The NON-felons haven't been doing that good a job lately either.

I just said that, as a matter of public decision, people have said they don't want felons having a say in who runs the country. I guess it boils down to the evidence that you have shown you don't place the good of society at a high priority (since you break their most serious rules).

It's a fundamental disconnect. He who shows no respect for rules should not be MAKING the rules.

[Barret]

77. That's not how it should work in a real democracy

"people have said they don't want felons having a say in who runs the country"

Of course the US isn't a real democracy so I suppose this attitude isn't surprising. What about if people say they don't want non-whites or female people to vote? What about GLBT people? Or what about poor people?

Why do you get to pick and choose? You could make an argument for why each of those groups shouldn't be able to vote. Of course then you just start walking down the path to rule by the elite...

[Frodo]

101. The problem there is obvious.

You're lumping in things that people are born with and have no control over (gender, color of their skin, sexual orientation, etc) with their behavior (committed a serious crime).

It IS improper for a society to determine who controls things by bigoted factors outside a person's control. CRIME is NOT such a factor.

You are essentially saying what has been hinted at more than once.... and it's an insult to people of color everywhere. "Those poor darkies can't hep it. They's jus bad to the core" I know that isn't what you mean, but the implication that people commit crimes because of the color of their skin (or more generally because of their political persuasion) is offensive to me. White folks in similar socio-economic conditions are JUST as likely to commit crimes as black folks are!

[unblock]

109. oh please! they disenfranchise blacks and so I'M the racist!

wow, you ARE good throwing the muck about, aren't you?

i didn't for one minute imply that anyone commits a crime simply because of the color of their skin and i thoroughly resent the implication. get off your high horse about who's being offended.

visit the link i put in my original message. that website shows that ACTUAL effect of disenfranchisement, as well as some of its history. you correctly pointed out in another response that some of these laws are reconstruction era, or at least, were motivated by a desire to circumvent the post-civil war amendements.

statistically, blacks are WAY more affected by disenfranchisement. i never said or implied that blacks commit more felonies because of their skin. in fact, one thing i DID say was that republicans and bigots have been determining exactly WHAT is a felony and what is not. i have suggested that those decisions are motivated by racist and/or partisan desires.

yes, white people in similar socioeconomic conditions no doubt commit similar crimes in similar numbers. although, again, i don't think this holds for crack vs. cocaine. in any event, blacks are disproportionally in lower socioeconomic conditions.

[Barret]

78. Hmmmm....

"He who shows no respect for rules should not be MAKING the rules"

So you've never gone over the speed limit? Never drinked before 21? Never made any poor choices when you were young that could have landed you in jail?

Haven't several good democrats in office admitted to experimenting with marijana at some point in their life? Are you saying these people should not be making the rules? After all - they comitted a felony, except unlike the poor black guy down the street they were not caught and/or charged. Yet many of these officials have worked to do great things for the country.

People screw up. A person getting charged for smoking majiruana (for example) is not by default an inherently bad person who "shows no respect for the rules". In fact, I would wager the vast majority of african americans in jail for that crime would NEVER authorize a war that would lead to the deaths of thousands of innocents as certain rich white people would...

Damn right I would rather have someone convicted of a non-violent crime in charge compared to this regime.

[Frodo]

102. No actually

I've never made any coices that could land me in jail. Jail is not the result of "bad luck".

Yes, I've exceeded the speed limit, but it's got to be way beyond speeding to go to jail. And drinking was legal when I was 18 (and younger overseas).

And smoking a joint is NOT a felony. You're lumping all crimes together as if selling crack to inner-city 12 year olds is no worse than jaywalking.

Again, if you think certain crimes are not as bad as the punishment given warrants, you're making a different argument. And one that doesn't get a whole lot of support. The trend these days is to INCREASE punishmnets for crimes most dangerous to society (committing a crime with a gun, etc).

[stickdog]

125. Your willful ignorance makes me vomit.

Educate yourself. Throwing people in jail for petty drug offenses DOES NOT solve anything.

http://www.corporatism.netfirms.com/rates.htm

http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/poor/ppexec.html

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/race/

http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/984

http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/race/educationvsi/

[Djinn]

127. you don't beleive in rehabilitation then?

why not just keep EVERY crim in jail for ever because your logic seems to be if they fucked up in the past (maybe decades ago) they can't possibly be fit to ever make a judgement re the political direction of their country. What a total crock.

If they can't vote (and I don't mean people serving a sentance but those released) they shouldn't be taxed.

[69KV]

172. You make choices every day

...that can land you in jail. There are so many laws on the books today that every single person breaks the law multiple times a day without even realizing it.

The only difference between those with felony records and those who do not have them, is THEY GOT CAUGHT and somebody decided to prosecute. Try and tell me with a straight face that this process is color-blind.

[Frodo]

176. Tell you that "with a straight face"???

I'm surprised you were able to make that POST with a straight face.

Everyone commits multiple felonies a day without realizing it, eh? Care to give an example?

And no, the process is NOT colorblind. I learned that for the first time when I moved to Norfolk, VA in 1980. But the solution to fact that some men are improperly charged with murder is NOT to decriminalize murder. We can't say "some sentances are too long for racial reasons, so the maximum sentence for any crime will be 2 years in prison".

[69KV]

195. I suppose

...you have never ever downloaded mp3 files, or broken the speed limit, or gotten into the car after having a couple of drinks, or smoked marijuana, or made an innocuous mistake on your form 1040. I'll even bet that if I came to your house and inspected it, it would be completely compliant with the building codes. You're perfect. You have never jaywalked, you have never made photocopies of any copyrighted material. You certainly aren't gay, because "sodomy" was a felony in about half the states until the courts finally struck those laws down last year. You have never looked at any porn beyond Playboy, I'm sure, since that is a felony in some jurisdictions. Never ever committed adultery (a felony in many states), never ever even had sex out of wedlock. You're perfect and I apologize for ever thinking you were anything else. As for the rest of us, I guess we're all just riff-raff.

Also, this argument of yours that I want to decriminalize murder - where in the world do you get this from? I said I think felonies should be limited to crimes deserving of the punishment, like murder. Let the punishment fit the crime. It's absurd that somebody can get 5 years for murder, but 10 years for drug possession.

[Frodo]

200. Let's use the short answer. No.

You didn't say "everyone has broken a law at some point". You said that the ONLY thing keeping us from being guilty of FELONIES was wether we have been caught.

So no, I have not commited a felony, period. Ever.

And I'd be willing to bet the the vast majority of DUers would say the same thing. You don't need to be "perfect" to not commit felonies. It really isn't that complicated.


And I wasn't exagerating your position on murder. I wasn't saying it WAS your position. I was talking about an excellent example of the kind of crime whose prosecution is cleary racial in some states. I wouldn't want to let everyone out of jail who was convicted in that state (though I would be influenced to suspend any death penalties).

And yes, "It's absurd that somebody can get 5 years for murder, but 10 years for drug possession". That doesn't mean you completely get rid of one to fix the system. I wasn't aware posession was a felony, but ok.

[69KV]

183. "He who shows no respect for rules should not be MAKING the rules."

And that's why George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who were felons under British law, should never have been allowed to be heads of state, right Frodo? Are you saying that American Revolution was illegitimate?

And Nelson Mendela should never have been allowed to govern South Africa, and Lech Walesa should never have been allowed to govern Poland, and...

[Pachamama]

224. Well, with that argument, then if Felons were allowed to have voted in the

2000 Elections would have actually done this country a great service in that election by "electing" President Gore....that would have been good public policy.

Actually, lets take it a step further....if Katherine Harris and the firm hired to "produce" the list of Felons not allowed to vote hadn't added to the list "names" of people sharing the same last name etc. with those Felons and scrubbing the list, then maybe those disenfranchised voters could have also helped in making a good public policy decision for our country and having their vote counted too as well as having President Gore?

:eyes:

[olddem43]

56. I'd rather have felons determine public policy than Repugs.

[Frodo]

72. HEY! Let's use THAT on political advertising.

People are SURE to vote for us NOW!


lol.

[stickdog]

134. No, we can't. What can say is that WE HAVE TO MANY FUCKING

PEOPLE IN JAIL.

And itt's costing all of us an arm and a leg. Our taxes go to make sure they don't pay any taxes -- for years and years and years.

There's a better way. And that's separating violent, constant and otherwise heinous/aggravated offenders from petty, nonviolent criminals and drug addicts. With the latter, the criminal justice system needs to stress rehabilitation. It's just the PRAGMATIC thing to do.

You, on the other hand, would rather PAY A LOT MORE to punish petty, nonviolent criminals and drug addicts than it would cost you to give many a much better chance to make something out of their broken lives. What does that say about you to you?

I realize that you would NEVER commit a crime yourself. I realize that this fact makes you much SUPERIOR to anybody who would even consider running afoul of the law in any way, shape or form. However, does this really mean you think any who is convicted of any felony is forever irredeemable and deserves eternal punishment? Because, if so, I'd suggest to you that your own eternally damned soul could use a little searching as well.

[unblock]

143. right, we can also rail against the "incarceration culture"

these private prisons are making big money and worse, are LOBBYING congress and legislatures and influencing what's illegal and what the sentences are, so that they can make MORE money.

this opens up some obviously scary possibilities.


i should also point out that disenfranchisement hardly seems reasonable, e.g., for someone who, say, committed a single felony 50 years ago. i mean, is it really right to say that someone who committed tax evasion or insider trading or assault at the age of 21 should have no say at the age of 71 in who the president is, after having successfully served their one year non-prison sentence a hal century earlier?

[Barret]

76. Do you have a poor short term memory?

So we don't want "felons" who became felons chiefly because they were black to vote.

I am also of the belief once you serve your sentence (ESPECIALLY if it was for a non-violent crime) you should get ALL your rights back - including the vote.

[kiahzero]

87. Oh, that's right, we want to treat them as less than human

That way, they continue to commit crimes. Yay!

Oh, wait... the goal is to REDUCE the crime rate. Maybe not treating ex-convicts like shit might help that goal... but then we couldn't hold on to a desire for vengence. Numbers instead of names it is.

[69KV]

180. What part of

"No taxation without representation" don't you understand?

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. You make civil torts a felony and we'll have 60% white males

losing their votes within 5 years.

[Frodo]

24. There's a reason some crimes are "felonies" and some are not.

And it has little to do with race.

There are plenty of "white collar" crimes that carry the same disenfranchising penalty. And frankly, not to stand up for my race or anything, but white folks break the same laws black folks do.

[unblock]

33. putting aside such sentencing as crack vs. cocaine,

yes, this has been done with a fig leaf of political cover to make it seem non-racist and non-partisan. but you're kidding yourself if you think that's not what it's all about.

even putting aside race, my argument stands. republicans figure that disenfranchisement tilts the remaining voting pool in their favor. that's why they like it and that's all there is to it.

[Frodo]

39. So try to change drug crimes from felonies to misdemenors.

That's really what you're proposing. Let's make the penalties for drug crimes less severe than other crimes ("because they are more likely to be committed by people of certain colors"?????).

Maybe you need to join the libertarians?

[unblock]

41. no, no, no, no, no! not at all!

why on earth should i make all crimes, or any crime, a non-felony, or reduce its sentence, simply because i think that the ADDITIONAL punishment of disenfranchisement is wrong?

why can't we let the term of the sentence be determined by the seriousness of the crime, and leave voting out of it?

[Frodo]

48. How do you define "punishment"???

If I get sentenced to a year in prison, loss of driving priveldges, and a $10,000 fine.... why is only the jail sentence part of the "punishment"???

If you want to leave current felonies with the same punishment, but let drug crime offenders keep rights other felons don't.... that's basically making drug crimes NOT felonies.

You wouldn't be alone. A vocal minority on both the far left AND the far right advocate such changes. But it doesn't sell very well to the rest.

[unblock]

52. of course it's all part of the punishment

but in florida, you can't have a crime with a 1 year punishement (definition of felony) without also disenfranchising the criminal.

so it throws politics into everything. i think some crimes deserve very long sentences, possibly including drug crimes.

but i think it's very bad governance to let politicians pick and chose voters. letting politicians point to certain people and say, "we don't want you voting" is a very, very bad idea.

[The Backlash Cometh]

118. Actually, white collar crime generally occurs with people who

have access to power or authoritative positions. They abuse their positions for personal enrichment and the only way to stop them is to have $10,000 - $100,000 in the bank in order to sue them. Not very many of us peons have that kind of dough, and even if we did, those kind of people have connections to the judges and prosecutors who could possibly be doing the same thing.

Sorry, but this kind of power translates to "mostly white-folk." Someday it will be an all inclusive club because absolute power corrupts absolutely, but not today.

[Frodo]

120. "White collar" crimes are not by definition "non-felonies"

There's no "white collar" exemption for getting your voting rights back.

[The Backlash Cometh]

121. It's just more difficult to prosecute,

And certainly not as high on the priority list as crimes categorized as "street crimes" which allows police greater power over the individual such as "stop and frisk."

Can you imagine what would happen if you had moles at the country club and the rotary club who would actually turn in people who are bilking the people in their community? Life as we know it would cease.

[69KV]

174. Sure there is

You can move to another state where ex-felons can vote. You can move out of Florida.

That is not an option for most poor people. It is an easy option for white-collar criminals.

[Frodo]

189. That doesn't make much sense

Poor people can't move from state to state?

It's the guy who owns a house and has a job he can't replace in this market who has a tough time moving.

Interesting though - that you think the loss of the right to vote would cause a person to turn his life upside-down - moving away from friend, family, and job...

.... but it isn't enough incentive to keep a guy from shooting up that crack? (or however one consumes crack)

[LittleApple81]

65. I cannot believe what you are saying. I have a friend whose son got

caught DUI and with marihuana in his pocket. He was 18. The parents paid the lawyer ($1,500 fee), a $2,000 fine, he got a diversion that will disappear from his record after a year, hopefully.

How many black kids that get caught with the same infraction DON'T have the money or the parents to help them through ONE stupid youthful indiscretion and get a permanent record that won't allow them to ask for loans for college, and will have a permanent stain on their records because they are sent to jail? LAW AND JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOT BLIND.

[Frodo]

73. That's not the laws, it's the enforcement.

We already know that's a problem. But the solution isn't "let's get rid of some of the punishment for the people who commit crimes since some people will get away with them"

It's to make sure that people DON'T get away with crimes.

BTW, it doesn't sond like he got off lightly. One DUI with some mary-jane isn't a felony unless you injured someone. Losing your liscense for a year plus $3,500 in costs sounds like he didn't get away with much.

[LittleApple81]

74. Yeah, but a person without the $3,500 will spend time in jail. n/t

[stickdog]

84. Bullshit. Drugs and petty dealing shouldn't be FELONIES at all, Frodo.

They are health problems of both person and cultural health.

Poor = self-medication = illegal drugs = felony conviction

Rich = health care = presciption drugs = productive office job

or

Rich = self-medication = illegal drugs = rehab or a slap on the wrist.

The United States has a highly percentage of citizen in jail on drug charges than Europe has in jail on ALL CHARGES.

[Frodo]

99. Ok, I get it. Cocaine is just antibiotics for poor people?

Now I see where I went wrong. </ sarcasm>

Feel free to join the libertarians any time now stickdog.

"Drug dealing shouldn't be a felony". Now THAT's a campaign slogan I can see winning a lot of votes.

Drugs and (specifically drug dealing) is DESTROYING our inner cities and killing off an entire generation of our kids. It should be FAR MORE of a felony than many other crimes.

[stickdog]

122. You're nuts, Frodo. Get a grip. Petty dealers are a SYMPTOM.

You've obviously never lived in a neighborhood in which friends consider it a FAVOR if you'll pick up some drugs for them -- drugs that they'd get otherwise anyway.

Under these circumstances, it's like saying that it should be a felony to pick up smokes or beer or Prozac for the rest of your housemates when you are getting your own.

It's bullshit. Half of your friends are probably popping some sort of serotonin pumping pharmy. Should we charge their doctors with felonies and lock them all up?

Yes, crack sucks at making productive office workers compared to serotonin pumping pharmies. So why don't we attempt to treat the problem at its source -- poverty, desperation and lack of primary health care? Do you really think locking everybody up in jail and stripping their voting rights away from them for life is doing ANYTHING to SOLVE the problem???

[Pachamama]

225. Rush Limbaugh hopes his Drug use doesn't count as a felony...

he might support the campaign that painkillers are antibiotics for hate spewing windbags like himself....

:evilgrin:

[tom_paine]

141. That's DemocratIC, frodo. You can't say it, can you?

Democrat-IC

You are so vilely transparent in your reasoning, in your red herrings.

The issue here is NOT the fact of whether or not there is more per capita black crime vs. white crime.

The issue here is disenfranchisement of black males at a 2.5 TIMES rate as the rest of the country. That doesn't ring a bell? So, the REAL QUESTION (which as ALWAYS you DODGE like a Faux Talking Head) is WHY is the felony disenfranchisement rate so differnt on Florida than the rest of the nation. What does Florida do MORE to felony disenfranchse?

Are Florida's African-Americans more prone to criminal behavior in Florida?

:puke: :puke:

I await your answer as if I was awaiting a Faux Special with Brit Hume. It will be interesting to see how you dodge the direct question and obfuscate agin.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

159. Wow, good call.

And his/her "dodging" style reminds me a lot of some extremist punishists who were tombstoned not so long ago. You know, people who can't grasp the concept that it's possible for a punishment to be excessive.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

154. You do know your "argument" can be used to justify the most outlandish...

...punishments imaginable, don't you?

"Tell people who don't want to have their hand cut off to maybe....
I don't know....
NOT commit felonies?"

Now, tell me again, why barring a person from voting after having COMPLETED a sentence for a felony is a good idea?

[69KV]

168. Look, Frodo

Look, there are only a tiny handful of states that disenfranchise ex-felons for life, and Florida is one of them.

They also include Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Virginia, and a couple of others. The only one north of the Mason-Dixon line and/or west of the Mississippi River left that does this is Iowa. The three western states that had lifetime disenfranchisement laws, Nevada, Wyoming, and New Mexico, all repealed theirs during the last few years.

I don't see how much clearer the issue could be. This is the last vestige of the old Jim Crow laws, and the primary target is to keep African-Americans from being able to vote.

The "don't commit felonies in the first place" argument is ridiculous for two reasons: 1) Once an ex-felon completes their debt to society they should be completely re-integrated back into society with all rights restored, and 2) There are too way many felony laws on the books.

Then again, I'm of the opinion that "felonies" should be limited only to violent crimes such as rape, murder, and robbery, and property crimes such as burglary. Most things which are felonies right now should be misdemeanors. Until that happens don't expect me to look kindly on "don't commit felonies in the first place" type of arguments.

In any case, no state has any business enacting its own special restrictions on the right to vote. There should be one federal standard, and I don't see any justification for any other standards besides 1) 18 years of age or older and 2) U.S. citizen. We need a federal voting rights amendment so the laws in Florida, Alabama etc can be struck down as unconstitutional.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

182. Don't forget copyright infringement too. Was a misdemeanor, is a felony.

Download music from Kazaa, never again vote. How sweet is that?

But ooooooh, DON'T COMMIT THE FELONY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!! PUNISHPUNISHPUNISH! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[whistle]

5. Mass disenfranchisement leads to revolution is my guess...

...and what happens to one group in our society, will most certainly happen to all others in one form or another.

[69KV]

170. That's a good point

I once looked at the numbers, and if current conviction and incarceration rates continue, the U.S. is going to have more than 50% of people with records in about 30 years. That's the entire U.S. population, not just African-Americans. Right now the % of African-Americans with records (including misdemeanors) is already approaching 50%.

What happens then? Revolution?

Many are misdemeanors, and in most states ex-felons can vote, but these people will still be subject to a lifetime of job discrimination and the like. Unless something changes, to either reduce the conviction rate back to pre-1970 levels, mass pardons and expungement of records, or making employment discrimination and pre-employment background checks illegal, this country is headed for disaster. We have "tough on crime" politicians and the "war on drugs" to thank.

[takebackthewh]

6. Or maybe ...

>>i have a 'modest proposal'. why don't we just go back to the original drafting of the constitution and treat blacks as 3/5th of the rest of us?<<

... blacks should avoid committing felonies?




:think:

[bluestateguy]

7. This will only be fixed by unelected judges

That's right, you heard me. Unelected actvist liberal judges will be the only way this injustice can ever be rectified. People who do their time and pay their debt to society must have their rights of citizenship restored. I'm sorry, but I just don't trust the people or the legislature of a southern state to put together a majority vote to do anything that will be of benefit to black people.

[shadu]

9. A lot of felonies are pure BS

Those convicted of felonies for non violent crimes
should not be disenfranchised!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. this is all bull.

Stastistics show that if a former felon or a non violent offender votes for a particular candidate... that candidate will be 31% more likely to commit a felony while in office.

[unblock]

15. lol!

i'd venture that statistics would show that if a former felon wanted to vote but couldn't, the candidate's OPPONENT would be 31% more likely to commit a felony!

[Cheswick2.0]

14. no one should be disenfranchised

anyone who has paid their debt to society should have their voting rights restored.

[unblock]

18. it goes beyond that. NO ONE should be disenfranchised.

there no reason to keep current felons from voting. it's not like it would disrupt a prison to give them a form to fill out.

nor is disenfranchisement a reasonable punishment. really, there's no point to it other than political gamesmanship. it certainly has nothing to do with punishment or rehabilitation.

[Frodo]

23. There's another answer to your #13

There are plenty of counties where the local prison is a significant portion of the population (on occasion a majority).

The inmates would literally run the asylum.

"Let's vote for Joe, he'll tax those homeowners down the street out the wazoo and build us a decent swimming pool!"

"A chicken in every pot and plasma TVs & high speed internet in every cell"

[unblock]

31. you don't think state and federal laws can handle this situation?

a governor would certainly score major political points by proposing legislation that overrules such counties.

[Frodo]

37. So now a Governor can diessenfranchise people at will??

So felons get to vote unless someone else decides (s)he doesn't like the results?

Besides, in our system, certain powers belong to certain levels of government. A State government can't take away all governing powers from a county (especially ONE county over all others in the state).

[unblock]

40. i don't know where you got the 'gov can disenfranchise people at will' bit

i was just talking about passing state laws to prevent your example of a county doing objectionable things because current felons have a majority in that county.

but i'd also argue that your example doesn't exist, in the sense that these big prisons who could 'outvote' the rest of the county are already controlled by the state and/or federal laws.

i really doubt there are many counties with a majority of residents in county lockup.

[Yupster]

91. There's one near me

in Sheffield Texas.

If the inmates were allowed to vote, the entire county government would be behind bars. The prison population easily would overwhelm the rest of the county.

I'm sure there would be other places in west Texas where the same thing would happen.

[Pithlet]

96. For the rest of their life

means after they're out of prison, too.

[Pachamama]

226. Don't forget the people disenfranchised in FL for sharing names w/ Felons

This is still the real untold story of the 2000 election that will eventually be told in history as one of the biggest shames and scandals....the scrubbed names because they shared the same last names or names in common with listed felons and then not allowed to vote. Even if the Felons had been "excluded" from voting in Florida, the people whose names were scrubbed because they had the same names, would have been more than plenty to put the state of Florida in Al Gore's corner, making him President....

And guess where most of these people whose names were scrubbed lived and what their race was? That's right - primarily democratic districts and not caucasian :eyes:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

28. Who has paid their debt.....

including the ones on death row that has NO BUSINESS being there.... I guess they have paid their "debt" when some of them have been in there for 5, 10, or 15 years.....

If you want to see a GREAT FLASH presentation on this very issue... do do do check out www.unprecedented.org IT IS GREAT.... and it sorta goes along with www.gregpalast.com a great site that covers the theft of the 2000 election in great detail... it's as good as it gets.

[RoeBear]

30. Are you willing to...

...give them back all their rights?

[TeacherCreature]

171. delete

sensitive topic

[coreystone]

17. Pardon my naiveté, but,

I thought that once an individual paid one’s “debt” to society, that one’s slate was cleared. Stupid me. I am speaking of the “ex-felons” and voting rights, which seem to be the greater proportion of those being disenfranchised.

What are the US Constitutional grounds for allowing these laws not to be overturned?

:crazy:

[unblock]

22. these most likely violate the voting rights act as well

if a disenfranchisment law has a racial impact, it violates the voting rights act even if the law was not designed with racial intent.

proponents of disenfranchisement look to section 2 of the 14th amendment:

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


note that it mentions the right to vote being denied ... for participation in rebellion, or other crime .... it's not clear whether this amendment was meant to apply to say, mere possession of a forbidden drug. "rebellion, or other crime" would seem more to be intended to deny the vote to someone who is involved in trying to overthrow the government.

nonetheless, this is the established constitutional basis.

[Frodo]

29. Depends on how you define "paid one's debt"

Does sitting in a cell "pay one's debt to society"? I don't know, but I was under the impression that the punishment assigned in court was your "payment".

That is, if you get five years in jail and five years of parole, you haven't "paid your debt" until the ten years is up (not just when you leave jail). By this interpretation, the loss of voting privileges is part of your payment.

[coreystone]

35. How about year eleven,

after the "court assigned punishment" has been completed? Are these the individuals who fall into the "ex-felon" category?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

155. You still haven't justified banning them from vote FOR LIFE.

So? I'm waiting. What's the reason?

I know the republicans' reason: it's because it helps them get elected. I'll give you (for now) the benefit of doubt and assume your reason isn't the same.

[vetwife]

82. Corey, uh the republicans squeal its State Rights but I say

its State Rapes

[Yupster]

92. 14th Amendment

Section II

seems to be the closest point to addressing the issue.

[olddem43]

19. Rather than lowering crime it probably has the opposite effect -

Crime is partly the result of hopelessness and taking away another little bit of control over ones life doesn't help. Voting always made me feel patriotic and hopeful. Disenfranchisement is another slap to someone who has paid their debt and bound to make them angry. I wonder if there are any statistics on recidivism in places where this is practiced vs. places where it is not.

[CaTeacher]

25. this is just racism pure and simple.

someone came up with a scheme to disenfranchise black males--and of course the repugs have run with it. We need to publicize this--I don't believe that the majority of people will agree with this type of open racism.

[RoeBear]

36. If we did give the vote back to felons can you imagine...

...the 'Willie Horton' ads that the repubs would be putting out?

[ProfLefty]

97. Pure and simple racist disenfranchisement.

If African Americans voted repug in the numbers that they in reality vote progressive democratic you would not see this type of systematic racist disenfranchisement. Because the repugs hope to hoodwink a sizeable portion of the hispanic vote you do not see them systematically disenfranchising latino voters in the same way they are doing with African Americans.

[RoeBear]

104. Explain...

...please.

[unblock]

26. consider this NIGHTMARE scenario

republicans, after studying the political impact, extend disenfranchisement to anyone who ever received a traffic ticket, or whatever. maybe it's not traffic tickets, just imagine something like that. jaywalking. something. you get the idea.

now the only people who can vote turn out to be 80% republican. especially because republican judges and prosecutors carefully scrubbed the records of many republicans.

so guess what, now democrats don't have a chance to get back into office to undo any of this! and republicans can claim to receive landslide victories!

doesn't it sound like letting the government pick and chose voters is a BAD idea?

[Frodo]

34. WHY are you assuming we commit more crimes than Republicans?!?!

[unblock]

45. i'm not .. i'm just assuming republicans can find SOMETHING

that we do more than republicans. if there are 100 types of crimes and 80 of them are committed more by republicans and democrats, then republicans would make the other 20 the ones that cost you the right to vote.

that's my point. it's too easily manipulated for political purposes, in fact, the entire point is one big political manipulation.

it's all about people in power picking and chosing voters in order to keep power.

look, if the racial aspect of this is throwing you off, forget about it. let's just say they did a study and found that drug users vote for democrats more than republicans, so they decided to make drug crimes felonies and to make felonies cost the right to vote forever.

doesn't it sound like a BAD IDEA to let the government do this?

[Frodo]

54. You keep saying that but claiming that you're NOT.

The dividing line is not "crimes republicans commit" and "crimes Democrats commit". It's "Felony" and "non-Felony". Ok?

Your claiming that government is deciding what should and "should not" be a felony based on factors OTHER than "how bad a crime is it".

So fine, if you want to fix the system, change WHICH crimes are "felonies" and which are NOT.


But you're giving your political opposition a he11 of a campaign issue.

[unblock]

57. but they CAN decide what's a felony by who they want to disenfranchise.

for instance, making possession of a day's supply of crack a felony while making possession of a month's supply of cocaine a misdemeanor*.

(*i have no idea what the exact quantities involved are).

[Frodo]

60. I AGREE

But the proper recourse to that problem (as I've hinted) is to fix THAT law.

My preference would be to stiffen penalties for the powder cocaine, but whatever you want. (My STRONG opinion is that these drugs are DESTROYING our inner cities far more than the vestiges of racism are.)

[unblock]

66. the law won't get fixed as long as there's a political incentive not to

and THAT is my point. politicians do this in the first place because it tilts the voting population in their favor. with a major political effort, you MIGHT be able to fix such laws, but as long as the incentive remains for politicians to pull this crap, they will just do it again.

they'll find some other crime that works in their favor politically to raise it to a felony and maybe another to reduce to misdemeanor.

can't you hear the politicians scheming, "damn the public safety impact, we've got an election to win!"

[Frodo]

71. I guess the problem I have is that you are mostly correct.

People would largely agree with the statement "politicians do this in the first place because it tilts the voting population in their favor".

But the problem is that "politicians" is not limited to Republicans.

So when Democrats propose granting rights to felons (and the media reports that they are largely Democrats), it damages US. Is sure LOOKS like we want to give "bad guys" voting rights they don't currently have so that we can win elections we wouldn't otherwise win. That's a tough sell. We're admitting we can win elections with the votes of non-criminals.

This is Willie Horton in spades.

[unblock]

88. i DON'T want to give the right to vote to felons

rather, i don't want to give the right to politicians to disenfranchise them.

that's what safeguarding rights from governmental abuse is all about.

[Occulus]

90. Frodo, instead of fixing the 126,874,398,564 laws that

result in felonies... why not fix the ONE that says a felony conviction causes the loss of your vote?

Why do you want the solution to this problem to be so much more difficult than it has to be?

[Frodo]

100. Hmmm. Maybe because the lighter the punishment the more likely the crime?

The easier it is to "get away with" a crime, the more likely it is that someone will commit it.

I'd like to believe that some people, not wanting to lose the right to vote, might NOT actually commit a crime. I know it's a stretch, but it was my original point. We used to have community leaders stand up and say "If you do THIS you're going to ruin your whole life - and here's an example of how that can happen".

NOW we just have people saying "let's just get rid of the punishment - then their lives won't be ruined".

[unblock]

111. ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! just TRY to find one person deterred from a felony

by the powerful threat of disenfranchisement!

you can't be serious. the threat of at least 1 year in prison wasn't quite enough in and of itself to deter the crime, but gosh, throw in NOT VOTING and yeah, that'll make 'em walk the straight and narrow!

look, if you want to argue that the DEATH PENALTY deters crime that life imprisonment doesn't, i might hear you out on that; but, please, taking the vote away turns away crime that the year in prison does not?

[Occulus]

137. the problem with the death penalty/deterrent argument

is that there are only certain crimes that warrant the death penalty. Personally, I don't agree with it in the first place, but we're talking about it being a deterrent to crime. It can't be a deterrent to all crime, however.

If we wanted to make it 100% effective, we could apply the penalty of death to all crimes- even traffic violations. that'll keep the people in line.

For about five minutes. That's how long it would take America to rise in revolt and toss the bastards who pulled that little plum.

(yes, I was being sarcastic, but I do happen to agree with you.)

[Occulus]

135. You're missing the point a bit.

You seem to want a lifetime punishment for a single crime if it's a felony. Never mind what the punishment is we're talking about, if the state is going to punish you for a felony, that punishment should not extend beyond the sentence imposed. It's not even a deterrent to recidivism; it's actually a catalyst to recidivism. They have no hope to participate in the decisions that affect them. Why should they, then, in their minds, be subject to any laws passed?

I've actually heard this from one or two people I know personally who have gone to prison. They don't ever want to go back, but it was impossible for them to find a job via an employer. They each had to open their own businesses doing things (such as tattooing) that a "respectable" person would not choose as a profession.

They, however, have no choice. They are not, once released, in my experience often given a chance to prove they've reformed, and this trend is growing each and every year. We simply brand them with the scarlet letter and shun them away. I've personally witnessed this exact thing happen to a prospective employee.

What I'm trying to say here is that your attitude toward felons voting doesn't stop with voting- indeed, in my state, it also extends to employment: "You may apply- everyone is free to apply- but you will not be considered due to your criminal record." This from having told truthfully on the application that you indeed have a felony on your record.

"If you've never, ever been convicted of a felony you can't x, y, z" is escalated to the American people's fundamental rights, we are setting up the conditions for open revolt, as more and more people are being convicted of more and more crimes each year. It's also interesting that we keep adding laws, not repeals are few and far between- but that's a different issue.

I hope to change your mind on this one, I really do. Can't vote or own a gun (even for protection) because of a felony conviction? Maybe someday we'll render felons' larynxes inoperative because they don't deserve to have their words heard.

We're already on the way there.

[stickdog]

136. Do you have any EVIDENCE for these wild claims?

And how about all of these people?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2181515http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2181515

How would you punish them for their crimes?

[stickdog]

138. Because he's BETTER than those damn FELONS!

No punishment is too severe for those damn FELONS! They committed FELONIES, don't you know? Maybe they'll think twice about committing their next felony when they realize that their voting rights have already been stripped from them for life!

[unblock]

144. exactly, now, where's the incentive to be good?

by advocating lifetime irrevocable punishment, he's also advocating REDUCING punishment for future crimes. once you've taken voting rights away for life, you can no longer hold that threat over someone. so the punishment for the second felony is ONLY actual prison time. the branding as a felon that makes aa straight life so hard and the disenfranchisement aren't going to change ever, whether you commit 6, 20, or zero further felonies.

[Frodo]

148. Ok. So you're arguing ANY punishment is too severe

No punishment at all! Let 'em murder people - it's a free country!

No need to add hyperbole to the mix.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

186. YOUR post is hyperbole. STICKDOG's post is

a correct assessment of your line of argumentation in a nutshell.

[Frodo]

193. You were saying something earlier about sarcasm?

lol.


Right. I really said "no punishment is too much for them"?

[Catt03]

27. I suspect that the majority of these

are drug related.

[Killarney]

32. wait a minute...

so, in Florida, if I get arrested and do a year in jail and then get out and I'm a good citizen, blah blah blah... I can NEVER VOTE ever again for the rest of my life?

I figured once they were out of jail their voting rights would return? That's fucked up.

[unblock]

47. that's right!

if you want to vote, you have to move to a state that doesn't do this. either way, you can't vote in florida.

[Frodo]

103. Lol!

"...if you want to vote, you have to move to a state that doesn't do this."


How about, "if you want to vote, you have to NOT COMMIT FELONIES"???

Why is everybody acting like the commission of a crime is something that just "happens" to people? Like you have no control over it?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

158. ANSWER THIS: Do you like the songs by the rock band The Pretenders?

Do you? Particularly, one that has "come on baby" in the lyrics?

[Frodo]

191. Not familiar with them

Am I showing my age?

[vetwife]

80. Wake up ya'll..Not only do you lose voting rights. I could tell you more

Down here in Dixie. If you are convicted for a felony you lose your voting rights, most are on probation for years and years and years and you can never own a firearm and your felony is part of your record when finding a job and guess what...Its like no debt was ever repaid to society. You are punished forever. You mess up and you go straight to jail.....Now thts a fact and it is black mostly because of the poverty and inequality for so many years but don't kid yourself, here are plenty of poor whites, native americans and hispanics looking at the same bat and sent out to sea with the blacks. True..Its culture as much as racial.

[vetwife]

81. You can't own a firearm either or have one in your possession

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

184. But that's only for felonies that involve guns, or am I wrong? (nt)

[goforit]

43. This is so sad.

[coreystone]

44. Thank you “unblock” for starting this thread.

It would be interesting to research each state to ascertain when the legislation was passed; and, under which gubernatorial executive and US President.:think:

[Frodo]

58. The best argument for this point of view

is that many (if not most) of these laws were passed in the wake of the Civil War. By Democrats certainly, but we might not consider them Democrats by today's standards.

It can certainly be claimed that such laws had as a partial goal keeping former slaves from voting. But poll taxes, literacy requirements, and "grandfather clauses" were more properly tools for that purpose.

[unblock]

67. that's a good argument

though i'm not certain that felony disenfranchisement is purely from the reconstruction era. in fact, i think a number of states have added this relatively recently.

[unblock]

68. here are a few examples:

Disenfranchisement of ex-felons is imposed even if the offender was convicted of a relatively minor crime or even if the felon was never incarcerated. For example, Abran Ramirez was denied the ability to vote for life in California because of a twenty-year old robbery conviction, even though he had served only three months in jail and had successfully completed ten years of parole. Sanford McLaughlin was disenfranchised for life in Mississippi because he pled guilty to the misdemeanor of passing a bad $150 check. As Andrew Shapiro, an attorney who has closely studied criminal disenfranchisement, points out, “an eighteen-year-old first-time offender who trades a guilty plea for a lenient nonprison sentence (as almost all first-timers do, whether or not they are guilty) may unwittingly sacrifice forever his right to vote.”

[Frodo]

70. Sorry, I should have been more specific.

Florida added it at that time (at least as I understand it).

[depakid]

61. Florida's ACLU is currently involved in litigation and other efforts

to overrule this reconstruction era travesty:

http://www.aclufl.org/issues/voting_rights/florida_voting_ban.cfm#litigation

It will probably end up being decided by the US Supreme Court, since most Floridians will not support a ballot initiative and getting that legislature to so anything remotely reasonable would be like asking a paraplegic to climb a flight of stairs.

[unblock]

63. i'd put my money on the paraplegic

it's the quadraplegic that faces the real challenge climbing stairs.

[unblock]

69. here are a few examples

Disenfranchisement of ex-felons is imposed even if the offender was convicted of a relatively minor crime or even if the felon was never incarcerated. For example, Abran Ramirez was denied the ability to vote for life in California because of a twenty-year old robbery conviction, even though he had served only three months in jail and had successfully completed ten years of parole. Sanford McLaughlin was disenfranchised for life in Mississippi because he pled guilty to the misdemeanor of passing a bad $150 check. As Andrew Shapiro, an attorney who has closely studied criminal disenfranchisement, points out, “an eighteen-year-old first-time offender who trades a guilty plea for a lenient nonprison sentence (as almost all first-timers do, whether or not they are guilty) may unwittingly sacrifice forever his right to vote.”

[Barret]

75. No shit!

"frankly, you've got to be either oblivious, or a hardcore republican, or both, to think that disenfranchisement of felons and ex-felons isn't politically and racially motivated."

Do you think it is any coincidence that non-whites are a minority, yet are the majority in prison? And take a look at how many of those are in for bull shit minority-target enabling non-violent crimes like marijuana.

The republicans love knowing this. If we actually allowed anyone who has been released from prison to vote we would slam the republicans in every election.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if this is why the republican party doesn't actively promote violence against democrats yet. (as it would cost them votes)

[vetwife]

79. Can't vote in Georgia if you have been cnvicted. Wonder what

the ratio is here?

[unblock]

89. 10.5% of all black men; 2.5% of all adults

it's in the link

[69KV]

178. Ex-felons can vote in Georgia

In GA they automatically get their right to vote back when the sentence is completed. Which means that 10.5% of African-American males in Georgia, and 2.5% of all adults in Georgia, are *currently* in prison or on probation for a felony conviction.

This is absurd. We really do have an incarceration culture in this country.

[Walt Starr]

83. IMO, persons in prison should be allowed to vote

or during the census they should be coun ted as living at the address they had when incarcerated.

Small, podunk, redneck towns benefit from the prisons by getting more political clout because those prisoners are counted in their census, thus affording them representation they do not deserve.

[stickdog]

85. It's Jim Crow redux. Nothing more and nothing less.

Anybody who looks at Southern (and all of US) conviction rates carefully can't come to any other conclusion.

[CaTeacher]

93. there is just no excuse for this.

It is step one in a long-term plan--a plan of genocide of black males. I don't see how anyone could support this. It is just plain evil.

[ProfLefty]

98. Right on!

The simple fact is that one in every four african american males in this country is either incarcerated or in some way involved in the criminal justice system...that indicates without question a thoroughly racist system that is rotten to the core. They may no longer where sheets and pointy pillowcases over their heads but their goals and the end result is still the same.

[AirAmFan]

94. A little history: ADMITTED RACIAL MOTIVES led to these disfranchisement

laws throughout the South, after Reconstruction. Like poll taxes and literacy tests, which Florida case-by-case provisions for restoring a few dozen felons' voting rights every year resemble, felon disfranchisement is a legacy of chattel slavery that morphed into slavery in everything but name..

Decades of Southern political demagoguery and race-coded blather about "crime" apparently have brainwashed even some DUers in this thread into thinking there's some non-racial explanation for Florida's disfranchisement laws, which have withstood recent "electoral reform".

From http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0101.thompson.html (3 of 6) <8/8/2004 1:59:33 AM>

"Reconstruction Never Ended

As with so much of this country's past, a large part of the history of felon disenfranchisement hangs on the issue of race. It's no coincidence that blacks are harmed the most by felon disenfranchisement; many of the laws seem to have been drawn up for that purpose. Many states disenfranchised criminals even before the Civil War. But in the South, after the Civil War and Reconstruction, legal codes were crafted to countermand the 14th and 15th amendments, which gave blacks equal protection under the law and gave black men the right to vote. In Mississippi, the convention of 1890 replaced laws disenfranchising all convicts with laws disenfranchising only people convicted of the crimes blacks were supposedly more likely to commit. For almost a century thereafter you couldn't lose your right to vote in Mississippi if you committed murder or rape, but you could if you married someone of another race.

In Virginia, U.S. Senator Carter Glass worked to expand the disenfranchisement laws along with poll taxes and literacy tests. He described the state's 1901 convention as follows: "Discrimination! Why that is precisely what we propose. That, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for--to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limits of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every Negro voter who can be gotten rid of legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate." ...

In Florida, the constitution drafted in 1868 disenfranchised ex-felons as well as anyone convicted of larceny, a crime that courts were given special jurisdiction over in 1865 because of "the great increase in minor offenses, which may be reasonably anticipated from the emancipation of former slaves." ... The provisions that came out of those conventions, from poll taxes to grandfather clauses to literacy tests were almost all struck down by the Warren Court and the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The only one still standing is the felony provision--which isn't surprising since, as historian Morgan Kousser testified before the Supreme Court in 1985, the disenfranchisement laws provided Southern states with "insurance if courts struck down the more blatantly unconstitutional clauses." Of course, the literacy test resembles Rosetta Meeks' 16-page form {for case-by-case restoration of felon voting rights}, and the poll tax isn't a great deal different from Florida's requirement that felons pay off money owed to the state--potentially including the cost of a public defender provided them because of their poverty."

[BevHarris]

95. One of our board members is a black man who lost his voting rights

a felony (pot, 30 years ago); he's been a respected citizen for decades, and a union exec; he's had to fight for his right to vote.

Vote suppression is going to be one of our big stories this fall. We've got a new story on this coming up in August that tills some fresh (and rancid) soil.

Bev Harris
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
Consumer protection for elections

[vetwife]

108. Bev, I hope it gets a lot of viewing !

The person who wrote that reconstruction in the South never ended is
on to something. Many still are fighting the civil war down here. They display their Confederate flags like badges of honor and still resent Northerners. Even some who do not feel they are predjudice, are. Good example. There is some extreme racial tension in the South. Dekalb County is the only real progressive area I can think of in Georgia. Cynthia McKinney Country. I live in a rural area and have many black friends. The problem I found with my white (used to be) because I just learned this in the last 4 years is they are predjudice to the bone. When the Veterans organization I started had a few meetings at my home and 80 percent is minority, I got a few phone calls for having THOSE people in my home. I got calls from people I don't even know. (Neighbors I didn't know). I moved in 2002 so I didn't have to deal with them anymore) but they were very bigoted. Now that Monkeyboy is in office people I did not think were predjudice are showing it. Thus, the black and other minorities , when they get in a position of authority sometimes in these rural areas think We all are predjudice and around and around it goes.

If one down here has black friends and our family does. The people who are so bigoted have names for us. This is that old Jim Crowe mentality and we are treated no differently than the black person we are friends with. I invited a very good friend (black) one of my husband and mine's dearest friends for dinner and some guitar picking. He laughed and said, "You had better remember where you live again. You know I can leave and go back home but you live there and its trouble. Ya'll come on over here" He lives in Dekalb County. Same thing for my son. He has black friends and they won't come into this neighborhood or any in this area. They just meet up in Atlanta. This is true. It is racially motivated the voting thing and the jailing thing. People say, "Why don't you move"? Easier said than done. When you are caretaking for disabled and elderly folks. When you are buying a house, and have committments but if Old Georgie goes back in, we have to think about it. It was so much easier under Clinton.

[Zynx]

107. After they have served their time, they should be able to vote.

Otherwise they are not citizens, in my opinion. There is very little that is more important than the right to vote.

[Misinformed01]

113. Some of the attitudes expressed resemble Les Miserable...

...in their absolute unforgiving attitudes toward "crime".

This insistence on continuing punishment AFTER time served is as barbaric as some of the felonies that might "make" a felon.

Why not just sell them to WalMart after being "released"? Or maybe a chain gang?

Christ all mighty this is insane.

[sendero]

114. Another great thread...

... for adding people to my "ignore this fucking idiot, if this is what he thinks he can't have a useful thought in his head" thread.

Really, some of you, and DU rules prohibit me from naming names, if you are over 25 or 30 you have no hope of ever being a real human being. Go join the fucking Repubs - they have a place for people like you.

[qanda]

115. Actually, I think some people just don't get it

And they NEVER will! You're right to ignore them.

[69KV]

198. Good point

You're right and after seeing some of the replies from one poster that border on the absurd, I'm finished trying to reason with him/her. I was mistaken replying to them in the first place. Time for me to go read some other threads..

[Frodo]

202. Awww, don't do THAT

He'll just wave his arms around and declare victory.

Thanks for the debate! :cya:

[Spiffarino]

116. Un-frickin'-believable

Punishment beyond time served is a travesty, end of discussion. Otherwise, why the hell not leave them in prison for the rest of their lives?

Ex-felons can't get decent jobs (if they have to fill out an application the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" is a given); in some places they are ineligible for welfare; they can't vote; etc., etc., etc. This leaves an ex-felon with few alternatives but to return to a life of crime. It's called perpetual punishment.

As a self-proclaimed Christian, this kind of thinking goes against everything I've ever been taught about Jesus of Nazareth and his philosophy. That professed Christians are behind this stuff absolutely galls me.

Think about it...what would the Apostles' resumes look like?

[AirAmFan]

129. Bush disfranchised thousands of 'felons' JUST LAST MONTH!

In effect, with a stroke of his pen Governor Jeb overturned a week-old ex-con civil rights victory in the Florida Court of Appeals. The court decision would have restored voting rights for a percentage of convicts leaving Florida prisons IN THE FUTURE.

Of course, disfranchisement of the half-million disproportionately minority ex-cons who've left prisons IN THE PAST never was in play.

From http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=352

'Governor Bans the Use of Civil Rights Restoration Form, Denies Assistance to Thousands

July 21, 2004

TALLAHASSEE, FL -- In response to a unanimous appellate court decision last week requiring the Department of Corrections to provide inmates leaving the prison system with assistance in completing the one-page application form for restoration of civil rights, the Governor today discontinued the application form....

The First District Court of Appeals noted that only 15% of those leaving prison or supervision will have their civil rights restored under the Governor's "streamlined" process. 85% must have a hearing to get their civil rights restored. Under the Governor's plan announced today, it is highly unlikely that these 85% will ever get word that their civil rights have not been automatically restored and that they must contact the Office of Executive Clemency to request a hearing.

"Today's announcement is a disingenuous claim that Governor Bush is merely simplifying the clemency process," said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida. "In fact, by not providing the forms and requested assistance to those seeking to reclaim their right to vote, the Governor is denying access to the clemency process to nearly 85% of would-be applicants."

"The Governor's action is a continuation of the bureaucratic policies that have impeded the ability of people with past felony convictions to reclaim their most fundamental right in a democracy, the right to vote. It is precisely those bureaucratic hurdles that the appellate court, just last week, tried to eliminate through its decision," Simon added.

The case, Florida Conference of Black State Legislators et al. v. James Crosby, No. 1D03-3370, was filed in Leon County Circuit Court in Tallahassee...'

[Fescue4u]

133. Give Felons right to Vote = Democratic Victory

While Im not so sure that Felons should be able to vote, I'll take it.

We must do anything and everything possible to dislodge bush.

[stickdog]

139. Very transparent.

May I suggest that the issue of protecting the voting rights for people who have already DONE THEIR TIME and RECEIVED THEIR PUNISHMENT is simply the right thing to do?

Dislodging Bush is also the RIGHT THING to do, and that's about all the two topics have in common.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fescue4u]

153. Nice. Real nice

Im talking realities here. Reality means pressing an advantage or losing.

[Fescue4u]

152. What?

Call names if you will, but Bush has got to go.

Frankly Im not worried about symantics right now. The country is in trouble, the election is hardly a lock. Even a win is not guaranteed to "take", as bush may pull a rabbit out of hat and steal it again.

If one thinks that using every edge possible is transparent, then one is part of the problem.

As for, " May I suggest that the issue of protecting the voting rights for people who have already DONE THEIR TIME and RECEIVED THEIR PUNISHMENT is simply the right thing to do?"

I think that is quite resonable and bears further consideration. Its not my position right now but I think its worth considering.

[Swamp Rat]

140. It is the RIGHT of EVERY American CITIZEN to VOTE!!!

:kick:

[Frodo]

166. Really?

That's not what the constitution says.

[Swamp Rat]

206. Do you NOT believe that ALL American citizens have the right to vote?

[Frodo]

209. There are SIX U.S. citizens living in this house. TWO can vote.

And I believe the Constitution envisions situations where people will lose their voting privileges.

[Swamp Rat]

210. Show me specifically where.

Show me specifically where "Constitution envisions situations where people will lose their voting privileges." Do you know of any amendments that concern voting privileges?

[Frodo]

211. Article I section II.

And the 14th amendment Section II (on whose basis the supreme court has already upheld felon disenfranchisement).

Of course you can also disenfranchise people on the basis of innadequate mental competance. Now if we could only get THAT implemented correctly.... we wouldn't lose another election.

[Swamp Rat]

213. Be more specific as to your understanding of "Article I section II."

How do you interpret the 14th amendment Section II? Cannot eighteen year olds vote? How about women? Why are they voting this November if the 14th amendment Section II say only men of twenty one years can vote? How do you explain this Frodo?

Please be specific. I want to learn more about how my government works.

Are you for the disenfranchisement of voting privilages for ANY citizen? Do you think it is democratic to disenfranchise people on the basis of "innadequate mental competance?"

[Frodo]

215. Article I section II

gives the power to determine WHO can vote to the states. So long as they don't violate some other provision of the Constitution (which now includes women and minorities etc with ammendments 15,19,24,&26).

The Supreme Court has also held that laws must be shown to have a disparate INTENT, not just a disparate impact - "official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. Proof of racially discriminatory intent is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause."

There are currently 13 states which ban felons from voting even after finishing their prison/parole/probation. Do you think all of them were from the South?

[wuushew]

216. Are you sure about disparate impact vs. disparate effect?

It seems to me one of the perennial challenges to the death penalty is that it violates criminals civil rights even though that is not the intention in carrying out the capital punishment on the part of the government.

[Frodo]

217. That quote was from a Supreme Court decision

And yes, it IS a "perennial challenge" to the death penalty.

Have you noticed the death penalty being declared unconstitutional lately? The argument seems not to be sticking.

Thanks for the debate - I'm off to bed. :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

218. You didn't answer my questions about YOUR opinion

OK, so you have given me amendments to the Constitution that make provisions for certain people giving them the right to vote. Therefore, could we say that our Constitution is not immutable? Why did we give those citizens the right to vote in the amendments you provided? In general, why do we amend the Constitution?

I did ask you a couple of questions. I await your reply to these:

Are you for the disenfranchisement of voting privileges for ANY citizen including felons?

Do you think it is democratic to disenfranchise people on the basis of "innadequate mental competance?"

As for your last question, "do you think all of them were from the South," didn't 69KV answer it earlier?

"Look, there are only a tiny handful of states that disenfranchise ex-felons for life, and Florida is one of them. They also include Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Virginia, and a couple of others. The only one north of the Mason-Dixon line and/or west of the Mississippi River left that does this is Iowa. The three western states that had lifetime disenfranchisement laws, Nevada, Wyoming, and New Mexico, all repealed theirs during the last few years."

So Frodo, why did Nevada, Wyoming, and New Mexico repeal these lifetime disenfranchisement laws? In general, why do we repeal laws?

[Frodo]

220. Oh.... MY opinion?

Am I for the disenfranchisement for ANY citizen?

Yes. At the very least currently jailed/paroled felons and mentally incompetent.

Do I think it is democratic to disenfranchise people on the basis of "inadequate mental competence?"

Yes. For the same reasons we have a minimum age to vote. A person with a 10yr old mind should have no more voting ability than a 10yr old. Did you think you get to START voting at 18 because you're tall enough to reach the lever?


My point on the "Southern" issue is that some states with this rule hardly fit the description of states disenfranchising people simply to cull the minority voting population. That there are other public-policy reasons. Yes, the three states you listed have recently loosened their disenfranchisement laws, but three states (including Massachusetts) have recently tightened theirs. Why do we repeal laws? For the same reason we enact them. The political body decides what is in the best interest of society. In almost ALL cases (48 states) that means felons in prison can't vote. Some have decided to loosen things some to tighten them. I don't disagree with either decision.

[Swamp Rat]

221. So people with a 10 yr old mentality should not get to vote.

Who determines this? How is it determined? I was mentally competent to vote at age ten, and I could reach the lever. The only thing disqualifying me was the age limit. A ten year old, with the proper education, has the acumen to understand political issues... at least I did.

What about the thousands of people with cognitive disabilities who do vote now? Does it bother you that they get to vote and do you have a solution? I have read that Bush wants Americans to take psychological examinations. Do you agree with this - is this a good solution to cull out citizens unworthy to vote?

You still haven't answered my question as to why you think it is democratic to disenfranchise people on the basis of inadequate mental competence. The key word in this question is "democratic." How is disenfranchisement of voting rights of adult, American citizens democratic?

"At the very least currently jailed/paroled felons and mentally incompetent."

On what basis do you consider "currently jailed/paroled felons" mentally incompetent? Do you work as a corrections officer or prison psychologist? If you do, then maybe you can expand and explain on what basis and how you make this determination.

"My point on the "Southern" issue is that some states with this rule hardly fit the description of states disenfranchising people simply to cull the minority voting population."

OK, you have given a good argument as to motive or intent, but the result, nevertheless, is that a higher percentage of minorities cannot vote (assuming the figures in the original post are true). Is this not a problem, in terms of political representation of minority interests?

"Some have decided to loosen things some to tighten them. I don't disagree with either decision."

Why not? You have built a strong case in favor of select disenfranchisement. Are you saying this is an issue of individual state's rights?

You have yet to answer why Nevada, Wyoming, and New Mexico repealed these lifetime disenfranchisement laws. What was the reason(s) that such a law should be repealed?

[qwertyMike]

160. Kick

:kick:

[msmcghee]

162. The reason we disenfranchise felons . .

. . is that it's such an easy topic to demagogue. Another way to say that is the average American has less than a game-show mentality when it comes to governance. Democracy is set up to ensure that more than half the people will be happy with what's happening - not that we make wise decisions.

So far, no-one has talked about the message that society sends to ex-felons with that rule. Setting aside the racial differences for a minute, put yourself in the ex-con's shoes.

You've just gotten out of jail, you don't want to go back. You're thinking, "Maybe I can turn my life around here".

OTOH - Only one in 10 employers would even consider hiring you as an ex-felon, and only one in three of those because you're skin is dark. Let's see - that's less than a one in thirty chance of making a minimum wage in a crap job.

But your old buddies are still dealing drugs and making good money - and are looking for some help.

When society says - we don't care what you do, how much you change your life, what education you get, nothing - you'll never even be able to vote in this country as long as you live - we are basically assuring that that person will remain a criminal - just smarter now about being caught.

Or, society could say - you've paid for your crime. We'd love to have you back as one of the good guys if you're ready for that. We've got some programs to help you improve your hiring chances and we'd even welcome you to the voting process if you're interested.

Now, which approach is likely to be the most successful, and cost less to society in the long run. Which one is the most humane, the most mature, the most in-tune with life affirming values.

And, which is the most immature, the most demagogic, the most idiotic way to reduce crime?

Do you think any criminal has ever said, "I'm not going to knock over that C-store with you guys tonight. I could lose my right to vote."

But, someone on the edge, possibly willing to turn their life around, at the right moment, might possibly be swayed by a compassionate message welcoming him back to society.

What's the cost to society? That democrats will organize a "Get out the ex-con" vote? I say anyone who's paid for their crime should have the right to vote - just as a matter of principle.

It's the same reason why society should not kill people as punishment for capital crimes. The deterrence value is minimum. But the message that society considers all killing as beyond the pale - is the right message to send.

Intelligent and qualified compassion - it's just the right thing to do.

[Freols]

187. It is right to

Think twice about employing an ex-felon, I KNOW, there are people from every single background and crime that are trying to be good people. But in the shoes of an Employer, why employ someone that might be posing a good guy. When you could employ a normal person (of any race gender or colour). I beleive everyone should live in a free voting society, where voting is compulsory and life is near perfect. But in my vision crime DOES NOT happen, imagine if someone who had a mental problem with personal space and had nearly killed three people when someone sat next to him/her. Would it be wise to employ her/him to be a bus driver?
You may think that i am inflating and exagerating a point, but the law works in odd ways sometimes, as in employers are not allowed to know what the metal illness is, and is not allowed to know the nature of a crime. So the employer could be employing a drug addict into his Pharmacy, or the worker could be a bloke who at the age of 16 stole a flower from a florists.
At the same time a Drug addicted hit and run convict could serve the same sentance as a Never violent and 'forced into crime' burguler.
So parhaps a system of more monitoring rather than giving cash bonuses to companies who take in convicts and minorities.

In Britain lots of jobs with limited number of placements disscourage white male applicants. Not only this, but in the army:

People of ethnic minorities, female gender or people with disabilities are welcomed and GARENTEED a interview?

Is this not possitive disscrimination? You would feel you may not be as good as the other applicants and are being accepted just because of your difference. I know i wouldnt like it if a job felt like that!

Freols

[msmcghee]

205. I'd think twice too.

I don't disagree with you there. In fact, I was faced with that question once - and I worried about what to do. I decided not to hire the person because they would be working around kids at times. And the person had done time for child sexual abuse. I felt I couldn't, in good conscience, put those kids in that situation.

That's why the government should provide programs where all parolees a place where they could work in a supervised environment. Sort of a half-way house where they could apply themselves to show they can become good employees again. They should be graded and have record of their work accomplishments as a start on a resume. Sort of like an orphanage for ex-convicts.

The government could also offer incentives for a while for employers who hire them.

It's got to work better than the system we've got.

PS - Welcome to DU :toast:

[noiretextatique]

188. rhenquist would love to make blacks 3/5ths of a person again

and he is chief *justice* of the supreme court :shrug:

[thisismyboomstick3]

194. What about White Felons?

Are they allowed to vote? I wonder if they'd vote for Bush. They're probably all slack-jawed hate crimers anyway.

[TexasSissy]

199. Do you mean 31% of black men in FL are felons?

If so, that is a striking statistic.

[Frodo]

201. Read it with a grain of salt

It's mostly drugs and isn't Florida where much of the drugs come in?

It could be that traffic from point south heading to the rest of the country is just likely to get caught near the border and they end up getting incarcerated in-state.

It's just a guess, but I find it VERY hard to believe that 30% of a particular demographic a felons.

[Dastard Stepchild]

208. Can't speak for felon population as a whole.....

just for current prison population demographics.

Florida population: 17,019,068 (2003)
Florida Black population: 2,484,784
Florida Black prison population: 40,583
Percentage of Black Florida citizens in prison: roughly 2%

So, it is difficult to ascertain whether this will add up to a 31% total felon population among Black Floridians. Couldn't find that data. Gonna try to find it though. A researcher never rests until all data has ben mined! :)

[unblock]

219. felons or ex-felons

and yes, it IS a striking statistic.

alabama's adult black male population has the same 31% disenfranchised rate.

[rman]

228. and people with similar names, birth dates

... see Greg Palast' Theft of the Presidency

articles
http://gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency

video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram

also see "Unprecedented - The 2000 Presidential election"
www.unprecedented.org

[Used and Abused]

203. Can someone please explain the data for N. Dakota and Montana

It says 0 of the felons are black, yet gives a percentage for disenfranchised black men. Are they including other information that is not posted on the page?

Thanks

[AlienGirl]

212. So, first they're put in prison, where they work for next-to-nothing...

And then they can't vote again, *ever*.

Maybe I'm :tinfoilhat: but it almost looks like a deliberate plan to bring back slavery.

Tucker

[praxiz]

227. I just don't get it.

Speaking as a Norwegian I am very puzzled at why felons in America can't vote. I just don't understand why. Are they not humans? Do they no longer have rights? Have they been lowered to some kind of sub-human level, where in addition to not get a multitude of different kinds of jobs, you can't even vote?

In medieval times, parents would sometimes leave their children out in the forest to die if they did something wrong, or if there was something wrong with them. This law of yours kind of reminds me of that.

Everyone makes mistakes. That's why - usually - you are eventually let out of jail again. After you have payed your debt to society, you are a part of it again, with all the rights and privileges as anyone else.