Agreed, I thought you were making a "Bush didn't really win the election" argument.

Various...1) You are likely on probation or parole so your sentence is not really complete. 2) The logic is you lost those rights when you murdered someone. Murderers lose rights. You can't sue for discrimination if GE fails to give you a job because of your murder conviction. Life has consequences. Additionally, as a murderer and someone only knows life inside a jail cell you are not fit to determine the direction of this country or what is right and wrong.

Not me, if you rape a 6 year old your time for "fairness" is over at the time you commited the rape. And ex-cons aren't reoffending simply because they are unable to vote.

Crimes come with various punishments, a murderer can be imprisoned for life. That is a lifetime punishment. Another can be voting restrictions among other things. That is all a part of the punishment conversation.

Lifetime criminals don't get away with crime for life. It's only a matter of time before they're caught. And we can control those who were caught, we can't control those who have not been caught. I feel the connection is clear, in the same way it's clear that we don't let a child molester run a day care center.

Either do I, however I don't consider a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, etc a mere "mistake" subject to some jail sentence and a full enjoyment of rights upon release. Again, I doubt there are many felons who look at the fact that they can't vote and decide to go out and commit crimes because they couldn't choose Kerry in 2004.

Depends on the crime, I'd be willing to let someone convicted of drunk driving vote. I also believe rehab can work there. However, let's take child molesters. Only pollyanna's believe in rehab, they have a recidivism rate of over 85%, this despite court mandated rehab and therapy. And not because they can't go to the polls.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

I have one question....


Where in the Constitution does it give ANYONE the right to vote?

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

as far as im concerned, when people are in prison they should be able to vote, nevermind ex-cons. Looks at how it can be abused, the first casualtys of the Nazi's were the political prisoners.

Mouse,

Regardless of how you and a few others wish to catagorize America as a fascist regime... it really isn't and overblown rhetoric only serves to allow your opponents to easily dismiss your arguments instead of having to address them. Even slightly alluding to a connection can lead to an entire derailment of the debate.

Perhaps other examples would serve you better... but i still contend that NOBODY is assured of a "right" to vote... no such "right" exists for ANY americans... even us neocons.

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

not america alone, everywhere. I believe when you start saying certian catagorys of people arn't allowed to vote...it's leads to trouble. i.e the jews etc. Whos to say that in 50 years or something it could be used for quite the wrong reasons.

EVERYONE who is a citizen should be allowed to vote, to denie it is the slippery slope.

Nope. Lost my tinfoil hat a while ago.

My point being, we try to make prison as unpleasant as possible. We don't provide life-training skills. When people get out, we don't provide support services, you can be discriminated against in employment and housing, you can't vote. The practical barriers are enormous, and on top of that are the various ways you're informed that you're a second-class citizen, and probably worthless. How many people can overcome that? How many people
turn to crime because they can't overcome the barriers society places in their way?

IMO, taking away the right to vote is just one more in a series of vengeful, punitive steps against ex-cons that do nothing to help either them or society.

I guess my point is that things like denying the right to vote aren't part of any coherent "punishment conversation." They are simply ad hoc add-ons at the end of the process. By "lifetime" I did not mean punishments decided in a court on the basis of your particular case; I meant lifetime punishments instituted not as part of some thought-out plan but as a "let's bash criminals, nobody likes them" approach that ends up harming society, not helping it.

Criminals are people. Some of them deserve to be locked up forever. Some of them deserve to be removed from the planet (I oppose the death penalty on practical grounds, not moral ones). But short of that, the fact that someone has been convicted of a crime does not automatically make them evil, or subhuman, or trash.

No, that's a reasonable precaution based on the individual crime. Voting rights are a blanket punishment that ignores the actual crime.

Rapist and molester maybe not. But murders can be mistakes, whether it's drugs, alcohol, state of rage, peer pressure, mistaken identity, being 19 and stupid, etc. The 50-year-old leaving prison isn't the same 19-year-old gangbanger who went in.

Agreed. I just think it's simply one more stick in the eye, to no real good purpose.

The guy recently arrested in our state for his 35th DUI might suggest otherwise....

.... just trolling. I agree with your basic point.

Interestingly, I've had to look up those numbers recently, and the number is more complex (and lower) than that. Basically, a pedophile who molests unrelated children has about a 20 percent recidivism rate within 4 or 5 years, and something like a 50 percent rate within 15 or 20 years. Those who molest relatives or acquaintances have a recidivism rate lower than that of "normal" rapists. The liklihood of offense stays relatively steady until about age 50, then declines.

Stranger molesters? Lock 'em up. Incestuous molesters? Probably deserve a second chance once their debt to society is paid.

But that's only if you view such people as human. And I *still* don't see how keeping such people from voting does anyone any good. I challenge you to find a voting pattern among pedophiles.

__________________
Man up.

That's ok, I don't think you're a tin foil hat wearer!

There are many life training skills available to prisoners. Do you know how many take up those opportunities in a SERIOUS way? Unfortunately very very few. Those who do take up the opportunity such as a GED go because it's better than sitting in their cell or working. Few do it to better themselves. Housing discrimination is a little tricky and not all that common depending on the offense and development. Employment is different, I can't blame GE for not hiring a murderer when they have non-murdering applicants applying for the same job. And the problem is that many are not willing to start at the bottom. You won't be a CEO out of prison. You'll have to start cleaning dishes or other low level jobs. And you'll have to overcome obstacles of doubt. But if you are willing to work hard, even more so than the average person, then you can overcome it and be successful. I'm living proof.

Helping them comes second to helping society and having someone whose idea of crime is acceptable in society should not have a voice as to how that society progresses.

I disagree, I think the not letting felons vote is very well thought out and intentional and not just some "let's show them how much we don't like them" sort of plan. A pharmacy wouldn't want to employ a convicted drug dealer. It's not ad hoc, there are good reasons for it.

I agree, and in some instances I'd be for letting them vote. DUI's, minor drug convictions, etc. There is an easy way to say who is elligible to vote based on what the crime is or number of convictions. I don't think anyone convicted of a felony once in their life should be forever banned from voting.

I disagree, it depends on the state. And I am for determining who can vote based on the crime or number of years since conviction. However, every state is different and many are not blanket.

No, in most cases they're worse. Prison experience generally does not improve their outlook against crime. But there can be and are degrees, someone convicted of manslaughter from a DUI is not treated the same as a serial killer in every state.

In which case he should be inelligible for life. If you commit a certain number of felonies then the punishment should progress to a lifetime banishment. I don't think most of society wants that guy voting on a proposition regarding druk driving laws.

I'll look that up, in my law enforcement capacity I did a report on this in 1991 and that recidivism rate was more along the 85% lines that I mentioned. Maybe your numbers are skewed by including those in prison who don't have the opportunity to molest a child. Because the "within 4-5 years" comment would suggest that.

I doubt the data is out there, but even so...I disagree that it does no good. It prevents someone whose idea of law abidance includes molesting a child from determining the laws in this country. If it were up to the members of NAMBLA, sex with 8 year olds would be legal. I for one am glad there are fewer of those with that opinion eligible to vote.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

In our society it basically boils down to trust. Who can we trust to vote? When our country was first formed, we didn't have popular votes for the Presidency. Our Founders did not "trust" the common man to make informed decisions -- at the time there was no real way to gather and distribute information on candidates, hence the electoral college.

Voting has never really been seen as an equal "right" for all citizens. If it were so, would we have needed the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments that allowed minorities, women, and 18 year olds to vote? If voting is an equal right for all citizens, then why not allow children and the mentally handicapped vote? ... Trust.

We don't let foreigners vote in our elections because we can't trust them to act in the interests of America. It would be absurd to let French citizens vote on our laws, given that they don't have to live under those laws.

To me, a career felon is no different. If a person chooses not to live by our laws, why should they be given a say in how the rest of us live?

The difficult part for me is deciding where to draw the line of trust. I don't believe we should preclude all felons from voting. Someone like John Gotti clearly shouldn't be trusted, but I really don't understand why we would revoke the voting privilege for a one-time drug offense in someone's youth.

I think Bush might agree.

whos to say whos doen enough 'bad' to be denied the right to vote. everone should have a right to vote, even if they are actually in prison, that way it can't be abused.