For reference, this shows the difference in felony voting laws between states: http://felonvoting.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=286

North Carolina bars anyone from voting that is incarcerated, on parole, or on probation. So what's the justification for these laws? Is it that the felon exercised bad judgment at some point in the past, and as a result, is not fit to have input on the running of the government? I'm thinking that the government shouldn't be trying to decide who does and doesn't have good enough judgment to vote. I mean, it's not like the felon has an actual hand in the making of the laws. They're still subject to the laws, so why shouldn't they have a very tiny say in who makes those laws?

I've heard the idea that by committing a crime, you've broken the social contract, and that you shouldn't be able to have input on the process as a result. I'm not sure I buy that. If you commit a crime and get caught, you most certainly are going to be punished somehow, and that should be enough.

[Edited on October 24, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2009 1:05:06 PM

I view it more as a way to keep the active prison/parole population from becoming a constituency to which politicians begin to pander. That is kind of a bad road to go down... You don't want the "criminal's lobby" advocating for legalized home burglaries and crap... Its just a law & order thing.

I do think that once a person has COMPLETELY served their entire sentence, including parole/probation, that they should be able to vote again.

[Edited on October 24, 2009 at 1:09 PM. Reason : s]

10/24/2009 1:08:26 PM

^ +1

10/24/2009 1:23:53 PM

Quote :

"I view it more as a way to keep the active prison/parole population from becoming a constituency to which politicians begin to pander. That is kind of a bad road to go down... You don't want the "criminal's lobby" advocating for legalized home burglaries and crap... Its just a law & order thing."

How exactly would the prison/parole population get enough support, in terms of percentage of total votes cast, to elect someone that supported legalizing home burglaries? The implications of doing something like that are obvious to anyone. Normal people aren't going to vote for that guy. Legalizing actual crimes like burglary, assault, murder, or fraud would be asinine.

10/24/2009 1:31:49 PM

Because democracy is a make-it, take-it game.

10/24/2009 1:33:45 PM

obviously, "home burglarly legalization" was an extreme example. if you can't understand the point I was making, then you're flat out stupid

don't forget that we also vote for our judges and such elections frequently have low turnout. However, the prison population, having nothing to do, and highly motivated to influence the selection of judges, and most likely holding huge grudges against judges, would probably wind up being very influential in judicial elections. Not a very positive development for our society, IMHO.

[Edited on October 24, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason : s]

10/24/2009 2:04:41 PM

A couple states allow felons to vote from prison and they haven't legalized burglary yet.

Felons can't vote because it's a hold-over from the days when we only allowed white male property owners to vote -- just no one has written an amendment for felons yet.

10/24/2009 2:46:21 PM

because nobody wants to commit political suicide by fighting for them to vote?

10/24/2009 2:48:02 PM

Quote :

"How exactly would the prison/parole population get enough support, in terms of percentage of total votes cast, to elect someone that supported legalizing home burglaries? The implications of doing something like that are obvious to anyone. Normal people aren't going to vote for that guy. Legalizing actual crimes like burglary, assault, murder, or fraud would be asinine."

See the political influence of the mafia in NYC during its hey-day. Now imagine if the people in jail could influence that as well.

[Edited on October 24, 2009 at 2:49 PM. Reason : adsf]

10/24/2009 2:48:33 PM

Because taking away the right to vote is a hold-over from when people actually considered this a form of punishment. Nowadays, making them vote (or, better yet, serve on a jury) is probably more effective punishment.

10/24/2009 2:59:28 PM

Having spent time in prisons overseas observing prisoners vote, I wholeheartedly support NCs laws prohibiting them from voting. It is extremely easy to influence how prisoners vote, the obvious bias being toward the incumbent.

10/24/2009 7:20:34 PM

Felons have broken the social contract. I have no problem preventing them from exercising one of the privledges afforded that contract.

10/24/2009 7:50:29 PM

Quote :

"It is extremely easy to influence how prisoners vote, the obvious bias being toward the incumbent."

How is this different from the general population?

10/24/2009 8:08:34 PM

^^ Probably the best answer.

However, +2 for:

Quote :

"I do think that once a person has COMPLETELY served their entire sentence, including parole/probation, that they should be able to vote again."

10/24/2009 8:29:27 PM

It's a Jim Crow holdover law.

10/24/2009 8:33:40 PM

Quote :

"I view it more as a way to keep the active prison/parole population from becoming a constituency to which politicians begin to pander."

right on the nose solinari

thats how i've always seen it, anyhow. it seems like an invitiation for disaster to either group. and the effect of which could only worsen the situation.

its like they revoke their own citizenship the instant they commit a felony (i have no idea how this applies to non felons in jail/prison) and thus, their rights??

i'll also imagine it is a route not so thoroughly expanded upon as one might think for a group so entwined in the legal system

i dont know if it's fair, but i think the "rule" is generally ok with me

10/24/2009 8:52:03 PM

Its a way to disenfranchise a population of voters to the benefit of one party over another.

10/24/2009 8:56:35 PM

It's bullshit, isn't it?

I mean, is there some longstanding precedence?




I'm just guessing.

10/25/2009 1:34:17 AM

Quote :

"thats how i've always seen it, anyhow. it seems like an invitiation for disaster to either group. and the effect of which could only worsen the situation."

Maybe it would help to provide an example of how politicians might "pander" to the prison population as a constituency.

10/25/2009 10:59:59 AM

I wouldn't call it pander as much as perhaps encourage politicians to treat them like human beings.

See the current life sentence prisoner release fiasco for an example of politicians meddling in judicial affairs for political gain, all because they don't give a shit about the inmates.

10/25/2009 12:08:53 PM

breaking the law carries consequences. some of them last longer than others. if you've broken the law, you should expect to deal with these things. the inability for felons to vote isn't much of a crime deterrent, but it's perfectly reasonable in a society that values rule of law.

10/25/2009 1:30:46 PM

what if you break a law that shouldn't exist in the first place? do we really need to hand out felonies for simple drug possession?

10/25/2009 1:48:08 PM

That's a much different question and really doesn't belong in this discussion.

I don't disagree with your point. I'm just saying it is just going to derail this discussion.

[Edited on October 25, 2009 at 2:15 PM. Reason : J]

10/25/2009 2:12:39 PM

Quote :

"I do think that once a person has COMPLETELY served their entire sentence, including parole/probation, that they should be able to vote again."

10/25/2009 2:22:31 PM

Only citizens of this country can vote.
To be a citizen of this country, you agree to follow the laws of this country.
If you break the laws of this country, you are no longer a full citizen.
Therefor, you don't get to vote.

I do agree that once a sentence has been served and social rehabilitation has been made, then the right to vote should be restored.

10/26/2009 3:46:09 PM

What I find interesting is when you combine the rule that felons cannot vote with the fact that the average American commits three felonies a day. At that point, only those that have pull are assured to maintain their right to vote.

10/26/2009 4:06:35 PM

Quote :

"To be a citizen of this country, you agree to follow the laws of this country."

I don't remember agreeing to a goddamn thing.

10/26/2009 4:35:37 PM

Quote :

"the fact that the average American commits three felonies a day."

What bullshit land did this come from?

10/26/2009 5:24:04 PM

I'd say it's more like 3 misdemeanors per day, with a few felonies sprinkled in every month or two.

It's safe to say that the government considers all of us criminals. But they can't disenfranchise all of us because that would take too much work.

10/26/2009 6:12:08 PM

Alright, I tracked down the answer for you fuckers. And it was in the highly entertaining Time magazine:

Quote :

"And don't fall for the line that the nation's original plan called for denying felons the vote. In 1800, no state prohibited felons from voting. On the eve of the Civil War, 80% of the states did, largely to block African Americans, who though rarely allowed to vote were disproportionately represented among felons."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html

Race and racism, as usual.

10/26/2009 9:54:50 PM

that doesn't even make sense. Blacks weren't allowed to vote in most states, yet most states prevented felons from voting because they were black? That only makes sense if you happen to be a journalist employed by Time magazine.

10/26/2009 10:41:23 PM

I know. I noticed that, too, but come on, just believe me!

I'm pissed because, in my "research," I found another perfect piece of fluff in the Washington Post:

Quote :

"Another bald fact: Many disenfranchisement laws trace to the mid-1800s, when they were crafted to bar blacks with even minor criminal records from polls. Today this poisonous legal lineage tells not only in the South, which retains the most repressive statutes, but in states such as New York, where ex-parolees theoretically get their rights back but in reality encounter local election officials who demand discharge papers that don't exist, give misleading information and find other reasons to turn them away."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html



I'm doing more research now. So far, it appears that disenfranchisement laws were in some states from the very beginning and then most states by the mid-1800s. But these laws were very different than what we have (or recently had) today. Following the Civil War, Southern states revamped their laws to target newly freed black folks and revoke voting rights for life. But it was only one part of their comprehensive plan (poll taxes, literacy tests, physical intimidation, grandfather clause for poor whites, etc...) to maintain a de facto ban on black voting. In the early 1900's one Virginia politician summed up the new laws perfectly:

Quote :

""This plan will eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this state in less than five years, so that in no single county ... will there be the least concern felt for the complete supremacy of the white race in the affairs of government," the report quoted Del. Carter Glass as saying at the time."

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/218048

So when we ask why felons can't (or couldn't) vote, we need to know which disenfranchisement laws we're talking about. Because if you're talking about the reconstructed (HA!) South, it should be made clear that the number one reason why they couldn't vote is because they were primarily black. Although, there could be another reason:

Quote :

"But last year Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors stated a bald truth: "As frank as I can be," he said, "we're opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don't tend to vote Republican.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html

WHOOPS!


Anyway, a lot of progress has been made on this issue since Florida screwed the pooch in 2000. And just in time for Obama...WOOT WOOT!

10/27/2009 12:06:45 AM

Quote :

"I'd say it's more like 3 misdemeanors per day, with a few felonies sprinkled in every month or two. It's safe to say that the government considers all of us criminals. But they can't disenfranchise all of us because that would take too much work."

say what?

10/27/2009 4:02:34 PM

It's Us vs. Them. Them often thinks they're just Us, but they become Them all too easily.

Anyone in a government job does it. For instance, a big part of cops training involves separating them from everyday citizens, both physically(let's ride fucking horses down the sidewalk!) and mentally(no small talk with civilians,etc). The President, a random EPA agent and the woman at the DMV counter are all fed up with the citizens they're supposed to serve and would prefer to have all the power possible over them. They all have their own agendas, and woe be unto anyone in their way when their little department is threatened. But as long as they don't piss anyone else in the government off, they can continue to grab little bits of power and liberties for years.

So why don't I just drop out of it all? I'm not in debt and I've paid my taxes so far. I could load up, head for the mountains or the desert. Catch food with my bare hands. I wouldn't even use public roads once I get there. Would they allow it? Of course not. They'd hunt me down in no time. The only question is which department of They would come after me first.

10/27/2009 6:52:58 PM

Is there an element of "us vs. them" in why felons can't vote? Although I have no evidence to back it up, it seems to me that this country is all about continuing to punish criminals long after they've served their time, treat them as social pariahs. It's as if there's some invisible line surrounding society, and once you cross it, you're never allowed back in. The moment you falter, you somehow magically become incapable of being trusted with anything ever again. Once a felon, always a felon, and it is inconceivable that you could reform and change your ways. No second chances for you. And on and on and on.....

But anyway, is this possible?

10/27/2009 7:00:14 PM

^I'm sure that mentality exists in it to some degree.

Perhaps it wasn't specifically an element of the law's founding, but it's almost definitely a component to it now. Part of it is just the obvious knee-jerk reactions a pro-felon-voting politician would get from a stupider segment of the general public who basically do believe the "once a felon, always a felon" thing. Not to mention the immediate "TOO SOFT ON CRIME??" shitstorm that would be thrown up by the media.

Politics tends to destroy problem-solving attempts like that.

10/27/2009 7:04:27 PM

I love those question marks. So harmless yet powerful.

TROMBONER950 A CANNIBALISTIC PEDOPHILE??

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2009 7:07:48 PM

The question marks imply that, despite the STRONG DECLARATIVE STATEMENT IN THE HEADLINE, the actual article that no one will read is going to carefully examine both sides of the issue.

I wish the news had never learned of this tactic.

10/27/2009 7:10:09 PM

I dunno, guys.

It appears that we've had some recent success with scaling back these laws.

Go to the original link and see how many of the laws have changed recently (and some of them drastically).

Here's a link to four featured success stories at the Sentencing Project:
http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=130

I've read others like them all over the place and all having taken place within the last few years.

10/27/2009 7:52:14 PM