Poll of the Day > Prisoners should be allowed to vote

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/impact.html

If you disagree, that voting privilege should be revoked, then at the least they shouldn't count as "population" as far as the electoral college is concerned...

I mean, can you imagine if a swing state before an election just imported a ton of prisoners to gain extra population? That'd be... ... idk, something

---

I don't agree that prisoners should be allowed to vote. However, given that their reason for being incarcerated is sometimes not by choice, such as being incarcerated for a crime that should have been followed by rehabilitation in the case of drug addition or they were wrongly-imprisoned by officers that were prejudiced toward their race/religion/upbringing/etc or a myriad of other reasons, they shouldn't be stripped of all of their rights. That said, the criminal justice system is wholly broken and is in need of serious reform, just like everything else in this country.

WastelandCowboy posted...

However, given that their reason for being incarcerated is sometimes not by choice,

Uh, what?

WastelandCowboy posted...

such as being incarcerated for a crime that should have been followed by rehabilitation in the case of drug addition

While you could argue diminished capacity, that's still choice. However, if you are arguing diminished capacity, you can't exactly turn around and suggest that they should be allowed to vote.

WastelandCowboy posted...

they were wrongly-imprisoned by officers that were prejudiced toward their race/religion/upbringing/etc or a myriad of other reasons,

Because people are only wrongly-convicted based on prejudice? >_>

Speaking of, once an officer gets it into their mind that somebody is guilty, it's very hard to persuade them otherwise... even if a DNA test shows them that the "murder victim" is still alive (at which point some police officers put forward the theory that the woman had another, previously-unknown daughter who impersonated the victim).

WastelandCowboy posted...

they shouldn't be stripped of all of their rights.

They're not. However, besides their freedom and the right to vote, which rights do they lack that you feel they should have?

---

The only time a prisoner shouldn't be allowed to vote is if they're in jail for some kind of voting fraud. No reason why felons shouldn't be able to vote either.
---

Revelation34 posted...

The only time a prisoner shouldn't be allowed to vote is if they're in jail for some kind of voting fraud

1) Prisoners yield certain rights when convicted, and there's strong precedent for not allowing prisoners to vote. There are over a hundred democracies in the world and only 10-15 allow prisoners to vote.

2) If you're going to open the floor, why discriminate against people convicted of voter fraud? That makes no sense, especially considering that it would absurdly difficult to do it in prison and, even if they had done it in prison, the impact is far greater than the one vote you'd allot them.

(Also I'm assuming by "felons" you were excluding those currently imprisoned for a felony.)

---

Prisoners should vote on the wardens of their prisons. Nothing more.

---

Zeus posted...

1) Prisoners yield certain rights when convicted, and there's strong precedent for not allowing prisoners to vote. There are over a hundred democracies in the world and only 10-15 allow prisoners to vote.

For no reason.
---

Ive yet to hear one good reason for why they shouldnt be able to vote.

If you want to get into real government instituted systemic oppression, theres many angles to it in this one.

---

The whole reason why our drug laws are so strict is literally to suppress that demographic. There are ex-Nixon administration people who admit this.

---

Ex cons definitely deserve the right to vote they've paid their dues to society but serving out their term least they can do is let them vote. Not to mention that it's included imo to suppress black votes.

---

Yeah, my only problem with that would be that you can't trust prisons.

If they have completed their sentence they should absolutely be able to vote.

---

I remember being a kid and learning that felons, though citizens, couldnt vote. Even back then I was shocked and perplexed.

---

Zeus posted...

1) Prisoners yield certain rights when convicted, and there's strong precedent for not allowing prisoners to vote. There are over a hundred democracies in the world and only 10-15 allow prisoners to vote.

Mmm, okay, fine, if that's how you think the social contract should be. But just because we've done something before, doesn't mean we should do it again, or keep doing it. Precedent isn't really an argument, in itself.

But it's not black and white either, when it comes to disenfranchising prisoners. Have a look at the wide variety of rules in Europe. Austria even used to ban prisoners from voting for six months after their release! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20447504

Imagine if prisoners were allowed to vote. Candidates would be like if you vote for them theyll give out more pardons. People dont think but Arv does

---

afrodude77 posted...

Ex cons definitely deserve the right to vote they've paid their dues to society but serving out their term least they can do is let them vote. Not to mention that it's included imo to suppress black votes.

This is incredibly flawed since the earliest law was before the Civil War.

ArvTheGreat posted...

Imagine if prisoners were allowed to vote. Candidates would be like if you vote for them theyll give out more pardons. People dont think but Arv does

Doesn't look like you thought about it.
---

We just plain should not have so many prisoners period.

The war on drugs should have ended (actually never started) along time ago, especially since it's so racist.

If fact, it's just another nail in the coffin of how bad our system is that you are not only taking away prisoners freedom, but their ability to try and vote to improve the nation they were born in.

Almost 50%....of the HUGE amount of people we have in prisons are there for drug offenses.

Only 3.3% are in there for Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses.

10% are in there for sexual offenses, and while I consider this a good enough reason to imprison someone, a very large % of them are minorities (which probably means the number is way inflated and many shouldn't be there).

In general, it is probably less than 10% of the people in prison that should be there, and should not be allowed to vote even if you think being a prisoner removes that right.

Are prison system is wacked, it's for profit, for political gain, and extremely racist. THAT is what needs to change.

---

I agree with allowing non-mentally disturbed prisoners to vote.

If anything it would definitely start to increase quality of life and rehabilitation practices in prisons just because politicians need their votes

ReggieTheReckless posted...

I agree with allowing non-mentally disturbed prisoners to vote.

If anything it would definitely start to increase quality of life and rehabilitation practices in prisons just because politicians need their votes

Is it even possible to be a prisoner for any period of time and not become mentally disturbed?

---

I guess I meant more of not allowing actual psycho murderers to vote

ReggieTheReckless posted...

I guess I meant more of not allowing actual psycho murderers to vote

So they can run for office but not vote for themselves. That makes sense:)

---

Zangulus posted...

This is flawed logic. Thats not how the electorate numbers are determined. At least not directly.

Yes, I got corrected on this on reddit...

Apparently this only affects passing laws on the state and county levels.

---

By not allowing prisoners to vote, you have just given the government a massive incentive to give itself the power to imprison whoever it wants.

---

On one hand, I get the broader logic of not allowing it. Somebody with enough resentment toward their society to break its laws can potentially be expected to vote in a way that harms it, or at least doesn't benefit the law-abiding citizens. On the other hand, being able to say "you broke one of the laws I wrote so now you can't vote against me" has incredible potential to be abused to suppress votes, which is really bad (see: the aforementioned example of the war on drugs). Even if that abuse isn't specifically intended by those writing laws, the degree to which the justice system favours the rich means preventing felons from voting will inevitably have more of a suppressive effect on poor and middle-class voters. As much as it intuitively makes sense, there also isn't really much reason to believe that a convicted felon is likely to vote against society's best interests, since most felonies don't suggest any particular desire to bring about the collapse of society as we know it (treason aside, obviously).

It feels like it makes sense if you don't think too much about it, so I understand why people generally don't have an issue with taking the right to vote away from felons, but ultimately, I would say it likely does more harm than good.

---

Zeus posted...

There are over a hundred democracies in the world and only 10-15 allow prisoners to vote.

Most of Europe is 10-15?

Automatically being disallowed to vote fter a conviction, was ruled to be against human rights by the European Human Rights Court and most European countries accepted and agreed with that ruling.

---

adjl posted...

Somebody with enough resentment toward their society to break its laws can potentially be expected to vote in a way that harms it

i dunno about that, plenty of regular people seem to vote that way all on their own

---

Mead posted...

i dunno about that, plenty of regular people seem to vote that way all on their own

That's the other thing. I know you're making a tongue-in-cheek joke about people being too stupid to vote productively, but those who resent society enough to vote against its best interests are still able to vote that way, provided they haven't committed any felonies. Blocking felons from voting on that basis not only blocks a sizable number of people with no intention of voting so maliciously, it also fails to block a sizable number of people voting maliciously who have stayed above board.

---

ReggieTheReckless posted...

I guess I meant more of not allowing actual psycho murderers to vote

I thought you meant actually insane people. Not somebody who happened to murder somebody.
---

Mead posted...

If they have completed their sentence they should absolutely be able to vote.

This. Once theyre out, they should be able to vote. Theyve served their time. They are part of the country. Let them vote and stuff...
---

Revelation34 posted...

For no reason.

There's a pretty fucking good reason. If somebody is deemed unable to function in a society (thus needing to be locked up), why would you allow them to determine how that society is run? That's absolutely insane. And that's not even getting into other issues.

kangolcone posted...

Ive yet to hear one good reason for why they shouldnt be able to vote.

Have you heard one good reason why they're locked up? Because if you can justify taking their freedom, you've already justified taking their vote.

HornedLion posted...

I remember being a kid and learning that felons, though citizens, couldnt vote. Even back then I was shocked and perplexed.

If somebody is in prison, obviously they shouldn't be allowed to vote. If somebody is paroled from prison, maybe they should be allowed to vote. If somebody's parole has ended, then sure, allow them to vote. Otherwise I'm sure you're equally shocked that we imprison citizens for crimes.

Shark8637 posted...

Mmm, okay, fine, if that's how you think the social contract should be. But just because we've done something before, doesn't mean we should do it again, or keep doing it. Precedent isn't really an argument, in itself.

Precedent is an all-important legal concept. It's what keeps the law from being wholly arbitrary and capricious. As for the social contract, inmates generally chose to violate their side of it

wolfy42 posted...

We just plain should not have so many prisoners period.

And we wouldn't, if we had an actual reformation system and reasonable sentencing limits. The fact that we give out life sentences at all is a matter of controversy, let alone giving them like candy. Even most of the board's so-called liberals and progressives are often caught advocating for life sentences. And you hear people spout nonsense like, "20 years isn't enough!", often from posters who are barely more than 20 years old themselves.

The fact we have so many prisoners is largely the result of overlapping sentencing, as well imprisoning people who belong in psych wards or rehab centers.

wolfy42 posted...

The war on drugs should have ended (actually never started) along time ago, especially since it's so racist.

lolwut?

wolfy42 posted...

10% are in there for sexual offenses, and while I consider this a good enough reason to imprison someone, a very large % of them are minorities (which probably means the number is way inflated and many shouldn't be there).

Triple lolwut?


---

Zeus posted...

If somebody is in prison, obviously they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2)

Clearly not as obvious as you seem to think.

---

Will they be out within the term?

---

Zeus posted...

There's a pretty fucking good reason. If somebody is deemed unable to function in a society (thus needing to be locked up), why would you allow them to determine how that society is run? That's absolutely insane. And that's not even getting into other issues

No that's not a good reason.
---

Zeus posted...

There's a pretty f***ing good reason. If somebody is deemed unable to function in a society (thus needing to be locked up), why would you allow them to determine how that society is run?

Largely because of how difficult it is to pin down a reasonable line for "unable to function in society to enough of an extent to deserve a vote." Given the extremely wide range of reasons somebody can be jailed, "in jail" is hardly a good basis for that. Somebody who committed treason probably shouldn't be able to vote, since they've demonstrated clear contempt for the country (though even then there's an argument to be made that voting gives them a proper avenue by which to try effecting their desired political change, which is something they will need if they are to be rehabilitated), but you can't really say the same of somebody who's in jail for smoking a joint.

Like I said, it's very intuitive to say that people in jail obviously hate society too much to be trusted with a vote, but in practice it's much more nuanced than that, even before considering the potential for abuse from lawmakers that want to manipulate who can influence the government. Toss in that potential for abuse, and the issue becomes a lot less simple than it seems at first glance.

Zeus posted...

Precedent is an all-important legal concept. It's what keeps the law from being wholly arbitrary and capricious.

No, it just helps to ensure that the law is arbitrary and capricious in a consistent, predictable manner. Precedent is often deferred to because it's easier to say "we did it this way before and it worked" than to attempt to justify a different arbitrary interpretation, but if you can provide a concrete argument in favour of ignoring precedent in the current case, precedent should not be deferred to. Precedent is the legal equivalent of tradition, and it was once well-established tradition to keep slaves. Sometimes, precedents and traditions need changing.

Zeus posted...

lolwut?

Nixon started the war on drugs primarily as a means of discrediting and suppressing two voter bases that strongly opposed him: Hippies (by making pot illegal, since a disproportionate number of hippies smoked pot) and blacks (by making heroin illegal, since a disproportionate number of blacks used heroin). There's an argument to be made that that wasn't technically racist (looking just at the black half of that, obviously) because it was politically motivated rather than actually being a matter of hating black people, but the end result was a disproportionate number of black people ending up in jail on drug charges. Minorities (especially blacks) continue to be targeted disproportionately for drug charges, with white people routinely receiving lighter sentences (if being charged at all) for identical drug crimes.

The War on Drugs is very much racist in its execution, if not necessarily in its underlying concept. A massively disproportionate number of the people in prison on drug-related charges are minorities, far more than could reasonably be explained by "I guess those people just do more drugs" even if there were any other evidence to support such a hypothesis, and that's a huge problem for those communities.

---

The war on drugs started LONG before Nixon was president.
---

Nixon's particular contributions to it, then.

---

The war on drugs should never have started. We should have legalized it, sold it, taxed it, used some of that money to create programs to help people get off drugs, and also btw, totally undercut all the criminals from other countries etc that made tons of money off it.

It would also have helped prevent people getting addicted to it by pushers etc so they can make money etc, so would probably have resulted in less people on drugs over all.

It also would have halves (at least) our current prison population, which would have saved a ton of money as well (until they started making it for profit at least).

If we spent all the money on helping people and creating opportunities for them, instead of imprisoning them, this country would be a far better place.

---

wolfy42 posted...

The war on drugs should never have started. We should have legalized it, sold it, taxed it, used some of that money to create programs to help people get off drugs, and also btw, totally undercut all the criminals from other countries etc that made tons of money off it.

It would also have helped prevent people getting addicted to it by pushers etc so they can make money etc, so would probably have resulted in less people on drugs over all.

It also would have halves (at least) our current prison population, which would have saved a ton of money as well (until they started making it for profit at least).

If we spent all the money on helping people and creating opportunities for them, instead of imprisoning them, this country would be a far better place.

If they're on a dangerous drug then they should still be arrested. But they should be taken to a rehab facility instead of prison.
---

Revelation34 posted...

If they're on a dangerous drug then they should still be arrested. But they should be taken to a rehab facility instead of prison.

What is a dangerous drug though?

I mean PCP I guess, yeah that should still be illegal.

Coke etc? The wealthy have been doing that with no reprecussions forever.
Weed? Yeah right.

Most drugs if done in a safe way (Which is much more likely if you make it legal) are not dangerous.

Heroin maybe is bad, but, sell it straight up, let people use it, and if they are addicted get it safely for a fixed price, but inform everyone how dangerous it is and addicting. Offer help getting off it ifyou want. Don't put the power in the hands of criminals though.

If drugs were available legally, but were discouraged, and resources were given to help people get off them, things would be waaaay better.

---

I dunno I'm pretty sure someone in jail for possession of marijuana deserves to vote more than someone who refuses to wear a mask in public because they "ain't no pussy."

---

wolfy42 posted...

What is a dangerous drug though?

I mean PCP I guess, yeah that should still be illegal.

Coke etc? The wealthy have been doing that with no reprecussions forever.
Weed? Yeah right.

Most drugs if done in a safe way (Which is much more likely if you make it legal) are not dangerous.

Heroin maybe is bad, but, sell it straight up, let people use it, and if they are addicted get it safely for a fixed price, but inform everyone how dangerous it is and addicting. Offer help getting off it ifyou want. Don't put the power in the hands of criminals though.

If drugs were available legally, but were discouraged, and resources were given to help people get off them, things would be waaaay better.

PCP and meth.
---

Don't most people do meth because safer/better drugs are too expensive? If other drugs were legal and available, maybe less people would want to do meth anyway.

PCP is too dangerous and should be illegal though, but, I guess, if your willing to sign a waver and take it inside a locked room etc, even that could be allowed legally.

We should stay out of what people can do to their own bodies, even dangerous drugs, as long as they sign a waver to not get medical attention and are kept behind a locked door etc until the drug wears off.

Better than throwing em in jail in my opinion.

---

If you support their rights check out this site https://bantheboxcampaign.org

Help them get better jobs to avoid recidivism.

---

Nah. If you're going to break the rules then you aren't entitled to the freedoms those rules are protecting. Besides, if this was allowed then the bad guys will abuse the hell out of it because they're so dead set against Trump. It's like why not get those who already hate the gov't to vote, right?

---

Remove the right to vote to anyone who can vote themselves more welfare or government aid.

---

Then you should also be okay with them having their 2nd amendment rights as well.

DPsx7 posted...

If you're going to break the rules then you aren't entitled to the freedoms those rules are protecting.

The freedom to vote generally isn't protected by the rules that convicts have broken, though. Murder isn't illegal because it infringes on people's right to vote, it's illegal because it infringes on people's right to life (although, indirectly, murdering somebody does rather interfere with their ability to vote).

The_tall_midget posted...

Remove the right to vote to anyone who can vote themselves more welfare or government aid.

Under that logic, the entire country should have had their right to vote removed the moment Yang put UBI into his platform. That's not very sound logic.

---

Revelation34 posted...

PCP and meth.

Terrible drugs, but how does criminalizing them help?

---

Mead posted...

Terrible drugs, but how does criminalizing them help?

By putting people in rehab. Marijuana should be completely unregulated. Well other than making it illegal to lace it.
---