»Should former criminals be allowed to vote?«
|
|||
 Register first to vote here posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)Should former criminals be allowed to vote? |
|
|||
 In an ideal world (and we're far from that) where the punishment fits the crime, then you would have to say "immediately". The idea is that a convicted person who has done their time (or taken whatever form of punishment was due) has paid their debt to society. If that's the case then there is not reason to prevent them rejoining society in the fullest sense and that includes the right to decide that society's future. But this is not an ideal world and there are things worse than prison and people who've comitted no crime that are still not allowed to vote. 
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I have to say that it depends on what crime did he commit. You can't take away a person's right to vote for one single misdemeanor many years ago. Getting caught smoking pot, or silly stuf like that wouldn't merit a sanction suck as that. On the other hand, rape, murder, armed robbery do. posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: Getting caught smoking pot, or silly stuf like that wouldn't merit a sanction suck as that. On the other hand, rape, murder, armed robbery do. Why is that? Pot can damage your ability to chose the right candidate. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Pot can damage your ability to chose the right candidate. Now that's a matter of opinion 
Did pot damage my ability to choose the right forum? 
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Did pot damage my ability to choose the right forum? Not yet
posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Not yet Why? What's next? CRAPSY 2?
posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I agree that a lot depends on how serious a crime they have committed. On the other hand, who said that a crime can influence their ability to choose the right candidate? A crime like avoiding taxes might be committed by somebody with a bright mind. Not bright enough to not be caught but still... Maybe you should only forbid them to vote if they committed a crime against the State. That is a reason to deprive them of that right. If a crime was committed against another person... how does it influence the ability to think? Unless the person is mentally disabled? Ok, it makes the criminal not a perfect citizen, but I doubt it very much that citizens who are crimeless are always sane. Judging by the post I am not too firm on this question. Open to new ideas, so to say.
posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 mymla: Maybe you should only forbid them to vote if they committed a crime against the State. That is a reason to deprive them of that right. That's exactly the sort of situation where they should DEFINATELY be allowed to vote. What if someone attempts to assassinate George Bush? This would be a crime against the state but it might be motivated by Bush's actions. Maybe they have relatives who were killed in the war on Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe religious fanatics who Bush supports were harrassing their gay friends who wanted to marry? Maybe they have friends who were wrongly accused and sent to Guantanemo Bay? Who knows...? Now imagine a politician worse than Bush. A kind of Hitler figure. They are finding any excuse they can to arrest people who are in fact 'political prisoners'. They target certain individuals and will find any excuse to imprison them and, if necessary, will pervert the course of justice in order to send them away. If these 'political prisoners' are then unable to vote this would be perfect for the Hitleresque politician. Not only is their opponent wrongly accused but they are also completely incapable of taking them out of office! No, anyone who hates the state should have the right to choose a different one at the election. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
mymla: Maybe you should only forbid them to vote if they committed a crime against the State. That is a reason to deprive them of that right. If a crime was committed against another person... how does it influence the ability to think? It doesn't influence their ability to think at all, but it's just another way to punish them for what they've done. And another thing: if they don't respect the integrity of other people, why should the people (or the State) respect their choice of vote? posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 that this thread stems from the accusations against george and jeb bush where by all convicted felons were removed from the voting register... supposedly this ended up including their families members...all people with the same names as the felons and even people with similar names.. the accusation being that most of these people were black and that blacks predominantly vote democrat am i right in thinking this is the reason behind this thread posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Quote: Quote: Did pot damage my ability to choose the right forum? Not yet. Why? What's next? CRAPSY 2? The next is CROUT-SY. You can only post if the exhalator-dongle has checked your THC level
posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: that this thread stems from the accusations against george and jeb bush where by all convicted felons were removed from the voting register... Far worse. A lot were not criminials. Convicted in 2007 (= in the future) and scandals like that. Quote: he discovered that some voters on the purge list were convicted in 2007, which he termed "future felons." In addition, 4,000 purged voters had blank conviction dates — providing no verification of a felony. In other words: Since Bush has won Florida by somewhat 500 votes AND most disallowed voters were Democrats it is safe to assume, that something stinks here. IMO → Unrightful voting inhibitions in US elections 2000 and 2004 
[CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE] posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: That's exactly the sort of situation where they should DEFINATELY be allowed to vote.
... No, anyone who hates the state should have the right to choose a different one at the election. Yes, makes sense. They know exact reasons why the state is not perfect the way it is and how it could be made better and thus should be obliged to vote. I meant a different kind of an against-the-state crime, something like let's say passing information to its enemies or spying for such countries. A crime not against the regime or the person but but against the State as such. posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: It doesn't influence their ability to think at all, but it's just another way to punish them for what they've done. And another thing: if they don't respect the integrity of other people, why should the people (or the State) respect their choice of vote? Yes, that's a reason why I am not convinced that a person who tried to assasinate the President should be allowed to vote. Someone who uses murder as a way to settle their problems doesn't seem to me a completely sane person. Neither in a case when the reasons are connected with State or because of some personal dislikes. Btw, I don't beleive that not letting to vote is a good way to punish someone. So, not let them vote at all or what? if they didn't respect other people's integrity once, they are most likely to disrespect it again. posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 22 May 2012, 06:33 php B.B. |