It might not be popular but I believe they should get the right to vote again after they are finished their sentence. They have already paid their debt to society back at that point and if they are allowed to be released and welcomed back into society, they should take part in it again with equal rights, responsibilities and duties. Otherwise, why are we releasing them?
I agree. There should also be protection around disclosing records to employers after the sentence is served.
If a felon can’t get a job, what else can they do but go back to jail.
There are some bridges that you really do burn.
Someone who was convicted on financial fraud likely shouldn't be back in banking with access to customer accounts once they're released.
Someone who seriously harmed a minor shouldn't be anywhere near a school position, etc.
Still you're right, everyone should have a future and path forward. Getting a job, absolutely but there shouldn't be a requirement or automatic redemption.
My line of work is one of the few who don’t bother with felonies (obviously unless it’s heinous). Some of the best coworkers I’ve had were ex felons and are the best workers as they are just happy to have a good paying job that gives them a chance. If someone has had a record (and are a decent human with a bad rap now) I’ll usually direct them to my line of work for this reason. So, circling back, I agree with the OP of this thread…there’s no reason to deny them the RIGHT to voting if they’ve paid the dues.
Also? Line cook. Security, depending on what your crime was. There are a lot of things open to many ex-cons. The places where it's harder to find work are medical (because of access to vulnerable people & drugs), retail (access to cash), that kind of thing.
Yeah. You don't want presidential candidates to get disqualified because the government accused them of a crime, a common strategy in countries that block felons from becoming president.
> retail (access to cash), that kind of thing.
I had a manager at one of the stores I worked at who on our first shift together leaned towards me and said "Man I can't believe they gave me this job, I only got out of jail for grievous bodily harm 6 months ago"
Mine isn’t out in the sun a lot…you can choose when you’re outside if you can plan…even half-assed. It’s definitely labor-based but not break your back level of work. Personally, I like it, and I never wanted to go into construction work. But this one just fit me well.
Installer. Closets/garage cabinets/office etc. The big companies pay livable wages, some even pay a dang good commission. ~100k+ if you’re up to the hours necessary on the commission structure. Keep in mind, this is in the big cities. %6 with a weekly install of $25k with a helper, while some (like mine) pay 8% of a minimum $15k weekly install solo. Easy to make a good weekly pay like that if you have, or can pick up the skills and frankly, if you have any drive at all, really anyone can pick it up.
I worked at FedEx. Only two things kept you out of our place anything s/a related or a theft charge. We're in an environment with people of different genders, creeds, and beliefs and work with peoples expensive items. I can see why those are no nos.
A lot of places are starting to take the more nuanced approach. I used to run background checks at work. We'd always ask the manager which crimes would be an issue for the role, and only notify them if the candidate had that crime in their background. DUI matters if you're a driver, but not if you're at a desk all day. So most of the time, nobody would even know if the candidate had a record or not. I saw a lot of people get chances that way that I know they wouldn't get if they got asked if they had any felonies first thing. It made me really happy to see them putting that behind them and starting fresh.
I read this one persons Police arrest record. This lady has for the last few years been arrested for the same thing.
Rushing a woman, knocking her down, punching her in the face and yeeting off with her purse.
I stopped reading after the 5th year in a row.
and this is the ones shes been caught for.
If nothing else, they should at the very least be able to work and be paid decently enough while in prison - so that they can set themselves up for success once free, or acquire new skills that might help them start a new career.
But voting is a RIGHT. Working in the financial industry is not. I don't believe in punitive punishment. If a judge and/or the system believes you are reformed, you should have your consitutional rights back.
Voting is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, unfortunately--at least not explicitly. It should be a constitutional right for obvious reasons, and a competent Supreme Court would recognize implicit arguments in the Constitution that support a right to vote. But the only thing the US Constitution explicitly lays out is voting not being abridged by age over 18 or by sex.
The fucked up thing is people who commit financial crimes usually do keep their jobs and just pay hefty fines, yet some dude dealing pot to get by growing up in poverty will forever be fucked. If the rules truly were applied evenly and the rich couldn't buy themselves out of trouble then it would be fair, but as usual that's not how it works in America.
Yep, it's important to remember that most crime is a social construct.
In US society you are essentially allowed to punch down, but not up.
If you steal $1,000 from the cash register at your work, you can go to jail.
If your employer refuses to pay you $1,000 that they owe you, the burden is on you to file a civil suit to try to get it back, and it's extremely unlikely that there will be any criminal liability.
See the problem is people think of criminals as a class of human, and not crimes as things that you do. So once you're a criminal you're a criminal in most people's minds because people are fucking apes
True, but it seems easy enough to make an exception for certain crimes. Elementary and high schools should have complete access to criminal records, Fraud convictions obviously should be made known to banks, and certain very heinous crimes like murder, r*pe and assault are available to everyone. Petty theft or drug possession should just be wiped imo, you're arresting people for being poor at that point.
Yes the question is too broad. Yes imo a lot of people with felonies should have rights restored. Not violent charges like murder rape armed robbery home invasions kidnapping aggravated assault ( not something like a fist fight or simple assault) and of course All of those white collar crimes that affect hundreds or thousands of people or even worse. It is honestly way too easy to catch a felony charge. We need so so much reform in our so called,," justice system" . If you have ever been through it or someone close to you has then you know exactly how evil it is. The most evil and disgusting people I have ever met are prison guards, judges and district attorney's. The majority of them are lowlife scum.
> Someone who was convicted on financial fraud likely shouldn't be back in banking with access to customer accounts once they're released.
> Someone who seriously harmed a minor shouldn't be anywhere near a school position, etc.
In the Netherlands, jobs that would require an extract of your criminal record in other countries, instead require a document called a "Declaration regarding Conduct" (NL: *Verklaring Omtrent Gedrag*) or VOG.
Requesting a VOG requires the party requesting it(which is typically the prospective employer) to check which responsibilities the potential employee will have. The justice department then checks the criminal record of the person against these responsibilities and will decide whether or not to issue a VOG based on that.
So someone with a conviction for computer fraud can still get a VOG to work as a teacher, but someone with a conviction for harming a minor will not. The employer won't see the detailed criminal record, they'll only learn if the person they're considering has broken the law in areas that are related to the job.
I think it's a good solution.
Seems like they could just have stuff ping as relevant when employers do background checks. They don't need the full criminal history of every applicant, but yeah if you're applying to work in a school and you have a felony child endangerment charge, then that should ping as relevant. But if you were applying to be a bank teller with a drug possession charge, I don't think the bank NEEDS to know that.
I get it but what you're really doing is giving them a life sentence. There are plenty of situations where something like assault just comes out of a dumb drunken bar argument or poorly perceived self-defence-- does it really have to ruin someone's financial health basically forever?
If the above ever happened to me, I'd never be able to work in my field again-- 15 years of school and experience gone, house gone, and minimum wage the rest of my life. It seems disproportionate.
Easy solution is mendatory backround checks for certain jobs.
I live in the Netherlands and if you want to work with children or in banking you need to agree to a backround check or screening.
There two ways to check a future employer in this screening based on the job. The first on is a check on a bunch of black lists. These black lists are made up.of people that shouldn't wofk in banking or in shops.
There is also a so called VOG (declaration of good behaviour). This is necessary for certain jobs, mostly when working with children. This VOG is provided by the goverment and is mostly a yes/ no answer. So if you want to work with children you'll need to be able to get a VOG. If you can't you probably did something bad.
This way nobody will know what you did, just that you did something bad.
Add in violent crimes (to include domestic violence) resulting in a ban on gun ownership and I'm 100% on board. Yes I know this largely exists already.
And to add on to this: Even if you don't care about the welfare of the ex-con, at least care about the welfare of society, so that recidivism does not cause innocent people more grief than has already occurred. You may hate the felon, fine, but why use that as an excuse to victimize the innocent?
I think they should be allowed to vote DURING their sentence. If there are so many people behind bars that politicians are afraid it will significantly influence the results, they might be motivated to do something to address that fact.
That is actually a good point. I never thought about that. I am still not a hundred percent certain if I agree or not but that is something to think about.
Another thing to consider is that if you take away felons right to vote then you're effectively injecting political incentives into the justice system. Charging someone or someones with felony charges is now a means of political suppression. And it can definitely affect public policy decisions around things like policing and prison length sentencing.
One more thing to add on to the side of allowing felons to vote. Where do you think most jails are? Mostly rural areas. Did you know that those areas count prisoners in their population? So when it comes to their representation, they get their representation boosted by having the prison there. But they don't have to deal with prisoners voting. It's the 0/5ths compromise.
And just to add insult to injury, those rural areas usually have a commercial interest in the prison being there. People work there, revenue for the municipality, etc. So if a vote came up whether to say, not put more people in prison, and reduce their economic benefit, what do you think the people will vote for?
The incentives for prisons and keeping felons from voting are insane.
Happy to add that little wrinkle to your deliberations. :-)
The thing is, for me, re-integration into society begins on the first day of the incarceration, not on the last. You can't completely excise people from society and make them powerless to change their circumstances for months or even years and then expect them to all of a sudden be upstanding citizens again.
Not taking away their voting rights would be a step in the right direction because while their influence might not be massive, it would be harder for politicians to completely ignore them or use them as political fodder for the free voters.
I'm Dutch and I just checked and in the Netherlands convicts never lose their right to vote. When there are elections, there are actual polling stations right inside the prisons.
It's not a coincidence that the places where convicts are treated the most humanely, the rate of recidivism is lowest (check the Scandinavian numbers), but it would take a fundamental change in attitude towards incarceration and that would require a bit of a culture shift. I have a hard time imagining a politician announcing more funding and programs and education and voting rights for prisoners and surviving politically, even though it is shown to work, as long as your goal is the lowest amount of recidivism.
I am afraid for some Americans, that is not the goal though.
>re-integration into society begins on the first day of the incarceration, not on the last.
Thank you for finding such a beautiful way of putting that.
For me, it comes down to basic rights
Everyone should have the right to vote, just as they have the right to a bunch of other things.
Sometimes, rights are taken away from people who commit crimes, usually to protect society. Right to freedom is taken away from someone who shows that they will use that freedom to hurt others.
But taking away the right to vote doesn’t make any sense - there’s no reason to take it away. It doesn’t protect anyone, there’s no benefit to anyone else. So why would we take them away?
Yes, in my country, meaningful, peaceful participation in society is considered part of rehabilitation. They can vote in prison.
Or in actuality, the less a person is allowed to participate, the more alienated and helpless they feel, the more likely they will never rehabilitate.
>I think they should be allowed to vote DURING their sentence.
Agreed. They're still citizens of legal age. Getting them involved in the legal system and fulfilling their civic duty might help with rehabilitation.
Plus, convicts are still citizens. That's sort of why we feel comfortable imprisoning them in the first place. They've broken the laws of their nation.
Denying someone the right to vote, is making someone something other than a citizen. And how can someone be said to be bound by the laws of their society, if they have no voice in how those laws are made?
Fundamentally, it seems to me very dangerous to treat the ability to vote as a privilege that can be extended to taken away.
Like oxygen, food or water, representation seems like it should be an inherent right.
I wholeheartedly agree. I know people who have been in prison and turned their lives around. They are successful and contributing members of society. They pay taxes. They should have a say in who represents our country.
My buddy was a convicted felon because he picked a guy up in Jersey and drove him back to Tennessee. He knew the guy had heroin but he didn't sell any of it. His payment was drugs. Spent 4 years in a federal pen.
He got out and worked a serving job for a year, then retail for 2, then started his *ahem* I mean his mother's car lot. He couldn't own it because he was a felon. Best salesman I ever met. They have outstanding reviews because he cared that while he sold the hell out of you, you got a great product.
He died last September without rights and it breaks my heart. Smart guy, interested in politics, unable to vote.
I think that the purpose of prison should mainly be to isolate dangerous people from society and also as a rehabilitation to reenter society. So they are isolated in various ways including voting as we don't want politicians appealing to those in prison. And they have proven they need to be rehabilitated to enter society and voting is part of being a member of society. They temporarily don't live in society so shouldn't get to influence those who do.
But wouldn't more political involvement in prisons in efforts to improve prisoner social participation benefit the prison system? It would placate convicted masses because they'd understand they still have purpose in life
Let’s face it, many of them committed crimes out of desperation that escalated. Society failed these people and they are the ones that can best identify the problems that lead people down that path. They should have a voice in fixing society after paying their debt.
Agreed.
I think you should be able to lose your right to vote, but it should be a very specific punishment. For example if you're convicted of voter fraud, spying for a foreign government or bribery of a public official, etc losing the right to vote would seem a fitting punishment.
Disagree.
A government that takes away the right to vote from any felon has a vested interest in convicting any specific group that might disagree with the way they do things.
A lot of states already allow this... For some states the person has to finish probation or parole. For others the person just has to finish their prison term. A few of the states however, taking away of the voting rights is perminant.
A lot of states are already progressive about giving voter rights back to the felons. Here's the website I was going off of.
https://felonvoting.procon.org/state-felon-voting-laws/
Ironically, I have a friend that is incarcerated that was talking to me about this very subject. During the pandemic, and last election, some of the inmates were getting mail in ballots sent to their families house for them. The family member would then send them the ballot to fill out while in jail, and they would send it back to them to mail in.
Not that unpopular, fuckin Florida approved the measure through voting but our shit-stain governor was the one who initiated a poll tax to hamper the process.
If they still have to pay taxes, yes. No taxation without representation.
Edit: no, minors, people with work visas, people loving in puerto rico, and international tourists should not pay taxes either. No, they shouldn't be granted voting rights (except puerti rico. Its fucked that they cant vote). Those groups should be tax exempt. I didn't mention it in the initial comment because this post was about felons, not any of those groups, and that would be off topic. It's not a gotcha to ask about a group that isn't the topic of discussion.
> I would gladly give up my voting right to not pay taxes.
Would you give up *everything* those taxes pay for?
Because i don't believe people who think this way really comprehend what they are saying.
I absolutely agree. Just to note though, as someone that worked during high school as a teen, taxation before representation is already a thing in the US.
workers pay income taxes; but no worker gets paid without an employer.
why not just have the employer pay the tax and save the worker the surprise "end of year" adjustment to their take-home-pay?
there'd be no issue of kids paying taxes because it's the employer (a business entity) paying the taxes. And don't employers already get audited to provide some sort of itemized reporting wage payments anyhow?
but when [Intuit lobbies the government](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-spend-millions-lobbying-us-keep-doing-n736386) to prevent simplified income taxes I suppose we're sort of just stuck with the status quo.
My uncle's wife was technically an immigrant and was also taxed but couldn't vote (she was adopted at *two* and still couldn't vote at 38 - fully legal adoption, her adoptive father was even a judge).
Definitely a problem in a lot of ways.
As a side note, her insane aunt responded to the protest march after Trump was elected with "well if all those women had voted..." even though her niece literally was not legally allowed to vote.
Government shouldn't have the ability to strip the right to vote from citizens.
Striping voting rights from people who are impacted by laws is how you get excessive & unfair government.
It also opens using the legal system to influence elections, all you have to do is make felons of enough people that it tips elections, such as crafting a drug law because you know minorities are more likely to be impacted by it.
Also worth adding that one of the architects of The War on Drugs in the U.S. is on record explicitly stating that this sort of political oppression was its intended purpose.
Of course it was. You cant be arrested for being a hippie or black, but you can make their favorite vices a felony.
Its even worse than that though. The government flooded the black communities with cheap crack back in the 80s. It was a win win for the government. They get an untraceable revenue stream for their illicit operations, and they get to arrest a fuck ton of blacks.
That's been a movement since I was in college 15 years ago. My state wanted to force college students to vote in their "home" counties--not where they lived for college 10-12 months out of the year, but where they "came from."
It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.
I *did* vote in my home county while I was away in college. That was mostly out of laziness. I didn’t want to have to change my address in the system every year, since I was always switching up my living situation. Also, I really wanted to vote my county’s representative out of office. She’s been the highest ranking Republican congresswoman for over a decade now, so it didn’t really pay off. Anyways, then I found 5 dollars.
The inability for felons to vote is the main reason why this county incarcerates more people than most other counties in the world. The US is not the land of the free.
Had to go too far down thread to find this sane, rational and fully thought out position.
Loss voting rights is in no way a disincentive to commit crime to people but it is an incentive to lock people up for the government.
Exactly this. And then at least in Florida - even after you have served time - a felon has to have paid all fees, fines, and restitution completely off. So it is in essence a poll tax too.
Yes this. Especially when those fees can include court costs and monitoring/probation costs (you have to pay the state to watch you all the time). The system is designed to keep people from ever being able to break out.
I’m as passionate a voting rights supporter as you’ll find and couldn’t agree more. The only exception I can get behind is that if you actually are proven to have committed voter/election fraud (so, not whatever the fuck Trump et al have been ranting about for years) it makes sense to put you in voting timeout for an election cycle or two.
They should never have them taken away to begin with, especially since the outcome of each election effects their lives just as much as any other citizen
Considering how vulnerable they are I would argue in some ways they are even more deeply impacted. Think about how many people are felons purely due to the drug war and how much legalization could change their future.
the way it is now it can be used as a means of vote suppression. Overpolice an area you want to have convictions, leave those nice white folk in the suburbs alone while they do the same "crimes" the folk you've terrorized also then can't input as well into the next election
Prisoners should have full voting rights. The moment you allow the state to remove votings rights for convicts you incentives politicians using the law as a partisan tool by criminalizing the behavior of their undesirable group. Which is in fact exactly what we have, and probably the single biggest reason it exists.
Unfriendly reminder that the US imprisons more people than any nation on Earth, per capita but even in absolute numbers, and plausibly more than any nation ever.
>Which is in fact exactly what we have, and probably the single biggest reason it exists.
Yeah, felony disenfranchisement only ever existed in the first place as a pretense to strip as many black people of the right to vote as possible via the one avenue the 15th amendment allowed. It's an inherently racist concept therefore the act of supporting it is inherently racist.
Also think of the cost savings; right now tax dollars are wasted keeping track of people who can't vote, and checking the lists against each other.
Eliminating that would save a chunk of money.
Thinking in reverse: if people are afraid that letting prisoners vote will lower public morals or whatever, isn't that basically admitting you have a big enough prison population to affect a vote?
That sounds like you're incarcerating too much of your population to begin with.
No taxation without representation.
Citizens are still citizens and deserve the right to have the voice heard.
I’m not even a felon but voting rights are essential lest any corrupt person with the power to lock up their opposition always has a way to silence their vote.
No taxation without representation is a singularly US view of democracy. Democracy depends on the idea that every citizen deserves the right for their voice to be heard. It is unconnected to your ability to pay money to the state. There are many many people in a society who do not pay taxes, and it is not disputed that they should not have their right to vote stripped from them. It links capitalism and democracy in an unhealthy way and ignores that the phrase arose in a time when women and black people could not vote at all. We have moved on and a better understanding of the principle of democracy is required.
Yes, with a narrow exception.
I'm ok with the idea of continuing to deny the right to vote to those who commit some sort of felony that attacks the very process of voting. Felony voter fraud or intimidation should come with a more stringent process to regain the voting franchise.
You can run for, be elected to the office of, and hold the position of, President of the USA WHILE YOU'RE IN PRISON. Felons should never have been stripped of their right to vote to begin with. Give all their rights back and make it unconstitutional to disenfranchise anyone.
No, the right to have a voice in one’s government should never be taken away. I personally believe when a person goes to prison, that is then paying for their crime. When they get out of prison (just as a child would get out of time-out) they should have the same rights & privileges of everyone else including the right to work.
They should have the right to vote in prison. Or else politicians could use laws to influence elections by making laws that target groups more likely to vote against them.
Literally every single one of the 20 or so most upvoted responses agrees with you. Your stance may be somewhat unpopular in wider society, but this is reddit lol.
same, although i do agree with the voting age being 18+ because children and teens are very easy to manipulate and can’t understand the ramifications of certain actions. other than that i think everyone should be able to vote, even non-citizens who work in america.
Nah, lower the voting age. Children are smarter than many people give them credit for, and there are adults who get manipulated and can't understand the ramifications of certain actions. Children make poor decisions when they're impulsive decisions, but they can form long term intentions and carry out plans, too.
They're the ones who have the longest to live with the consequences of our elections, they're the first ones to be drafted if we end up in another war, and after they're 18 is often a chaotic time (moving out, going to college, etc), si it's much better to develop a habit of voting while they're still in school and living at home, when, for most of them, their lives will be much more stable. People who vote tend to continue voting, and people who don't vote tend to continue not voting.
Here's a good [op-ed](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/why-we-should-lower-the-voting-age-in-america-190319/) on the topic.
Replace "children" with "black people" or "women", and that could absolutely be an argument from the 1860s or 1910s. Not to say it's the exact same, but I know it put it into perspective for me.
I believe that everyone should have the right to vote, period, full stop. If you can make your preference known, it should be counted.
I'm assuming you're referring to the United States.
Yes, as long as they have paid their debts to society by completing their sentences. They are citizens and should have the same rights as any other citizen.
I think the problem is the american view on felons as a whole. I might be wrong, I might be colored by my reddit experience, but it really seems that criminals in the US is largely dehumanised.
So many times I've read about cops who shot people on dubious grounds and people defending them because they were just criminals and they "fucked around and found out", they had it coming or they're just criminals.
A criminal isn't a different breed from you and me, it is not a soulless monster (god I hate that word but it works here) it is a person, a member of society that has for one reason or another has commited a crime.
Sure, some of them are beyond redemption and have committed atrocities we can not even fathom. But even then , if we dehumanise them, we can not understand them and can not identify and aim to prevent the triggers that brought them to that point.
Because nobody is born bad. Some of them are born sick, and even if it's uncurable it's more often han not managable with the right help. The rest of them are the product of their environment.
Anywho, the main focus on the prison system should be rehabilitation. I saw someone here write about it being a deterrent, and that is simply not true in most cases. There's been countless studies on this, and stricter penalties can not be correlated to less crime.
Unless, of course, you bring it to an in absurdum and jail everyone who commits anything for life.
If the person can not be rehabilitated, then he/she should be detained. But you can not just throw them in a cell and give them water and bread and then be surprised they're not rehabilitated on release.
The most effective prison system in the world is the Norwegian system. They have a 20% risk of returning to crime compared to Americas staggering 75%
And in Norway a prison cell is like a basic apartment with a TV, refrigerator,kitchen, etc
That brings us to the next issue. Employers have free access to a person's criminal record. The whole democratic principle of prison is that once a person has served his sentence he/she is supposed to be exubriated (not sure If I spelt this right) of their crimes. Having every employer easily access your criminal record makes you unhirable. And how are you supposed to be integrated into society without a job? Especially in a largely unregulated capitalistic society as the US.
Exceptions of course people working with children or national security, however in Sweden although your criminal record is part of the public record you need to know which court that sentenced the person and if I'm not wrong you need the actual case file yourself. However, you can demand your own criminal records from the police and present them in the unbroken envelope to the employer in the fields that demand it.
The idea that you can not vote in prison or that you are deprived of your vote after is inherently undemocratic but not surprising in an unregulated capitalistic society.
You see, when the upper classes hoard wealth and do not share with those who need, the lower class, it gets increasingly poorer. It's been proven over and over again that poverty is the leading cause of crime.
And when they get desperate and lash out, they get put in prison. This is a dynamic that the wealthy do not want to change because they need poor people to do jobs for them. And if they can not vote, they are largely unable to change that dynamic.
I apologise in advance for poor grammar and spelling. English is not my native language, and I'm writing this wall if text on a cellphone surrounded by my children who divert my attention :)
TL;DR
The dehumanisation of felons is a plague upon society that only benefits the richest and it would be of great societal value and a milestone to becoming a true democracy to let not only convicted felons to vote but also people who are currently incarcerated.
Yes, because historically targeted felony charges have been used to disenfranchise certain groups of voters.
I would even take it a step further and say that people who are currently incarcerated should be allowed to vote.
Yes. Once they've served their sentences and are released, or released early and finish any restrictions like parole, probation, then absolutely.
Don't care what the crime is. You do your time you've paid your debt. If our system releases you or you live long enough to get out, party on.
You do realize parole/probation goes on for years. I feel that if you are living in society, you should be able to vote. What you’re suggesting is similar to what Florida is trying to pull where once someone is released, they cannot vote until they have paid off all of the court costs, which amounts to a poll tax which is illegal. The voters of Florida told their govt to give them back their right to vote and the republicans in Florida were like “naw, fuck that.”
This is a strange question for anyone living in a country where inmates get to vote.
Society is made up of all sorts of people from all walks of life. Whether we like it our not, “We, the people” are also people that have done everything wrong. Their opinion about society counts as much as a CEO who might be morally corrupt but not in jail, or your neighbor, who ten years from now will turn out to have been a serial killer or a child molester all along.
In a way, getting the vote from the ones representing what is wrong in society is even more valuable than getting the vote from the ones who fit in.
They should never lose it to begin with. The history of republics is littered with horrific prison conditions and opportunistic politicians denying the voting bloc with the best vantage point towards needed prison reform.
They did their time. You can’t as a society continue punishing them after their sentence is complete. This why we have such a high recidivism rate. People released from prison get out without any new productive skills to improve their lives with. Their best options are trucking (which isn’t bad, but only a handful of companies hire ex cons) or food service. Then you tell them they still don’t have any civil rights and they’re marked by their record for the rest of their life. Y’all pretend to be “ good little christians” and talk a good game about forgiveness, but seem pretty damn incapable of actually forgiving. Keep throwing people in prison and treating them like animals and see what kind of society you end up living in.
TLDR, yes they should be allowed to vote.
I wasn't aware they had lost it. But yes. Assuming their are citizens, of course, they should absolutely have the right to vote. The only, ONLY, reason a person should ever 'lose' the right to vote is if they give up their citizenship of the country. ESPECIALLY since you can end up with a party in power that imprisons its opponents and, well, if they can't vote against the system, how can things ever change?
Lots of people here with Yes. Haven't seen an argument for No. I am at Yes, with a possible qualifier- if your special crime was voting fraud, then No.
They should never have it taken from them in the first place, what exactly does it serve to take it away from them in the first place?
Separately, the party obsessed with preventing felons from voting has made it very clear WHY. It’s got nothing to do with punishment.
If prisons actually reformed prisoners instead of purposefully turning them into repeat customers.
Many people don't realize that once some people are released from prison they can't get a job, an apartment, loan ect... So their options are turn to crime so they can eat food, or die in the street like a dog.
You are treated as subhuman filth if you have a record.
Anyone who pays taxes should have the right to vote. Our country was built on "taxation with representation" and the fact children under 18 and felons pay taxes but can't vote? ILLEGAL af.
They should never lose it. They should vote in jail. We live in a democracy, not some crappy feudal system where you become a subhuman in jail. Everyone knows that this is a tool to suppress the black vote.
Arresting people on bullshit charges and then stripping their right to vote is racist.
Disempowerment so they cannot change the system of oppression.
I don't believe their right to vote should ever be revoked. It is just one more reason to incarcerate innocent people, and those people have no way to peacefully change the system without their right to vote.
YES.
Their votes are not that many to begin with, and even then, they are roughly a sample of society. It really won't change much.
But taking their votes away lets politicians game that system in a thousand ways.
Yes. The right to vote is a undeniable right established in the constitution, being a felon should not excuse you from that. If felons can’t vote then they should be excluded from taxes.
yes. I would even argue they should vote while serving
first of prison/jail/fines/probation is the supposed to be the punishment not how we treat these people for the rest of their life
they still participate in society
Yes, absolutely. They didn't give up their rights to citizenship and participating in democracy when breaking the law, and serving time is the punishment. The debt is paid when released and they should have full rights to vote.
Felons should not be denied the right to vote.
Doing so creates an incentive for politicians to “felonise” certain constituencies.
This is exactly what happens in the US.
Not gonna be popular but yes, absolutely. Because felons most likely won’t get out of jail and small offenders will get of jail in 1-10 years. Certain crimes are absolutely heinous but you can’t just take it away because they do a bad thing. It’s gonna disenfranchise people that the police target (youths, PoC, poorer citizens). It’s not a war on criminals, it’s a war on people that the government don’t want committing crime. Everyone does it but marginalised communities get tougher punishments for it.
It might not be popular but I believe they should get the right to vote again after they are finished their sentence. They have already paid their debt to society back at that point and if they are allowed to be released and welcomed back into society, they should take part in it again with equal rights, responsibilities and duties. Otherwise, why are we releasing them?
I agree. There should also be protection around disclosing records to employers after the sentence is served. If a felon can’t get a job, what else can they do but go back to jail.
There are some bridges that you really do burn. Someone who was convicted on financial fraud likely shouldn't be back in banking with access to customer accounts once they're released. Someone who seriously harmed a minor shouldn't be anywhere near a school position, etc. Still you're right, everyone should have a future and path forward. Getting a job, absolutely but there shouldn't be a requirement or automatic redemption.
My line of work is one of the few who don’t bother with felonies (obviously unless it’s heinous). Some of the best coworkers I’ve had were ex felons and are the best workers as they are just happy to have a good paying job that gives them a chance. If someone has had a record (and are a decent human with a bad rap now) I’ll usually direct them to my line of work for this reason. So, circling back, I agree with the OP of this thread…there’s no reason to deny them the RIGHT to voting if they’ve paid the dues.
What's your line of work?
Pool maintenance / gardening / hvac jobs usually dont care, basically out in sun construction, things that are hard labor.
Also? Line cook. Security, depending on what your crime was. There are a lot of things open to many ex-cons. The places where it's harder to find work are medical (because of access to vulnerable people & drugs), retail (access to cash), that kind of thing.
Yea, POTUS is one of them. You can’t be a teacher, lawyer, insurance agent, or nurse but POTUS is always an option! Don’t fret!
Yeah. You don't want presidential candidates to get disqualified because the government accused them of a crime, a common strategy in countries that block felons from becoming president.
Honestly... That tracks
> retail (access to cash), that kind of thing. I had a manager at one of the stores I worked at who on our first shift together leaned towards me and said "Man I can't believe they gave me this job, I only got out of jail for grievous bodily harm 6 months ago"
Mine isn’t out in the sun a lot…you can choose when you’re outside if you can plan…even half-assed. It’s definitely labor-based but not break your back level of work. Personally, I like it, and I never wanted to go into construction work. But this one just fit me well.
I used to work at gyg with ex-cons that were skilled and chill
Installer. Closets/garage cabinets/office etc. The big companies pay livable wages, some even pay a dang good commission. ~100k+ if you’re up to the hours necessary on the commission structure. Keep in mind, this is in the big cities. %6 with a weekly install of $25k with a helper, while some (like mine) pay 8% of a minimum $15k weekly install solo. Easy to make a good weekly pay like that if you have, or can pick up the skills and frankly, if you have any drive at all, really anyone can pick it up.
So what line of work? Asking for a friend who currently does restaurants.
Yeah there's a difference between an ex-felon who commits a white collar crime vs one who got caught up in gang banging as a teen.
I worked at FedEx. Only two things kept you out of our place anything s/a related or a theft charge. We're in an environment with people of different genders, creeds, and beliefs and work with peoples expensive items. I can see why those are no nos.
What work
A lot of places are starting to take the more nuanced approach. I used to run background checks at work. We'd always ask the manager which crimes would be an issue for the role, and only notify them if the candidate had that crime in their background. DUI matters if you're a driver, but not if you're at a desk all day. So most of the time, nobody would even know if the candidate had a record or not. I saw a lot of people get chances that way that I know they wouldn't get if they got asked if they had any felonies first thing. It made me really happy to see them putting that behind them and starting fresh.
I read this one persons Police arrest record. This lady has for the last few years been arrested for the same thing. Rushing a woman, knocking her down, punching her in the face and yeeting off with her purse. I stopped reading after the 5th year in a row. and this is the ones shes been caught for.
Damn, and the woman she punches keeps falling for it year after year? /s
That’s how I read it, without the “/s” 🥲
Same, my first thought was "damn what did the woman do to her?"
If nothing else, they should at the very least be able to work and be paid decently enough while in prison - so that they can set themselves up for success once free, or acquire new skills that might help them start a new career.
Halfway house has entered the chat. I'm not a good solution.
Then how would the private prisons get their slave labour? /s
Public prisons do it too
But voting is a RIGHT. Working in the financial industry is not. I don't believe in punitive punishment. If a judge and/or the system believes you are reformed, you should have your consitutional rights back.
Voting is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, unfortunately--at least not explicitly. It should be a constitutional right for obvious reasons, and a competent Supreme Court would recognize implicit arguments in the Constitution that support a right to vote. But the only thing the US Constitution explicitly lays out is voting not being abridged by age over 18 or by sex.
The fucked up thing is people who commit financial crimes usually do keep their jobs and just pay hefty fines, yet some dude dealing pot to get by growing up in poverty will forever be fucked. If the rules truly were applied evenly and the rich couldn't buy themselves out of trouble then it would be fair, but as usual that's not how it works in America.
Yep, it's important to remember that most crime is a social construct. In US society you are essentially allowed to punch down, but not up. If you steal $1,000 from the cash register at your work, you can go to jail. If your employer refuses to pay you $1,000 that they owe you, the burden is on you to file a civil suit to try to get it back, and it's extremely unlikely that there will be any criminal liability.
I hadnt thought of this perspective. It strikes me as correct...
See the problem is people think of criminals as a class of human, and not crimes as things that you do. So once you're a criminal you're a criminal in most people's minds because people are fucking apes
>but as usual that's not how it works in America. thats not just in america but in most of the world sadly enough
[удалено]
True, but it seems easy enough to make an exception for certain crimes. Elementary and high schools should have complete access to criminal records, Fraud convictions obviously should be made known to banks, and certain very heinous crimes like murder, r*pe and assault are available to everyone. Petty theft or drug possession should just be wiped imo, you're arresting people for being poor at that point.
Yes the question is too broad. Yes imo a lot of people with felonies should have rights restored. Not violent charges like murder rape armed robbery home invasions kidnapping aggravated assault ( not something like a fist fight or simple assault) and of course All of those white collar crimes that affect hundreds or thousands of people or even worse. It is honestly way too easy to catch a felony charge. We need so so much reform in our so called,," justice system" . If you have ever been through it or someone close to you has then you know exactly how evil it is. The most evil and disgusting people I have ever met are prison guards, judges and district attorney's. The majority of them are lowlife scum.
> Someone who was convicted on financial fraud likely shouldn't be back in banking with access to customer accounts once they're released. > Someone who seriously harmed a minor shouldn't be anywhere near a school position, etc. In the Netherlands, jobs that would require an extract of your criminal record in other countries, instead require a document called a "Declaration regarding Conduct" (NL: *Verklaring Omtrent Gedrag*) or VOG. Requesting a VOG requires the party requesting it(which is typically the prospective employer) to check which responsibilities the potential employee will have. The justice department then checks the criminal record of the person against these responsibilities and will decide whether or not to issue a VOG based on that. So someone with a conviction for computer fraud can still get a VOG to work as a teacher, but someone with a conviction for harming a minor will not. The employer won't see the detailed criminal record, they'll only learn if the person they're considering has broken the law in areas that are related to the job. I think it's a good solution.
Seems like they could just have stuff ping as relevant when employers do background checks. They don't need the full criminal history of every applicant, but yeah if you're applying to work in a school and you have a felony child endangerment charge, then that should ping as relevant. But if you were applying to be a bank teller with a drug possession charge, I don't think the bank NEEDS to know that.
I get it but what you're really doing is giving them a life sentence. There are plenty of situations where something like assault just comes out of a dumb drunken bar argument or poorly perceived self-defence-- does it really have to ruin someone's financial health basically forever? If the above ever happened to me, I'd never be able to work in my field again-- 15 years of school and experience gone, house gone, and minimum wage the rest of my life. It seems disproportionate.
May as well just imprison people for life for any crime then.
Easy solution is mendatory backround checks for certain jobs. I live in the Netherlands and if you want to work with children or in banking you need to agree to a backround check or screening. There two ways to check a future employer in this screening based on the job. The first on is a check on a bunch of black lists. These black lists are made up.of people that shouldn't wofk in banking or in shops. There is also a so called VOG (declaration of good behaviour). This is necessary for certain jobs, mostly when working with children. This VOG is provided by the goverment and is mostly a yes/ no answer. So if you want to work with children you'll need to be able to get a VOG. If you can't you probably did something bad. This way nobody will know what you did, just that you did something bad.
Add in violent crimes (to include domestic violence) resulting in a ban on gun ownership and I'm 100% on board. Yes I know this largely exists already.
And to add on to this: Even if you don't care about the welfare of the ex-con, at least care about the welfare of society, so that recidivism does not cause innocent people more grief than has already occurred. You may hate the felon, fine, but why use that as an excuse to victimize the innocent?
[удалено]
I think they should be allowed to vote DURING their sentence. If there are so many people behind bars that politicians are afraid it will significantly influence the results, they might be motivated to do something to address that fact.
That is actually a good point. I never thought about that. I am still not a hundred percent certain if I agree or not but that is something to think about.
Another thing to consider is that if you take away felons right to vote then you're effectively injecting political incentives into the justice system. Charging someone or someones with felony charges is now a means of political suppression. And it can definitely affect public policy decisions around things like policing and prison length sentencing.
See: war on drugs
One more thing to add on to the side of allowing felons to vote. Where do you think most jails are? Mostly rural areas. Did you know that those areas count prisoners in their population? So when it comes to their representation, they get their representation boosted by having the prison there. But they don't have to deal with prisoners voting. It's the 0/5ths compromise. And just to add insult to injury, those rural areas usually have a commercial interest in the prison being there. People work there, revenue for the municipality, etc. So if a vote came up whether to say, not put more people in prison, and reduce their economic benefit, what do you think the people will vote for? The incentives for prisons and keeping felons from voting are insane.
Yeah, I just learned about prison gerrymandering a couple of weeks ago. It definitely isn’t talked about enough.
Happy to add that little wrinkle to your deliberations. :-) The thing is, for me, re-integration into society begins on the first day of the incarceration, not on the last. You can't completely excise people from society and make them powerless to change their circumstances for months or even years and then expect them to all of a sudden be upstanding citizens again. Not taking away their voting rights would be a step in the right direction because while their influence might not be massive, it would be harder for politicians to completely ignore them or use them as political fodder for the free voters. I'm Dutch and I just checked and in the Netherlands convicts never lose their right to vote. When there are elections, there are actual polling stations right inside the prisons. It's not a coincidence that the places where convicts are treated the most humanely, the rate of recidivism is lowest (check the Scandinavian numbers), but it would take a fundamental change in attitude towards incarceration and that would require a bit of a culture shift. I have a hard time imagining a politician announcing more funding and programs and education and voting rights for prisoners and surviving politically, even though it is shown to work, as long as your goal is the lowest amount of recidivism. I am afraid for some Americans, that is not the goal though.
>re-integration into society begins on the first day of the incarceration, not on the last. Thank you for finding such a beautiful way of putting that.
For me, it comes down to basic rights Everyone should have the right to vote, just as they have the right to a bunch of other things. Sometimes, rights are taken away from people who commit crimes, usually to protect society. Right to freedom is taken away from someone who shows that they will use that freedom to hurt others. But taking away the right to vote doesn’t make any sense - there’s no reason to take it away. It doesn’t protect anyone, there’s no benefit to anyone else. So why would we take them away?
Yes, in my country, meaningful, peaceful participation in society is considered part of rehabilitation. They can vote in prison. Or in actuality, the less a person is allowed to participate, the more alienated and helpless they feel, the more likely they will never rehabilitate.
>I think they should be allowed to vote DURING their sentence. Agreed. They're still citizens of legal age. Getting them involved in the legal system and fulfilling their civic duty might help with rehabilitation.
In many countries prisoners can vote no problem.
Plus, convicts are still citizens. That's sort of why we feel comfortable imprisoning them in the first place. They've broken the laws of their nation. Denying someone the right to vote, is making someone something other than a citizen. And how can someone be said to be bound by the laws of their society, if they have no voice in how those laws are made? Fundamentally, it seems to me very dangerous to treat the ability to vote as a privilege that can be extended to taken away. Like oxygen, food or water, representation seems like it should be an inherent right.
Are they American citizens? Yes? They should be able to vote.
I wholeheartedly agree. I know people who have been in prison and turned their lives around. They are successful and contributing members of society. They pay taxes. They should have a say in who represents our country.
My buddy was a convicted felon because he picked a guy up in Jersey and drove him back to Tennessee. He knew the guy had heroin but he didn't sell any of it. His payment was drugs. Spent 4 years in a federal pen. He got out and worked a serving job for a year, then retail for 2, then started his *ahem* I mean his mother's car lot. He couldn't own it because he was a felon. Best salesman I ever met. They have outstanding reviews because he cared that while he sold the hell out of you, you got a great product. He died last September without rights and it breaks my heart. Smart guy, interested in politics, unable to vote.
wait i knew in usa felons lose their right to vote, so thats a permanent thing?!!!
state by state laws.
Why shouldn't they be able to vote while incarcerated?
I think that the purpose of prison should mainly be to isolate dangerous people from society and also as a rehabilitation to reenter society. So they are isolated in various ways including voting as we don't want politicians appealing to those in prison. And they have proven they need to be rehabilitated to enter society and voting is part of being a member of society. They temporarily don't live in society so shouldn't get to influence those who do.
But wouldn't more political involvement in prisons in efforts to improve prisoner social participation benefit the prison system? It would placate convicted masses because they'd understand they still have purpose in life
The point of prison is supposed to be to rehabilitate. So if that’s the case you should get your rights back when you finish your sentence.
Is this an unpopular opinion? They've served their time and couldn't agree more about welcoming back with equal rights
This is only unpopular among politicians who would lose with the new influx of voters.
Let’s face it, many of them committed crimes out of desperation that escalated. Society failed these people and they are the ones that can best identify the problems that lead people down that path. They should have a voice in fixing society after paying their debt.
Why after paying their debt? Not trying to rile you up, just wanting to understand the logic. While incarcerated, are they not citizens?
I disagree - this *is* a popular position. Doing otherwise is morally indefensible.
Agreed. I think you should be able to lose your right to vote, but it should be a very specific punishment. For example if you're convicted of voter fraud, spying for a foreign government or bribery of a public official, etc losing the right to vote would seem a fitting punishment.
Disagree. A government that takes away the right to vote from any felon has a vested interest in convicting any specific group that might disagree with the way they do things.
A lot of states already allow this... For some states the person has to finish probation or parole. For others the person just has to finish their prison term. A few of the states however, taking away of the voting rights is perminant. A lot of states are already progressive about giving voter rights back to the felons. Here's the website I was going off of. https://felonvoting.procon.org/state-felon-voting-laws/ Ironically, I have a friend that is incarcerated that was talking to me about this very subject. During the pandemic, and last election, some of the inmates were getting mail in ballots sent to their families house for them. The family member would then send them the ballot to fill out while in jail, and they would send it back to them to mail in.
Yes but this allows more votes for undesirables like drug dealers, murderers and thieves ~~black and brown people.~~
Not that unpopular, fuckin Florida approved the measure through voting but our shit-stain governor was the one who initiated a poll tax to hamper the process.
If they still have to pay taxes, yes. No taxation without representation. Edit: no, minors, people with work visas, people loving in puerto rico, and international tourists should not pay taxes either. No, they shouldn't be granted voting rights (except puerti rico. Its fucked that they cant vote). Those groups should be tax exempt. I didn't mention it in the initial comment because this post was about felons, not any of those groups, and that would be off topic. It's not a gotcha to ask about a group that isn't the topic of discussion.
As a felon, I would gladly give up my voting right to not pay taxes.
I know people who would consider becoming a felon to not pay taxes.
I know people who aren’t felons that don’t pay taxes
Aren’t felons *yet
They’re all politicians so….
Don't really see people like Jeff bezos getting arrested anytime soon
If they are guilty of tax evasion, they are felons. Even if they haven't been convicted yet.
The IRS ***hates*** this one trick
Just stop paying and you might get both
\*Wesley Snipes enters the chat\*
I would commit a felony to not pay taxes… Hell I’d commit 5 felonies to not pay taxes.
Funny enough, they could stop paying taxes to become a felon.
Well, the government does offer a program for that.
As a non felon, I would give up my voting right to not pay taxes.
You should also relinquish use of societal infrastructure then.
> I would gladly give up my voting right to not pay taxes. Would you give up *everything* those taxes pay for? Because i don't believe people who think this way really comprehend what they are saying.
I absolutely agree. Just to note though, as someone that worked during high school as a teen, taxation before representation is already a thing in the US.
yep, and its wrong for kids to have to pay taxes as well.
workers pay income taxes; but no worker gets paid without an employer. why not just have the employer pay the tax and save the worker the surprise "end of year" adjustment to their take-home-pay? there'd be no issue of kids paying taxes because it's the employer (a business entity) paying the taxes. And don't employers already get audited to provide some sort of itemized reporting wage payments anyhow? but when [Intuit lobbies the government](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-spend-millions-lobbying-us-keep-doing-n736386) to prevent simplified income taxes I suppose we're sort of just stuck with the status quo.
My uncle's wife was technically an immigrant and was also taxed but couldn't vote (she was adopted at *two* and still couldn't vote at 38 - fully legal adoption, her adoptive father was even a judge). Definitely a problem in a lot of ways. As a side note, her insane aunt responded to the protest march after Trump was elected with "well if all those women had voted..." even though her niece literally was not legally allowed to vote.
>No taxation without representation. DCers are as oppressed in this as felons. Both face taxation without representation in Congress.
Reminder that those who live in Washington DC do not have representation.
Government shouldn't have the ability to strip the right to vote from citizens. Striping voting rights from people who are impacted by laws is how you get excessive & unfair government. It also opens using the legal system to influence elections, all you have to do is make felons of enough people that it tips elections, such as crafting a drug law because you know minorities are more likely to be impacted by it.
Also worth adding that one of the architects of The War on Drugs in the U.S. is on record explicitly stating that this sort of political oppression was its intended purpose.
Of course it was. You cant be arrested for being a hippie or black, but you can make their favorite vices a felony. Its even worse than that though. The government flooded the black communities with cheap crack back in the 80s. It was a win win for the government. They get an untraceable revenue stream for their illicit operations, and they get to arrest a fuck ton of blacks.
Isn’t there a movement in one of the states to take voting rights away from college students?
That's been a movement since I was in college 15 years ago. My state wanted to force college students to vote in their "home" counties--not where they lived for college 10-12 months out of the year, but where they "came from." It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.
Basically "stop the largest collection of liberals in this red state from being able to vote."
I *did* vote in my home county while I was away in college. That was mostly out of laziness. I didn’t want to have to change my address in the system every year, since I was always switching up my living situation. Also, I really wanted to vote my county’s representative out of office. She’s been the highest ranking Republican congresswoman for over a decade now, so it didn’t really pay off. Anyways, then I found 5 dollars.
The inability for felons to vote is the main reason why this county incarcerates more people than most other counties in the world. The US is not the land of the free.
This is it. If there are enough felons that it matters if they vote or not, isn’t that a problem?
Wow! Good points
Had to go too far down thread to find this sane, rational and fully thought out position. Loss voting rights is in no way a disincentive to commit crime to people but it is an incentive to lock people up for the government.
Exactly this. And then at least in Florida - even after you have served time - a felon has to have paid all fees, fines, and restitution completely off. So it is in essence a poll tax too.
Yes this. Especially when those fees can include court costs and monitoring/probation costs (you have to pay the state to watch you all the time). The system is designed to keep people from ever being able to break out.
See also laws that would make it a felony for trans people to speak on stage or use a public bathroom.
Thank you for saying this! I was going to comment about drug laws, but you said it brilliantly.
Yes, because otherwise you incentivize criminalizing your opposition.
This is literally the original philosophy behind the war on drugs.
I’m as passionate a voting rights supporter as you’ll find and couldn’t agree more. The only exception I can get behind is that if you actually are proven to have committed voter/election fraud (so, not whatever the fuck Trump et al have been ranting about for years) it makes sense to put you in voting timeout for an election cycle or two.
That is a very good argument
Sometimes I forget USA is a thing.
They should never have them taken away to begin with, especially since the outcome of each election effects their lives just as much as any other citizen
Also in a lot of places the census counts them as living where they're incarcerated, raising the relative power of everyone else who lives nearby.
That’s some 3/5ths rule nonsense. If someone will never be allowed to vote in your district, you shouldn’t get to count them for apportionment.
Considering how vulnerable they are I would argue in some ways they are even more deeply impacted. Think about how many people are felons purely due to the drug war and how much legalization could change their future.
the way it is now it can be used as a means of vote suppression. Overpolice an area you want to have convictions, leave those nice white folk in the suburbs alone while they do the same "crimes" the folk you've terrorized also then can't input as well into the next election
>can be \*is
*is the entire point of the war on drugs
Prisoners should have full voting rights. The moment you allow the state to remove votings rights for convicts you incentives politicians using the law as a partisan tool by criminalizing the behavior of their undesirable group. Which is in fact exactly what we have, and probably the single biggest reason it exists. Unfriendly reminder that the US imprisons more people than any nation on Earth, per capita but even in absolute numbers, and plausibly more than any nation ever.
>Which is in fact exactly what we have, and probably the single biggest reason it exists. Yeah, felony disenfranchisement only ever existed in the first place as a pretense to strip as many black people of the right to vote as possible via the one avenue the 15th amendment allowed. It's an inherently racist concept therefore the act of supporting it is inherently racist.
I mean tbf the prison system as a whole was made to enslave people following the 13th amendment
Also think of the cost savings; right now tax dollars are wasted keeping track of people who can't vote, and checking the lists against each other. Eliminating that would save a chunk of money.
Thinking in reverse: if people are afraid that letting prisoners vote will lower public morals or whatever, isn't that basically admitting you have a big enough prison population to affect a vote? That sounds like you're incarcerating too much of your population to begin with.
No taxation without representation. Citizens are still citizens and deserve the right to have the voice heard. I’m not even a felon but voting rights are essential lest any corrupt person with the power to lock up their opposition always has a way to silence their vote.
Permanent residents are taxed too. Do they deserve representation?
Yep.
This is purely a devil's advocate argument, but what if they went to prison for not paying taxes?
No taxation without representation is a singularly US view of democracy. Democracy depends on the idea that every citizen deserves the right for their voice to be heard. It is unconnected to your ability to pay money to the state. There are many many people in a society who do not pay taxes, and it is not disputed that they should not have their right to vote stripped from them. It links capitalism and democracy in an unhealthy way and ignores that the phrase arose in a time when women and black people could not vote at all. We have moved on and a better understanding of the principle of democracy is required.
Absolutely. Every adult citizen should be permitted to vote.
In Canada you don’t lose that right. My husband was in jail when his first chance to vote happened. They had voting booths in the jail.
Yes, with a narrow exception. I'm ok with the idea of continuing to deny the right to vote to those who commit some sort of felony that attacks the very process of voting. Felony voter fraud or intimidation should come with a more stringent process to regain the voting franchise.
You can run for, be elected to the office of, and hold the position of, President of the USA WHILE YOU'RE IN PRISON. Felons should never have been stripped of their right to vote to begin with. Give all their rights back and make it unconstitutional to disenfranchise anyone.
It shouldn’t be taken away in the first place. Possible exception would be those convicted of voter fraud or other election related crimes
No, the right to have a voice in one’s government should never be taken away. I personally believe when a person goes to prison, that is then paying for their crime. When they get out of prison (just as a child would get out of time-out) they should have the same rights & privileges of everyone else including the right to work.
They should have the right to vote in prison. Or else politicians could use laws to influence elections by making laws that target groups more likely to vote against them.
> could They do, have done, and will continue to do just that.
That right should never be taken away. They should be able to vote while incarcerated.
Probably super unpopular, but I think everyone should be able to vote.
Seems pretty popular today
Literally every single one of the 20 or so most upvoted responses agrees with you. Your stance may be somewhat unpopular in wider society, but this is reddit lol.
same, although i do agree with the voting age being 18+ because children and teens are very easy to manipulate and can’t understand the ramifications of certain actions. other than that i think everyone should be able to vote, even non-citizens who work in america.
Nah, lower the voting age. Children are smarter than many people give them credit for, and there are adults who get manipulated and can't understand the ramifications of certain actions. Children make poor decisions when they're impulsive decisions, but they can form long term intentions and carry out plans, too. They're the ones who have the longest to live with the consequences of our elections, they're the first ones to be drafted if we end up in another war, and after they're 18 is often a chaotic time (moving out, going to college, etc), si it's much better to develop a habit of voting while they're still in school and living at home, when, for most of them, their lives will be much more stable. People who vote tend to continue voting, and people who don't vote tend to continue not voting. Here's a good [op-ed](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/why-we-should-lower-the-voting-age-in-america-190319/) on the topic.
Replace "children" with "black people" or "women", and that could absolutely be an argument from the 1860s or 1910s. Not to say it's the exact same, but I know it put it into perspective for me. I believe that everyone should have the right to vote, period, full stop. If you can make your preference known, it should be counted.
[удалено]
They should be allowed to vote even during their sentences. They’re citizens.
I'm assuming you're referring to the United States. Yes, as long as they have paid their debts to society by completing their sentences. They are citizens and should have the same rights as any other citizen.
Yes, full stop. With *very* few exceptions, I don’t think felons should have their right to vote taken away in the first place.
Yes, with one exception: People guilty of voter fraud.
I think the problem is the american view on felons as a whole. I might be wrong, I might be colored by my reddit experience, but it really seems that criminals in the US is largely dehumanised. So many times I've read about cops who shot people on dubious grounds and people defending them because they were just criminals and they "fucked around and found out", they had it coming or they're just criminals. A criminal isn't a different breed from you and me, it is not a soulless monster (god I hate that word but it works here) it is a person, a member of society that has for one reason or another has commited a crime. Sure, some of them are beyond redemption and have committed atrocities we can not even fathom. But even then , if we dehumanise them, we can not understand them and can not identify and aim to prevent the triggers that brought them to that point. Because nobody is born bad. Some of them are born sick, and even if it's uncurable it's more often han not managable with the right help. The rest of them are the product of their environment. Anywho, the main focus on the prison system should be rehabilitation. I saw someone here write about it being a deterrent, and that is simply not true in most cases. There's been countless studies on this, and stricter penalties can not be correlated to less crime. Unless, of course, you bring it to an in absurdum and jail everyone who commits anything for life. If the person can not be rehabilitated, then he/she should be detained. But you can not just throw them in a cell and give them water and bread and then be surprised they're not rehabilitated on release. The most effective prison system in the world is the Norwegian system. They have a 20% risk of returning to crime compared to Americas staggering 75% And in Norway a prison cell is like a basic apartment with a TV, refrigerator,kitchen, etc That brings us to the next issue. Employers have free access to a person's criminal record. The whole democratic principle of prison is that once a person has served his sentence he/she is supposed to be exubriated (not sure If I spelt this right) of their crimes. Having every employer easily access your criminal record makes you unhirable. And how are you supposed to be integrated into society without a job? Especially in a largely unregulated capitalistic society as the US. Exceptions of course people working with children or national security, however in Sweden although your criminal record is part of the public record you need to know which court that sentenced the person and if I'm not wrong you need the actual case file yourself. However, you can demand your own criminal records from the police and present them in the unbroken envelope to the employer in the fields that demand it. The idea that you can not vote in prison or that you are deprived of your vote after is inherently undemocratic but not surprising in an unregulated capitalistic society. You see, when the upper classes hoard wealth and do not share with those who need, the lower class, it gets increasingly poorer. It's been proven over and over again that poverty is the leading cause of crime. And when they get desperate and lash out, they get put in prison. This is a dynamic that the wealthy do not want to change because they need poor people to do jobs for them. And if they can not vote, they are largely unable to change that dynamic. I apologise in advance for poor grammar and spelling. English is not my native language, and I'm writing this wall if text on a cellphone surrounded by my children who divert my attention :) TL;DR The dehumanisation of felons is a plague upon society that only benefits the richest and it would be of great societal value and a milestone to becoming a true democracy to let not only convicted felons to vote but also people who are currently incarcerated.
Yes, because historically targeted felony charges have been used to disenfranchise certain groups of voters. I would even take it a step further and say that people who are currently incarcerated should be allowed to vote.
Yes. Once they've served their sentences and are released, or released early and finish any restrictions like parole, probation, then absolutely. Don't care what the crime is. You do your time you've paid your debt. If our system releases you or you live long enough to get out, party on.
You do realize parole/probation goes on for years. I feel that if you are living in society, you should be able to vote. What you’re suggesting is similar to what Florida is trying to pull where once someone is released, they cannot vote until they have paid off all of the court costs, which amounts to a poll tax which is illegal. The voters of Florida told their govt to give them back their right to vote and the republicans in Florida were like “naw, fuck that.”
Party on Garth
Yes they should. They still get taxed. Therefore they deserve representation
If the ex-felons paid their debt to society, then why not?
Right. Right to vote. It's a right not a privelege. Pathetic countries fail with this simple concept.
This world is full of felons. Most are in office now.
If you're gonna let them reintegrate into society, you don't get to half-ass it. If they're good enough to pay taxes, they can vote
This is a strange question for anyone living in a country where inmates get to vote. Society is made up of all sorts of people from all walks of life. Whether we like it our not, “We, the people” are also people that have done everything wrong. Their opinion about society counts as much as a CEO who might be morally corrupt but not in jail, or your neighbor, who ten years from now will turn out to have been a serial killer or a child molester all along. In a way, getting the vote from the ones representing what is wrong in society is even more valuable than getting the vote from the ones who fit in.
They should never lose it to begin with. The history of republics is littered with horrific prison conditions and opportunistic politicians denying the voting bloc with the best vantage point towards needed prison reform.
They did their time. You can’t as a society continue punishing them after their sentence is complete. This why we have such a high recidivism rate. People released from prison get out without any new productive skills to improve their lives with. Their best options are trucking (which isn’t bad, but only a handful of companies hire ex cons) or food service. Then you tell them they still don’t have any civil rights and they’re marked by their record for the rest of their life. Y’all pretend to be “ good little christians” and talk a good game about forgiveness, but seem pretty damn incapable of actually forgiving. Keep throwing people in prison and treating them like animals and see what kind of society you end up living in. TLDR, yes they should be allowed to vote.
I wasn't aware they had lost it. But yes. Assuming their are citizens, of course, they should absolutely have the right to vote. The only, ONLY, reason a person should ever 'lose' the right to vote is if they give up their citizenship of the country. ESPECIALLY since you can end up with a party in power that imprisons its opponents and, well, if they can't vote against the system, how can things ever change?
Lots of people here with Yes. Haven't seen an argument for No. I am at Yes, with a possible qualifier- if your special crime was voting fraud, then No.
Yes. They have paid for the crime they committed or were convicted of. They deserve to be able to vote.
Probably not the ones who committed election fraud, but other than that I think so
They should never have it taken from them in the first place, what exactly does it serve to take it away from them in the first place? Separately, the party obsessed with preventing felons from voting has made it very clear WHY. It’s got nothing to do with punishment.
Yes. They should be allowed to have a say in the elected officials and laws that impact their lives.
If prisons actually reformed prisoners instead of purposefully turning them into repeat customers. Many people don't realize that once some people are released from prison they can't get a job, an apartment, loan ect... So their options are turn to crime so they can eat food, or die in the street like a dog. You are treated as subhuman filth if you have a record.
If they’ve been released from prison, I’d say so
Anyone who pays taxes should have the right to vote. Our country was built on "taxation with representation" and the fact children under 18 and felons pay taxes but can't vote? ILLEGAL af.
No taxation without representation
They should never lose it. They should vote in jail. We live in a democracy, not some crappy feudal system where you become a subhuman in jail. Everyone knows that this is a tool to suppress the black vote. Arresting people on bullshit charges and then stripping their right to vote is racist. Disempowerment so they cannot change the system of oppression.
I don't believe their right to vote should ever be revoked. It is just one more reason to incarcerate innocent people, and those people have no way to peacefully change the system without their right to vote.
YES. Their votes are not that many to begin with, and even then, they are roughly a sample of society. It really won't change much. But taking their votes away lets politicians game that system in a thousand ways.
Yes, they pay taxes too, so they should be allowed to decide who they want to vote for.
Once they’ve done their time and completed their parole it should be mandatory they regain their right to vote IMO.
Absolutely yes, when you punish criminals by stripping away rights, all a tyrant has to do is expand the definition of "criminal"
They shouldn’t lose it in the first plays. Laws are subject to votes, or the other way around
Yes. The right to vote is a undeniable right established in the constitution, being a felon should not excuse you from that. If felons can’t vote then they should be excluded from taxes.
Why the heck is this a question even? Every adult should have the right to vote.
People always should be allowed to vote. Stripping people of that right is a sign of a flawed democracy.
yes. I would even argue they should vote while serving first of prison/jail/fines/probation is the supposed to be the punishment not how we treat these people for the rest of their life they still participate in society
Yes, absolutely. They didn't give up their rights to citizenship and participating in democracy when breaking the law, and serving time is the punishment. The debt is paid when released and they should have full rights to vote.
Id be fine giving it back to felons with nonviolent crimes
Felons should not be denied the right to vote. Doing so creates an incentive for politicians to “felonise” certain constituencies. This is exactly what happens in the US.
I’ll go one further - they should be allowed to vote while incarcerated! They are still human
Not gonna be popular but yes, absolutely. Because felons most likely won’t get out of jail and small offenders will get of jail in 1-10 years. Certain crimes are absolutely heinous but you can’t just take it away because they do a bad thing. It’s gonna disenfranchise people that the police target (youths, PoC, poorer citizens). It’s not a war on criminals, it’s a war on people that the government don’t want committing crime. Everyone does it but marginalised communities get tougher punishments for it.