Voting rights for felons

The issue in the UK is there is a blanket ban on voting for everyone in prison (the EU is trying to get the government to change this law). This includes people who don't pay parking fines and are only in prison for a few months. What would certainly make more sense is if prisoners can vote only if they will not be in prison in time for the result of their vote to matter in their public non-prison life.

As in general elections are every five years here. If they are in prison for the first three but out for the last two then they should be able to vote. But if they are in prison for six years, including one full term of elected parliament then there is an argument for them not being allowed to vote. This latter condition would affect only those who have committed rather serious offences.

Akkarin wrote: The issue in the UK is there is a blanket ban on voting for everyone in prison (the EU is trying to get the government to change this law). This includes people who don't pay parking fines and are only in prison for a few months. What would certainly make more sense is if prisoners can vote only if they will not be in prison in time for the result of their vote to matter in their public non-prison life.

As in general elections are every five years here. If they are in prison for the first three but out for the last two then they should be able to vote. But if they are in prison for six years, including one full term of elected parliament then there is an argument for them not being allowed to vote. This latter condition would affect only those who have committed rather serious offences.

What is your argument for them not being able to vote in these situations?

I think that a lot of the law today is criminal, it's gone far beyond just common law and there's many articles and videos online about how it's pretty much roman law or maritime admiralty law and it's all just one giant game of not-so-obvious contracts and money which includes why we have national debt and privately owned central banks that control treasury departments because countries are literally make believe ships and it all goes back to the Vatican/Holy Roman Empire that was/is also the British Empire and America is still just an investment/franchise. The Constitution, founding fathers is all just a pretty story told to us as the Constitution was never properly ratified to begin with and the civil war ended whatever it was and gave full blown birth to the United States Corporation.

I'm not one of those sovereign citizen types who think I'm above the law and can just go to court and say I don't consent to this or that and get away, although in some instances it works it just requires too much specific knowledge of the language of law and having all sorts of documents of cases and definitions as they correlate to various laws allowing one to effectively represent themselves in court and get out of a lot of the statutory nonsense.

Anyways, the criminal justice system is full of criminal prosecutors, judges, attorneys, police, the police are pretty much Knights serving, protecting the elite Nobility in our Neo-Feudalist system. The prison industrial complex serves to trap the people who would be honest but through all the taxes, manipulation of the economy, lack of education and occupations, all the cracks and holes in the social weflare stuff and healthcare, the media and entertainments that provide the divide and conquer mechanisms as well as the Roman bread and circuses, are forced or influenced to make poor, short term decisions whether for survival or just for the not so nice pleasure or with extreme brutality to mitigate or release all the built up tension from trying to conform and keep up with the insanity of society.

While we can argue all day about the mental illness of 'criminals' or 'felons' and how they don't respect society's laws and don't participate, you have to put yourself in their shoes and not just think they're bad people this all goes much deeper than just that and that's what political correctness wants you to think as it presents the system as yours, that you get to vote and participate and so you feel like you're involved in the destiny of ours species and the progression of making things better when at the end of the day it's really just a game for you to play so you stay calm and within the boundaries so you can tell yourself you're better than those 'criminals and 'felons'. Just like how they present 'terrorists' to us in the media, you can define it all day long about how it's radicalism and extremism, that these people are just crazy with no justification and that these or those people are simply 'innocent', because you've grown up in a bubble protected by and serving your Lords who tell you everything you know, you have consented to live under a banner that uses you to do things to people elsewhere that you would never believe and don't.

When you compare the punishment for certain crimes, you'll find that ones that deserve serious punishment and time are actually not so serious. Prison also just makes things worse for most people, it's either a college for you to learn how to be like those in there or it's such a traumatic experience that it turns you into a monster. But just for laughs I'll say not letting felons vote is just dumb, people make mistakes, people change and people who are serious threats to society and peace are easily identified and can be dealt with if they're not already in a high position of authority or influence, but most of them are.

I do understand the arguments that by committing these crimes they have given up their rights, but aren't some rights inalienable? I would imagine that the right to have a say in our government is one of them. After all, America was founded on the idea that everyone should have a say, wasn't it? We fought a war because we were being governed with no say in how we were governed or by who. So why should we do it to our own people?

There's also the argument that they could try to manipulate the system by voting and thus influence the laws. Well isn't that what all of us are doing every time we vote? But when someone who hasn't been to prison does it it's just called exercising our right, when they do it it's "manipulating the system." But it's the same thing.

I do like what Senan said about responsibilities and rights. As a gun owner I especially enjoyed the bit about the second amendment. The only response I have to that argument is what theDude said about people having trouble respecting laws that they get no say in.

Good discussion so far everyone.

Goken wrote: I do understand the arguments that by committing these crimes they have given up their rights, but aren't some rights inalienable? I would imagine that the right to have a say in our government is one of them. After all, America was founded on the idea that everyone should have a say, wasn't it? We fought a war because we were being governed with no say in how we were governed or by who. So why should we do it to our own people?

There's also the argument that they could try to manipulate the system by voting and thus influence the laws. Well isn't that what all of us are doing every time we vote? But when someone who hasn't been to prison does it it's just called exercising our right, when they do it it's "manipulating the system." But it's the same thing.

I do like what Senan said about responsibilities and rights. As a gun owner I especially enjoyed the bit about the second amendment. The only response I have to that argument is what theDude said about people having trouble respecting laws that they get no say in.

Good discussion so far everyone.

The entire bill of rights is inalienable and we kicked off the revolutionary war because they tried to disarm the people. So should criminals have guns in jail? I doubt anyone would say they should. So it stands to reason that as part of your punishment you loose most rights while incarcerated. Its only the after you get out restrictions that I take issue with. No free man/women should restricted from any natural right. If they are too dangerous to be a totally free citizen then why are they out? And if they are out then they should be able to participate fully in the world again with all rights that entails.

MadHatter wrote: The entire bill of rights is inalienable...

Not exactly. The "unalienable" rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as presented by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and are based on the Natural Rights presented by scholar John Locke . These are rights that he believed were given to all men by their Creator and governments are meant to protect them.

The Bill of Rights is intended to present rights protected by the U.S. Constitution as suggested by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson among others, but they are not considered "unalienable". They are liberties protected by this specific government specifically for American citizens. These amendments represent an American idea of "liberties", but the rest of humanity is not protected by the U.S. Constitution and these rights were not granted by a Creator. God has no business with the 10th Amendment granting rights to States, nor does a Creator decide when these liberties are taken away from a U.S. citizen. The government gets to deny rights to a citizen after due process when they decide that said citizen's actions are denying other citizens of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote: The entire bill of rights is inalienable...

Not exactly. The "unalienable" rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as presented by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and are based on the Natural Rights presented by scholar John Locke . These are rights that he believed were given to all men by their Creator and governments are meant to protect them.

The Bill of Rights is intended to present rights protected by the U.S. Constitution as suggested by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson among others, but they are not considered "unalienable". They are liberties protected by this specific government specifically for American citizens. These amendments represent an American idea of "liberties", but the rest of humanity is not protected by the U.S. Constitution and these rights were not granted by a Creator. God has no business with the 10th Amendment granting rights to States, nor does a Creator decide when these liberties are taken away from a U.S. citizen. The government gets to deny rights to a citizen after due process when they decide that said citizen's actions are denying other citizens of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The fact is that two of those three are denied by jail any how. Life and liberty. Further those rights are so vague as to mean almost anything. So really what have they to do with voting? Liberty? Pursuit of happiness? Well what if you are voting to restrict my view of liberty or what makes me happy? What if your voting makes me unable to be happy? I mean really those concepts are almost void when it comes to voting. Does one need to vote to have those rights? If those are all we are concerned with then is voting even a factor? My point was that all over the world we agree that you lose rights when you break the law and thus not voting while in prison is fine in my view. Further those rights are presented yes but not mentioned in the Constitution why? Because the constitution was written to safeguard SPECIFIC ASPECTS of those rights. That is why we have the tenth amendment which does not give just the states rights. It says that powers not given to the federal government or the states reside with the people. Meaning that not all rights are specifically listed.

I agree with you, MadHatter. I don't think people in prison should be allowed to vote. What I am clarifying is that voting is not an unalienable right granted by God. It is a part of the governing process in this democratic republic called the United States. That process allows for voters to decide. If you believe my vote will deprive you of a liberty, you can vote the other way. And that is EXACTLY what voting has to do with liberty. You have a say in how your government protects your liberties. If you don't agree, you should ask yourself why the right to vote was important enough for women and minorities to fight so hard for. They were being deprived of liberties and had no say in changing that. Or you can visit a country where the government decides what liberties you should have for you.

In my opinion, once you are convicted of a felony, you have demonstrated to me that you can be a threat to my liberty in the future. That threat doesn't go away just because you have been released. Of course, each situation is different and there are always exceptions. And THAT is why the Constitution grants the power to the States to decide how to deal with those exceptions. What gets the death penalty in Texas may not even warrant a life sentence in Vermont. In most cases, how States deal with crime and punishment are decided by officials who are elected by VOTERS. You see where I'm going here?

And for the record, the unalienable right to life is not taken by jailing someone. It is taken by killing someone. That is the crux of the argument against capital punishment, that the right to life is unalienable and therefore cannot be taken by a government.

Senan wrote: In my opinion, once you are convicted of a felony, you have demonstrated to me that you can be a threat to my liberty in the future. That threat doesn't go away just because you have been released.

So... my friend who was convicted of a felony drug offence when he was 19, and turned his life around to become a well-respected academic shouldn't be allowed to vote because he did seriously dumb things as a teenager? How can we successfully rehabilitate criminals and reintegrate them as positive members of our society when we're hell-bent on treating them as basically non-citizens once they get out?

Senan wrote: In my opinion, once you are convicted of a felony, you have demonstrated to me that you can be a threat to my liberty in the future. That threat doesn't go away just because you have been released.

for the most part i agree with your post but this one line i have to ask - do you mean to say that being convicted of a felony proves that a person will never be competent to vote in a responsible way that benefits society? ever?

to be honest, the voting rights of felons is a minor topic imo, the voting rights of --- people who dont have good critical thinking skills, and dont understand the issues --- is a much bigger problem

people need licenses to drive cars, and if they show that they are terrible at it, someone takes the license away

i understand why we cant make people take tests to prove that they are not morons before allowing them to vote, but really, donald trump and hillary clinton?

two people who themselves probably shouldnt be allowed to vote, and this is the choice we have?