Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

What I'd like to know is why do people keep going on about ex-cons when the discussion really should be about prisoners.

Prisoners should be allowed to vote. Why not? I mean they are free cit... oh, wait.

ren wrote: What I'd like to know is why do people keep going on about ex-cons when the discussion really should be about prisoners.

very simple. ex cons were prisoners. the two are inextricably linked.

In a sense yes, because a law has been broken. Laws are there for a reason, regardless of how unfair that law may be. But for something like that you'd hope common sense would prevail!

Desolous wrote:

ren wrote: What I'd like to know is why do people keep going on about ex-cons when the discussion really should be about prisoners.

very simple. ex cons were prisoners. the two are inextricably linked.

With a big difference. One is locked up, the other isn't.

The texas laws Br. John described sound reasonable to me.

Desolous wrote:

ren wrote: What I'd like to know is why do people keep going on about ex-cons when the discussion really should be about prisoners.

very simple. ex cons were prisoners. the two are inextricably linked.

Yes, it does seem logical that one is inextricably linked to one's self. By this reasoning, why let them out at all if they are going to ever and for always be marginalised by their errors for which they are rehabilitated ? Or does the 'punishment' continue after rehabilitation ?

Thank you, Adder, your response shows reflection and insight. This is what I was on about, so let's talk about democracy. What I was implying by a true democracy was that actually explores Justice, throughout all of the layers of governement and does not get stuck on pursuing economic growth. It seems that in a 'more just' state, those who would rule would not have property, those who hold property could not rule. Also, as Locke pointed out, property is a right as long as there is enough for everyone to enjoy the same liberty. This is not the case, and governments do not seem to be very effective at restoring equilibrium. Agreed, when a growing population requires more and more complexity in terms of bureaucracy, then it seems apparent that from stratum to stratum, those in public office must retain a firm consideration of the individual, voter (or the non-voter even), the worker (the working class), the poor, the uneducated and unemployed, the family ... It cannot be said that although the current system has flaws, it is still what has been shown to work the best. One might add "until now". Or, one may raise the question : "for whom?"

En essence, what I suggest we work toward is an application of Justice which advantages the least advantaged members. Please see, John Rawls, "A Theory of Justice" 1971.

Sapadu, I so enjoyed your response also ! A nerfherded I may be, but not a giant one. And as for compassion, yes, the reality of these being real people with real lives and not just conceptual, virtual or numerical entities to 'manage' -- I so agree. Insomuch, I may be tempted to say that, yes, prisoners should enjoy the right to vote as they are the ones for whom the social system does not work. It stands to reason that in a representative democracy, if the Republic does not 'work' for the least of its members, then the Republic just very simply doesn't work at all.


And also, please do believe that I try very hard to stay away from the "more spiritual than thou" trap... having seen the horrors that can do. And I mean real horrors, murder-suicides and the like. Nasty stuff that, all for some ludicrous affaire of reputation. Jedi's are not immune ...

Furthermore, when I was saying that a Jedi's discourse had not been read at that time (that of my last post), I'll stand by it. "I think this or that" is not an argument. And many of you know what my feeling is about 'opinions'. Ignorance allows for learning, yet to not research, explore, inform one's self (one's opinion) is to choose stupidity, which is no one's 'right'.

Knarf wrote: The texas laws Br. John described sound reasonable to me.

concur.

yeah, except in europe you dont go to prison at all for misdemeanors... It's my understanding that in the US, 1 in 20 people will go to prison at some point in their life. Miscarriages of justice involving the death penalty seem common occurrence too.

There is a pretty big, in fact, huge difference between a prisoner and an ex-con. A prisoner is someone who has committed a crime so grave that they have at least temporarily lost their rights and privileges. An ex-con is someone who has committed a crime but was eventually forgiven.

Alexandre Orion wrote: This is what I was on about, so let's talk about democracy. What I was implying by a true democracy was that actually explores Justice, throughout all of the layers of governement and does not get stuck on pursuing economic growth.

Something is required to measure any concept of justice, and in democratic systems it is usually a majority vote I guess. I think that's what democracy is, and it does exist at all levels of government. Perhaps in the future when everyone is connected to the internet through wifi implants and optical nerve shunts with biometric identification, each individual person could choose to participate in each and every decision if they wanted, an election every day, but then we'd all be fulltime politicians and would get nothing done.

Economic growth is the only thing that is going to stop an established pattern that happens to closed systems without growth limitations, they eventually suffer anhiliation through a speed up in growth due to demand for shrinking resources which leads to disease. For humanity this will be either be nuclear, biological or biomechanical/nano in nature - its just a reality of continued growth/overpopulation if we remain on only this planet. Economic growth on one hand is the only way for humanity to avoid this, but on the other economic growth speeds up our passage to this point.

So we need a system which rewards effort and innovation, which represents the majority of the people, provides physical and legislative protection for activity, and a standard of welfare for people who are not able to participate in the race to avoid our own destruction by virtue of being in a closed system (planet).

Alexandre Orion wrote: It seems that in a 'more just' state, those who would rule would not have property, those who hold property could not rule. Also, as Locke pointed out, property is a right as long as there is enough for everyone to enjoy the same liberty. This is not the case, and governments do not seem to be very effective at restoring equilibrium.

Are you advocating teachers to lead the world, they are usually poor and know it all :lol: :whistle: