Policy 2020: Felon/Imprisoned Suffrage

[lemonlime 5503]

Where would prisoners vote?  Would it be absentee in the district they lived in before they were incarcerated?  It seems like having them vote in the district where they are imprisoned would be rife with problems. 

[henrygandorf 29195]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Of course there is "a line"; it's a matter of looking at each right and judging whether or not the government has a valid interest in removing it from the citizen. If there is no just cause for the right's removal, then it should be protected.

I'm not advocating putting all the rights in a t-shirt cannon and firing them into the air and seeing which ones land in the "ALLOWED" circle and which ones land in the "DISALLOWED" circle.

We have gotten where we are by essentially saying, "How punitive are we allowed to be to burnish our tough-on-crime persona while not alienating too many voters?" in response. We should have a more just, fair, and nationalized standard.

What I said: "Votes can be suppressed/compromised anywhere. Safeguards to protect rights are necessary both within and without prison walls. "

How you characterized it: "arguing that you don't need to worry about compromising/suppressing votes for prisoners because that's already happening out in the open is not making the case for it."

That's extremely dishonest.

then allow me to rephrase:

voter suppression is already an issue out in society. its become difficult to police. therefore, i don’t see a convincing argument that it will be properly regulated inside of a federal prison, privately owned or otherwise. 

extremely dishonest. rolleyes.gif. get over yourself. 

[hpslugga 4062]

6 hours ago, lemonlime said:

Released from prison--absolutely.

Currently in prison--- I don't really give a fuck either way.  But, a bigger issue is reducing the number of people in prison.  We shouldn't be taking away fundamental rights, voting or otherwise, from many (most?) of the people currently incarcerated.

This is the conversation to have first. 

[Js1 85602]

33 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Where would prisoners vote?  Would it be absentee in the district they lived in before they were incarcerated?  It seems like having them vote in the district where they are imprisoned would be rife with problems. 

It should be. And the census should consider them residents of that district.  Not where they're being held.  That's bullshit.  Prisoners don't stay in Leavenworth when their sentence is over, they go home.  

[bad_teammate 13225]

40 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

voter suppression is already an issue out in society. its become difficult to police. therefore, i don’t see a convincing argument that it will be properly regulated inside of a federal prison, privately owned or otherwise. 

Is your argument that we shouldn't allow citizens to retain their voting rights in prison because voter suppression is happening outside prison?

Also, the typical right-wing BS of "lol the government sucks and can't do things right" is not an argument I respect.

[David Dennison 18951]

I am opposed to voting while incarcerated.

There is no reason whatsoever why you shouldn't be able to vote after you have completed your sentence.

[henrygandorf 29195]

46 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is your argument that we shouldn't allow citizens to retain their voting rights in prison because voter suppression is happening outside prison?

Also, the typical right-wing BS of "lol the government sucks and can't do things right" is not an argument I respect.

first, stop thinking of this as "my" argument.  this is more of a discussion about "the" argument.  i know your opinion.  i know that you think every inmate should retain full voting rights, because papa bernie said so last night on cnn.  on the other thread, you said:

"You don't "lose your freedom" when you are convicted and incarcerated. You retain freedom. You still have many rights. You can speak, you are immune from cruelty (by law, at least), you have counsel, you can worship how you like, etc..."

to that i replied that it's not a straight black and white issue, and there are obvious rights you are stripped from, and you provided the context (bear arms, search and seizure, and so on).  there are grey issues out there, like inmate voting rights, that require "an argument" to be made.  some say no across the board.  others say yes across the board.  some say there should be a line drawn.  so where is the line?  personally, i think violent/sexual criminals should not be allowed to vote, but non-violent criminals can.  but what constitutes "violent" crime?  if a drug dealer is arrested with an unloaded gun on him vs arrested with just weed, or meth or heroin?  i have no idea, it's not my job to make the laws or the distinction.

pete said no, across the board, to inmates voting.  that's how he feels.  i don't think i had ever heard his opinion on this issue, but it's certainly something he's given some thought to.

the bottom line is there's no clear cut way to determine it, since there are not even 2 exact outcomes, there are more like 4-5.  and nobody seems to be able to even agree on the criteria to make the argument to make a decision.  most have pivoted to how fucked the system is from racial bias to sentencing ridiculousness to private prisons.  the whole system is a fucking boatwreck - that's something we can all agree on.  

all i'm saying is that one possible argument to not having them vote is the issue of policing voter suppression, which i think would prove very difficult.  why would it be difficult?  because it's difficult to police outside of prison, where it should be way easier.  i think that's one of many obstacles.   

thank you for recognizing my typical right-wing bs.  your respect means everything to me.

[TexLonghorn 5671]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

What I said: "Votes can be suppressed/compromised anywhere. Safeguards to protect rights are necessary both within and without prison walls. "

How you characterized it: "arguing that you don't need to worry about compromising/suppressing votes for prisoners because that's already happening out in the open is not making the case for it."

That's extremely dishonest.

Hm...

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

from last night's town halls on CNN

Bernie kicks it off by advocating for mass murderers to get 100 votes each



Is this extremely dishonest, too?  Or nah?

[Brisketexan 105440]

Seems that the bulk of folks -- from a somewhat broad swath of the spectrum  -- think that:

1 - no, you don't get to vote while incarcerated for a felony.  You lose the most essential freedom -- your actual liberty -- as part of your sentence.  It seems fair that you lose this additional freedom/right while you are incarcerated.

2 - yes, you should be able to vote after you have served your time.  You get your liberty back, you should get your right to vote back. Our goal should be full re-integration into society.

3 - and we can help reduce the problem altogether by real criminal justice reform so that the system doesn't churn out a huge class of "felons" for bullshit drug offenses and the like.  Fewer felons means this issue is much less significant (and of course, brings a whole host of additional benefits).

 

The extreme right (see chicken sammich) says "no vote, no way, never."  The hard left (see bt) says "all voting, all the time."

The 60-70% (my guess) in the middle has this one right.  It would be a big change, but motivated by a broad social change in opinion.  That's the main kind of legal change that ultimately ends up being successful.

[bad_teammate 13225]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

so where is the line?  personally, i think violent/sexual criminals should not be allowed to vote, but non-violent criminals can. 

All right, there we go!

What is, in your mind, the significant factor drawn out by the violent/non-violent line?

Is a guy who pushes over a woman to steal her purse to buy bread materially different in terms of voting worthiness than, say, someone who defrauded 100 old people out of their retirement?

Quote

all i'm saying is that one possible argument to not having them vote is the issue of policing voter suppression, which i think would prove very difficult.

So we protect them from suppression by... suppressing them?

Quote

 why would it be difficult?  because it's difficult to police outside of prison, where it should be way easier.

Why is outside easier than inside? Inside is a completely self-contained system where everyone is easy to track. Not only that, but the means of getting them to the booth is as simple as anything else since they're on a forced schedule anyway.

48 minutes ago, TexLonghorn said:

Hm...

Is this extremely dishonest, too?  Or nah?

It's me making a joke, not purposefully misrepresenting an opposing argument.

[Celery Man 21003]

The idea that voting from prison would present a logistical problem is actually depressing.  There is nothing difficult about voting that wasn’t placed there by design for a purpose.

[henrygandorf 29195]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

All right, there we go!

(1)What is, in your mind, the significant factor drawn out by the violent/non-violent line?

(2)Is a guy who pushes over a woman to steal her purse to buy bread materially different in terms of voting worthiness than, say, someone who defrauded 100 old people out of their retirement?

(3)So we protect them from suppression by... suppressing them?

(4)Why is outside easier than inside? Inside is a completely self-contained system where everyone is easy to track. Not only that, but the means of getting them to the booth is as simple as anything else since they're on a forced schedule anyway.

(5)It's me making a joke, not purposefully misrepresenting an opposing argument.

1. malicious intent probably.  just the capacity one has to commit a violent act comes with the trade-off.  you can have violence or you can have the public trust to cast a ballot.  you can't have both.  (again, just my non-researched off-the-cuff opinion)

2. neither is a violent crime (i don't think, as seen by the courts) so in my scenario, they would be the same.  i don't define what is and isn't "violent", that's a distinction that's made in the justice system, and as far as i'm concerned, can be part of a plea deal or sentencing. (like when a dui gets reduced to a wet-reckless to avoid losing your driver's license.  i'm assuming violent/sexual criminals are marked in a certain way in the system.  terrorists, like the boston bomber certainly would be).

3. i'm not saying you do suppress them, you're doing your thing where you try to finish the sentence for me.  it never seems to work.

4. seriously?  inmates inside a prison are way more susceptible to being compromised.  hmm, i'm a prisoner, and i'm here for life.  nothing any politician does or doesn't do will really affect me.  but assistant warden jimmy joe said i can have an extra piece of cornbread a week if i vote for all republicans, and i like cornbread, so let's do this.

5. i thought your joke was funny and his poking at it was equally entertaining.  if you do your schtick, you have to take it back from time to time.  shit, the quote you posted from me intentionally left the last couple sentences off to make it look like i was being "dishonest."  come on, dude.

[bad_teammate 13225]

How will Asst. Warden Jimmy Joe know I voted for the Republicans? Can't I just vote for BERNIE (as all criminals want to do) and say, "Oh yeah, boss, I voted for Trump!"?

[gmr548 16617]

And this is at least partly due to the fact that it's easy to sell the public on "felons shouldn't be allowed to vote" and then criminalizing a lot of shit black people do to disenfranchise them.
As a theoretical matter, I have no problem whatsoever with denying currently imprisoned the franchise. As a practical matter, that approach has clearly led to imprisoning a shitload of black people for terms grossly disproportionate to the offenses they have frequently been convicted for. It has led to imprisoning a shitload of black people for offenses for which white people are frequently charged with misdemeanors, or if they're young enough sometimes even simply picked up and given a ride home. And it has led to these evil results based in no small part on what was originally a specific intent to disenfranchise black Americans following reconstruction. That is a much greater evil, and is much more harmful to our democracy, than allowing felons to vote would be. 

Well said, worth quoting.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[henrygandorf 29195]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How will Asst. Warden Jimmy Joe know I voted for the Republicans? Can't I just vote for BERNIE (as all criminals want to do) and say, "Oh yeah, boss, I voted for Trump!"?

because jimmy joe lies to the inmate and says he'll be able to look at everyone's votes, and the inmate has zero incentive to lie or disobey - too much on the line (cornbread).

also the inmate thinks bernie and larry david are the same person because he's never seen them somewhere together at the same time.

[bad_teammate 13225]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

because jimmy joe lies to the inmate and says he'll be able to look at everyone's votes, and the inmate has zero incentive to lie or disobey - too much on the line (cornbread).

And the inmate just believes it? Come on, man, they're there because they (mostly) did crimes, not because they're idiots.

That's just voter education. I welcome spending good money on voting in prisons; might motivate some budget-conscious conservatives to not fill up the god damned prisons!

Quote

also the inmate thinks bernie and larry david are the same person because he's never seen them somewhere together at the same time.

it's what I've been secretly hoping this whole time

[henrygandorf 29195]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And the inmate just believes it? Come on, man, they're there because they (mostly) did crimes, not because they're idiots.

the inmate doesn't care.  that's the fucking point.  he already got to slack during work detail around the midterms, and he's hoping in a couple of years that mac n' cheese is on the bargaining table.  they've got a great working relationship going on, and commerce works slightly differently on the inside.

you really think an inmate is thinking "he thinks i'm gonna vote r, but i'm secretly gonna vote d"?  haha, that'll show him.

no.

[bad_teammate 13225]

18 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the inmate doesn't care.  that's the fucking point.  he already got to slack during work detail around the midterms, and he's hoping in a couple of years that mac n' cheese is on the bargaining table.  they've got a great working relationship going on, and commerce works slightly differently on the inside.

you really think an inmate is thinking "he thinks i'm gonna vote r, but i'm secretly gonna vote d"?  haha, that'll show him.

no.

"prisoners would never lie to COs to get benefits" - The Prisoner Understander

our overall voting habits and profiles are basically as dumb as what you outlined. You and I are locked in constant battle because we have allegiance to a hectoring, almost-dead Vermonter who is impossible to actually like and an aspirational dweeb from Indiana who makes Dukakis look alpha. I think a prisoner angling for mac and cheese is only maybe a half-step below you and me as far as credibility.

[edit]

what kind of mac and cheese are we talking about here?

Edited April 23, 2019 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13225]

Kinda fucked up, Bern-O, but I guess I'll go with it

 

[henrygandorf 29195]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"prisoners would never lie to COs to get benefits" - The Prisoner Understander

our overall voting habits and profiles are basically as dumb as what you outlined. You and I are locked in constant battle because we have allegiance to a hectoring, almost-dead Vermonter who is impossible to actually like and an aspirational dweeb from Indiana who makes Dukakis look alpha. I think a prisoner angling for mac and cheese is only maybe a half-step below you and me as far as credibility.

[edit]

what kind of mac and cheese are we talking about here?

well you're the one taking the side of the prisoner's integrity, but let me lay it out a little simpler:

millions of free americans don't give two shits about voting at all, let alone who they vote for.  to suggest that inmates care more than these people is a little silly.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’m not sure how I feel about this issue yet.  Bernie seems to be approaching voting as a basic human right in a democracy. 

It’s hard not to see the value in that. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13225]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

millions of free americans don't give two shits about voting at all, let alone who they vote for.  to suggest that inmates care more than these people is a little silly.

They might, they might not. I don't think it matters. A right is a right and there's no means testing involved.

The voting right of a man who votes based on which person has the most vowels in his last name is as inviolable (morally) as someone like me who runs a Geocities web ring where we use T-squares and calipers to measure candidate fitness, alienating family and friends as we obsessively read every stupid word written about each candidate.

[bad_teammate 13225]

OOPS!

Kamala backing away from the conversation

Reminds me of when, during a town hall, she said we should get rid of private insurers

then, OOPS!

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Seems that the bulk of folks -- from a somewhat broad swath of the spectrum  -- think that:

1 - no, you don't get to vote while incarcerated for a felony.  You lose the most essential freedom -- your actual liberty -- as part of your sentence.  It seems fair that you lose this additional freedom/right while you are incarcerated.

2 - yes, you should be able to vote after you have served your time.  You get your liberty back, you should get your right to vote back. Our goal should be full re-integration into society.

3 - and we can help reduce the problem altogether by real criminal justice reform so that the system doesn't churn out a huge class of "felons" for bullshit drug offenses and the like.  Fewer felons means this issue is much less significant (and of course, brings a whole host of additional benefits).

 

The extreme right (see chicken sammich) says "no vote, no way, never."  The hard left (see bt) says "all voting, all the time."

The 60-70% (my guess) in the middle has this one right.  It would be a big change, but motivated by a broad social change in opinion.  That's the main kind of legal change that ultimately ends up being successful.

Just who are you planning on billing the hour for this brief to ?

[TwiceHorn 31559]

One of the first things is that, absent a constitutional amendment, this is an issue of state law.

[TwiceHorn 31559]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

well you're the one taking the side of the prisoner's integrity, but let me lay it out a little simpler:

millions of free americans don't give two shits about voting at all, let alone who they vote for.  to suggest that inmates care more than these people is a little silly.

Yeah, there's really a lot more we could do for felons that would make an actual difference in their lives.  This is priority 50 or so, for felons.  For someone else maybe higher.

[TwiceHorn 31559]

Also, 36 states let felons vote automatically upon completion of sentence (some, like Texas, include probation).  Maine and Vermont permit inmates to vote.  http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

This is really kind of a non-issue for a presidential candidate.

 

[bad_teammate 13225]

There are probably 200k federal prisoners right now.

[Anastasis 23491]

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Seems that the bulk of folks -- from a somewhat broad swath of the spectrum  -- think that:

1 - no, you don't get to vote while incarcerated for a felony.  You lose the most essential freedom -- your actual liberty -- as part of your sentence.  It seems fair that you lose this additional freedom/right while you are incarcerated.

2 - yes, you should be able to vote after you have served your time.  You get your liberty back, you should get your right to vote back. Our goal should be full re-integration into society.

3 - and we can help reduce the problem altogether by real criminal justice reform so that the system doesn't churn out a huge class of "felons" for bullshit drug offenses and the like.  Fewer felons means this issue is much less significant (and of course, brings a whole host of additional benefits).

 

The extreme right (see chicken sammich) says "no vote, no way, never."  The hard left (see bt) says "all voting, all the time."

The 60-70% (my guess) in the middle has this one right.  It would be a big change, but motivated by a broad social change in opinion.  That's the main kind of legal change that ultimately ends up being successful.

Good post.  #3 is essential. 

[SKJ 1311]

15 hours ago, Js1 said:

Released from prison and they have completed their sentences and debt to society? Hell yes.  Sign your voter registration card when you get back your belongings on release day. 

Felons still in prison? Nope.  Your forfeit a lot when you commit a felony*.  Finish your punishment and then let's talk. 

*I am willing to discuss voting rights based on what they are incarcerated for.  Hey, if you murder someone, the family gets your vote since you took a potential voter's life. 

Except you never have paid your debt. That's the only flaw

[SKJ 1311]

15 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

A couple of things...

- Do you think the consideration of what America's prison and police state actually is weighs more heavily on this issue than a more airy, theoretical take? We are the most imprisoned nation on earth. Our prisons are FULL of black men. Our police state shovels black men in there like Goofy shoveling coal in Tugboat Mickey.

Should this factor in?

- When we are in prison, we (gratefully) retain many (most?) of our human and citizenship rights. This is a good thing and each right we give is a testament to us. Do you think our "BE TOUGH ON CRIME" attitude is helpful?

Except slavery is legal. And there's no minimum wage. And you never have the chance to become a citizen again, and your passport has an "f" number.

You can't fully compete for jobs no matter what education and experience you have... But other than that

[SKJ 1311]

14 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Lots of good thoughts already on the thread, but here's mine (Coming from a guy who had both parents incarcerated for a big part of my childhood)

I think voting rights should be restored when the sentence has been completed and the person is no longer in any sort of custody.. Giving an incarcerated population that is beholden to others for their well being voting rights seems ripe for abuse, among other things.

Not sure how you would handle Probation/Parole. I think Probation, no because the probation is the punishment. Parole, you theoretically served some part of your time and were released because you have been a good citizen. I think I'd be okay with parolees voting. 

Most importantly, I agree with Celery that we need to address prison and punishment reform first and foremost. 

Probation and parole are pretty much the same thing at the federal level. There is no parole, only "supervised release" which is ran by probation officers.

In most states, though, probation is pre prison and parole is post

[SKJ 1311]

14 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Agreed. Prisoners are prisoners. They do not have full constitutional rights and that should include voting. However, I believe once you're released that right should be automatically reinstated so long as you were eligible prior to incarceration.

What about the right to be a bartender. Or the right to even grow weed.

Or the right to own a firearm.

Or the right to compete for a job.

Voting is the last fucking thing that matters. The first thing that matters is to be able to find gainful employment and not be broke all the fuckin time. You want people to go straight? Don't strangle them economically.

[SKJ 1311]

14 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I don't know that I agree with automatic restoration, but I can also see conditional restoration as a potential abuse of power by judges, unless there's a clear checklist of criteria met.

I think the entire sentence period needs to be used as the first step to reinstatement.  Parole would be what I consider a first step to restoration of privileges in society, but voting should be seen as something valuable, and the consequences of crime cause the loss of that right.

Most people getting out of prison give less fucks about voting and more fucks about being able to survive on the streets without resorting back to crime.

Basically, fuck your voting, let them just fucking live

[SKJ 1311]

9 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Yes to voting when they’ve completed their sentence. 

No to voting when incarcerated. 

Hopefully Jared and POTUS continue their work on criminal justice reform and remedy more of these situations. 

They're not actually doing shit. 

Until that reform lets ex cons compete for fucking jobs, nothing else matters.

Recidivism is the bread and butter for these people. They never want to help fight that problem where it exists.

[SKJ 1311]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

There are probably 200k federal prisoners right now.

There's about 220k

There's about 130k in private prison total, which includes pre trial, jails, and all private facilities.

The rest are all in state joints

[Brian Fantana 6691]

53 minutes ago, SKJ said:

What about the right to be a bartender. Or the right to even grow weed.

Or the right to own a firearm.

Or the right to compete for a job.

Voting is the last fucking thing that matters. The first thing that matters is to be able to find gainful employment and not be broke all the fuckin time. You want people to go straight? Don't strangle them economically.

This thread is about suffrage so that's what I was addressing. Cool out before you get a fuckin hernia.

[bad_teammate 13225]

SKJ, I would appreciate it if you stayed out of my lane. I'm the over-posting woke annoyance here, buddy, and there ain't room enough for two

7 hours ago, SKJ said:

Most people getting out of prison give less fucks about voting and more fucks about being able to survive on the streets without resorting back to crime.

Basically, fuck your voting, let them just fucking live

GOOD NEWS!!!

it just so happens that the candidate who says they should vote in prison is also the candidate offering the clearest path back into the straight world, has surrounded himself with black campaign staff/advisors, and is doing the best among the black community (at this point, according to polls, which are early and not fantastic)

Edited April 24, 2019 by bad_teammate

[GSU&UT 1798]

20 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Jeebus aren't we the jump to conclusion town crier....  I'm betting you're speaking of the conservatives here, and you'd be dead wrong with many of those assumptions.  

I'm 100% for prison reform, and most importantly the way in which we incarcerate for vengeance rather than rehabilitation.  We're a puritanical culture, and the Puritans sucked shit.  Education, skills training, apprentice opportunities once released, and actual psychological help while in and out of prison are all keys to breaking the cycle of the hardened criminal crated in confinement.

 

Alright, so first we need to completely get rid of local taxes funding our public schools, someone who lives in a rich zipcode shouldn't get a wildly different education than someone who lives in a poor zipcode. We specifically target zipcodes where predominately people of color are attending underfunded schools, no boomer retired dipshits get to opt-out of paying school taxes, everyone must contribute and those who are rich most bear more of the burden.

Second, decriminalize most drug trafficking extreme mandatory minimum sentencing laws, legalize marijuana (something most of us agree on), and tax wealthy drug companies in order to create programs that will effectively rehabilitate drug addicts (jail is currently where most of the drug addicts live in this country and is often wholly ineffective at treatment). This idea that we can't tax drug companies because we somehow subsidize the rest of the world's healthcare and that would all come crumbling down is wholly bullshit. If you've followed anything Perdue pharma has done in the past two decades then you should be 100% on board with this idea.

Third, enact strong legislation that holds law enforcement to account for their continual perpetuation of systematic racism which jails most young black men and completely destroys their lives.

Fourth, voter disenfranchisement must be recognized as something that many states, the vast majority of which are GOP controlled, exists and absolutely impedes progress from happening. I'm willing to bet you were complaining that Stacey Abrams was being childish in refusing to concede the Georgia gubernatorial election right away when in fact she absolutely was right to push as long as she did because our election systems in the South are intentionally making it hard for people of color to register and vote.

 

[bad_teammate 13225]

For those of you who think "prison and criminal justice reform" are what we need to focus on (I agree) while ignoring imprisoned suffrage (I disagree), what do we do about the people currently imprisoned in a system you see as unjust?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13528]

People can lose rights based on their behavior. Voting shouldn’t be any different. 

I’m not sure that I’m in agreement that a prisoner should count as a person living in the district of the jail/prison. At the least they should be asked where they consider themselves a resident. Similar how a college student can basically claim to live back home with their parents or at their school address.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4977]

I think all rights should be restored once non violent offenders have completed their prison/probation terms. Partial rights during probation, ramping up towards full rights the closer they get to the end. This includes second amendment rights and such. The exceptions would be stuff like the ability to hold a medical license after crimes involving abuse of that license and such. Violent offenders should still get voting rights returned after they are done, but not necessarily second amendment rights and maybe some others. It also depends on the crime. Bar fight? Not so big a deal. Murder? Bigger deal. There is no reason why a person who has experienced the system should have no say on how it is run in the future. They know better than some Bernie Bro or hard right conservative what works and what doesn't. I also don't believe that anyone who is not of an age to have ever been eligible to vote should be deprived of the right to do so. Charging kids as felons is pure BS. 

[American Swindle 102]

23 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

One of the major issues that Democratic candidates for 2020 are (rightly) playing up is voting rights. The franchise. Suffrage. The 'ole voterino.

Things they all agree on (except Klobuchar who says you should only be allowed to vote after a trial by fire and binder):
- no automatically being kicked off the rolls
- federal oversight in historically oppressed areas (I forget the official phrasing and I'm too lazy and stupid to look it up)
- proper funding for polling places and equipment
- probably some other stuff that's good and cool

Hotter issues, however, are felon voting and imprisoned voting.

from last night's town halls on CNN

Bernie kicks it off by advocating for mass murderers to get 100 votes each

Kamala follows up with a classic politician "let's have the conversation" request

Pete says no

What say you, Surly hordes?

Should felons (released from prison) have the franchise?

Should those in prison get the voterino?

(I say yes and yes)

You think that murderers  should be allowed to vote?  I find something inherently wrong with allowing one who's taken the voting rights away from others by killing them the right to vote.  That's just me. 

 

 

[Celery Man 21003]

It's going to be difficult to undo the terrible things that have been done in the justice system.  I think there are probably a lot of ins, outs, what have yous.  I think broadly, the path most likely to have some real success would be to start with the war on drugs. 

Try and do no no more harm - 

1) decriminalize (lot of details to iron out here, but straight up pot is legal), 2) drastically alter how we enforce and classify what remains illegal, 3) going to need to take steps to retrain PDs and make them accountable

Try to unfuck what has been fucked

1) something broadly like work through the current prison population (with some sort of schedule to establish this doesn't take a decade) to "decriminalize" the people who have been thrown in jail to rot for stuff like this, 2) clear their records, the stuff that SKJ is talking about, 3) going to need to put some sort of big effort in place to help them in the unfucking of their lives.  can't dump a bunch of people out on the streets after that with just what they had in their pockets when they got booked and best wishes.  Wouldn't be just, wouldn't be a positive outcome.

There's a ton more there, this is me spitballing as I drink my first cup of coffee.  Need to change how we address addiction, but not sure if that fits under here.  War on drugs isn't the only thing that needs addressing.  It's not going to be easy, the effort at a culture change in police departments will not just happen.  

Something like that would be a good start.  and fwiw, if my choices were "things as they are now" and  "prisoners get to vote, and also we no longer have <insert litany of things that would diminish the amount of voter suppression that occurs currently>", I would take option 2 no hesitation.  

[Js1 85602]

35 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

For those of you who think "prison and criminal justice reform" are what we need to focus on (I agree) while ignoring imprisoned suffrage (I disagree), what do we do about the people currently imprisoned in a system you see as unjust?

Well the centristy argument would be "you can't change the system to retroactively help people who already did XYZ!!!!!!" 

[bad_teammate 13225]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Well the centristy argument would be "you can't change the system to retroactively help people who already did XYZ!!!!!!" 

This seems to be the case, unfortunately.

Along with a ton of "people lose voting rights when they go to prison which means that when they go to prison they should lose voting rights!" solipsism.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Well the centristy argument would be "you can't change the system to retroactively help people who already did XYZ!!!!!!" 

Really ?  quite the dissertation topic ya got there.  Prison reform should immediately impact anyone currently incarcerated.  Other than most truly violent criminals many would benefit from reform.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

This seems to be the case, unfortunately.

Along with a ton of "people lose voting rights when they go to prison which means that when they go to prison they should lose voting rights!" solipsism.

 

Do you have no concept of personal responsibility, and consequences for ones actions ?  Maybe prison should just be abolished all together because it tramples ones rights...

[Celery Man 21003]

just fwiw, Beto, who nobody but republicans would describe as running hard left, talks about and has talked about clearing records for a long time.  Not saying that because I love Beto so much or whatever - the clearing of records of war on drugs victims is a more mainstream idea than all prisoners should be able to vote

[Fozzz 152]

15 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Seems that the bulk of folks -- from a somewhat broad swath of the spectrum  -- think that:

1 - no, you don't get to vote while incarcerated for a felony.  You lose the most essential freedom -- your actual liberty -- as part of your sentence.  It seems fair that you lose this additional freedom/right while you are incarcerated.

2 - yes, you should be able to vote after you have served your time.  You get your liberty back, you should get your right to vote back. Our goal should be full re-integration into society.

3 - and we can help reduce the problem altogether by real criminal justice reform so that the system doesn't churn out a huge class of "felons" for bullshit drug offenses and the like.  Fewer felons means this issue is much less significant (and of course, brings a whole host of additional benefits).

 

The extreme right (see chicken sammich) says "no vote, no way, never."  The hard left (see bt) says "all voting, all the time."

The 60-70% (my guess) in the middle has this one right.  It would be a big change, but motivated by a broad social change in opinion.  That's the main kind of legal change that ultimately ends up being successful.

I can see someone supporting 1 if they believe our criminal justice system is fundamentally fair.  To support 1 while also being aware that our criminal justice system is inherently racist and deeply unfair is batshit insanity.