Policy 2020: Felon/Imprisoned Suffrage

[EMAWesome 101]

A couple of thoughts on some of the angles in this thread.

 

1.  The voting is a basic human right angle.  Is it really?  Human, as in all humans?  Humans one, two, three, seventeen years old?  Humans who have been declared insane?   Humans in a coma?  Are you sure it is a right or is it a privilege?  A privilege based on relatively minimal standards but a privilege nonetheless.

2.  I took classes in American Government and Civics in high school before I reached voting age.  It was rammed into my head that one of the consequences of committing felonies is losing the ability to vote.  Another way to phrase this is one of the incentives to not commit felonies is that you do not lose your ability to vote when you obey the law.  If these felons care so much about their ability to vote maybe they should have put a bit more thought into their decision to commit a felony in the first place.  I'm somewhat flexible on this rationale when it comes to crimes where the punishment is heavy handed compared to the nature of the crime (i.e.  federal sentencing laws in terms of drug possession etc.) but anyone that thinks people responsible for terrorist acts (or any other act of violence for that matter)  should have the ability to vote while still in prison can fuck off as far as I am concerned. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by EMAWesome

[A Cellar Honker 19]

Should convicted felons be allowed to purchase firearms?  Owning a gun is every bit a constitutional right as voting.  Should we allow them to purchase guns from prison?  Or only after they've served their sentence?

[Fozzz 152]

If you think the right to own a gun is on the same plane as the right to vote then you might be suffering from a debilitating cognitive impairment.  So sorry.

[A Cellar Honker 19]

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

If you think the right to own a gun is on the same plane as the right to vote then you might be suffering from a debilitating cognitive impairment.  So sorry.

Are constitutional rights ranked?  Are some sacrosanct and others not?

Edited April 24, 2019 by A Cellar Honker

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, A Cellar Honker said:

Are constitutional rights ranked?  Are some sacrosanct and others not?

You could make the ability to own a furby a constitutional right, would that make it as fundamentally important to democratic governance as the right to vote?  I would think people with normally functioning brains would argue that the right to vote is indeed more important than the right to acquire a furby.

[A Cellar Honker 19]

Just now, Fozzz said:

You could make the ability to own a furby a constitutional right, would that make it as fundamentally important to democratic governance as the right to vote?  I would think people with normally functioning brains would argue that the right to vote is indeed more important than the right to acquire a furby.

What is a normally functioning brain?  Only those belonging to people who agree with your politics?

When I went to the University of Texas, we were required to take a semester of logic.  Are you familiar with logical fallacies?  I'm guessing not.

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, A Cellar Honker said:

What is a normally functioning brain?  Only those belonging to people who agree with your politics?

When I went to the University of Texas, we were required to take a semester of logic.  Are you familiar with logical fallacies?  I'm guessing not.

Would you argue the right to own a furby is of equal or greater importance to democratic governance as the right to vote?

[A Cellar Honker 19]

6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Would you argue the right to own a furby is of equal or greater importance to democratic governance as the right to vote?

Are the functioning of furbys identical to the functioning of guns?  Since I was discussing guns and not furbys, I need clarification on this.

Edited April 24, 2019 by A Cellar Honker

[bad_teammate 13218]

The black student reacting to Pete's firm "No" found out she became a meme.

She's hilarious.

 

[bad_teammate 13218]

2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

The idea that prisoners shouldn’t lose the right to vote while in prison is just silliness.  We can confine you to a prison cell for your crime and in doing so take away numerous rights more fundamental to your life and freedom than voting ... but by God it’s just wrong to not let you cast a vote for Bernie before we throw you back into solitary!

It's hard to argue with logic and reasoning this sound!

[bad_teammate 13218]

Me, a virgin loser: "Voting is a basic human right and the government shouldn't be allowed to take it away from a citizen without very good reason." 

You, an alpha chad: "That's fuckin' gay!"

[GSU&UT 1798]

FYI if you are all for felon voting enfranchisement and still vote GOP then you are part of the problem.

 

[bad_teammate 13218]

The logic behind disallowing voting for the imprisoned and disallowing voting for the released is virtually identical.

Both of them are based on the idea that a criminal conviction is a justifiable basis for removing the right of an American citizen to vote. There is no rational cause to remove this right specifically, and is merely used for punitive reasons at best and outright white supremacist reasons at worst.

The practical impact of both policies is to perpetuate white supremacy.

[henrygandorf 29192]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The logic behind disallowing voting for the imprisoned and disallowing voting for the released is virtually identical.

Both of them are based on the idea that a criminal conviction is a justifiable basis for removing the right of an American citizen to vote. There is no rational cause to remove this right specifically, and is merely used for punitive reasons at best and outright white supremacist reasons at worst.

The practical impact of both policies is to perpetuate white supremacy.

holy shit dude.  

if a right can be legally taken away, then is it a right, or is it a privilege?

 

[Celery Man 20970]

why are you focused on just voting rights, and not any other equally inherent right as it relates to people who are incarcerated?

[bad_teammate 13218]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

if a right can be legally taken away, then is it a right, or is it a privilege?

Semantics aren't very useful.

Can you explain the rationale behind specifically removing a citizen's right to vote while they are imprisoned?

5 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

why are you focused on just voting rights, and not any other equally inherent right as it relates to people who are incarcerated?

Thread title: Policy 2020: Felon/Imprisoned Suffrage

Start a "Policy 2020" thread on any subject you like and I will take it seriously and offer any relevant thoughts I have.

[Celery Man 20970]

the point I'm driving at is that central to the idea of imprisonment at all is a deprivation of natural rights.  there are probably more things we do wrong than we do right regarding imprisonment, and so I think it is perfectly valid to question the whole thing from top to bottom.  But I think it is a perfectly reasonable place to land that while you are imprisoned, you don't have some rights, and when you are released, those rights are restored.  That is different from your position that the rationale behind depriving people of rights while they are imprisoned is the same thing as depriving them of rights when they are released.  I know that this position has been a central part of your being for almost two whole days now and so it is difficult to understand.

[henrygandorf 29192]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Semantics aren't very useful.

sorry pal.  once you said the practical impact is to perpetuate white supremacy, you lost the last bit of credibility you had with me on this.

[bad_teammate 13218]

4 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

the point I'm driving at is that central to the idea of imprisonment at all is a deprivation of natural rights.

Imprisonment is the selective deprivation of rights, not a totality.

Quote

 there are probably more things we do wrong than we do right regarding imprisonment, and so I think it is perfectly valid to question the whole thing from top to bottom.

I agree, let's question it. Start a thread for other questions and we'll get to work on those questions.

Quote

But I think it is a perfectly reasonable place to land that while you are imprisoned, you don't have some rights, and when you are released, those rights are restored.

Sure. The government should remove some rights while imprisoned. The government should be able to make a specific case regarding each right removed.

"Why not?" is not a strong argument for the government to remove a citizen's rights.

Just now, henrygandorf said:

sorry pal.  once you said the practical impact is to perpetuate white supremacy, you lost the last bit of credibility you had with me on this.

The practical impact of restricting the voting rights of incarcerated Americans is promotion of white supremacy. How is that even controversial?

Both policies (no prisoners/no felons) result in white supremacy, even if those who advocate the policies are not white supremacists.

Facts don't care about your feelings, my dude.

 

[formermav43 4606]

I’m confused as to how a right that can only, by definition, be conferred on someone through a specific form(s) of government is a “human right.”

[GotThatFire 166]

 I have a friend with a state jail felony on his record and I don’t believe he ever lost his right to vote. So there must be a line somewhere already in place?

[henrygandorf 29192]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Both policies (no prisoners/no felons) result in white supremacy, even if those who advocate the policies are not white supremacists.

Facts don't care about your feelings, my dude.

 

you always make the leap.  that's why people get annoyed.  prisons are overloaded with minorities.  prisoners can't vote.  therefore, minorities can't vote.  you're acting like white supremacists put them in prison to suppress their voting rights.  that's not a sound jump in logic. 

is there racial prejudice (and flawed drug laws) that put more minorities in prison?  absolutely.  does it have anything to do with voting rights?  no.

what if i said that the 2nd amendment allowed citizens to own guns, but you lose that right in prison.  does that mean there's a concerted effort (through imprisonment) to keep guns out of the hands of minorities?

you can't always jump through the middle part of the logic path.  not everything is transitive.  food gets cheaper, which is good for the consumer.  some say it's victimizing the american farmer.  people are living longer, which is good for people.  but that's not victimizing the american undertaker.    

[bad_teammate 13218]

love to pretend white supremacy isn't real to own the left

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

prisons are overloaded with minorities.  prisoners can't vote.  therefore, minorities can't vote.  you're acting like white supremacists put them in prison to suppress their voting rights.  that's not a sound jump in logic.

Our white supremacist nation ABSOLUTELY locks away blacks at an alarming rate in order to remove them from society and disenfranchise them. Why the hell else do we do it?

Quote

is there racial prejudice (and flawed drug laws) that put more minorities in prison?  absolutely.  does it have anything to do with voting rights?  no.

Then what does it have to do with? Just vague, general, aimless, purposeless racism? My god.

Just an accident! What a coincidence!

Quote

what if i said that the 2nd amendment allowed citizens to own guns, but you lose that right in prison.  does that mean there's a concerted effort (through imprisonment) to keep guns out of the hands of minorities?

There is a demonstrable and clear rationale for not allowing guns in prison.

But even so, gun rights policies in America has absolutely been about white supremacy over and over again.

[henrygandorf 29192]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Then what does it have to do with? Just vague, general, aimless, purposeless racism? My god.

Just an accident! What a coincidence!

outdated, racial, and ineffective legislation that's anti-poor, which makes it anti-minority.

you think drug law was written with the long term goal of keeping minorities from voting?

[Horn Dog 9875]

GOP:  Felons should never be able to vote again...  but they can be my president anytime.

[GSU&UT 1798]

The white supremacy point isn't that controversial if you talk to black activists, hell there is a best selling book literally written on this topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow

[GSU&UT 1798]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

outdated, racial, and ineffective legislation that's anti-poor, which makes it anti-minority.

you think drug law was written with the long term goal of keeping minorities from voting?

It's been acknowledged that mandatory minimum sentencing was racially motivated (at least with crack vs. cocaine), this doesn't seem particularly controversial imo.

[henrygandorf 29192]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

It's been acknowledged that mandatory minimum sentencing was racially motivated (at least with crack vs. cocaine), this doesn't seem particularly controversial imo.

i agree that the laws are racially motivated.  i said so already.  i'm saying not everything is tied into depriving minorities/inmates of the vote.  not everything is a conspiracy.  

[American Swindle 102]

36 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Imprisonment is the selective deprivation of rights, not a totality.

I agree, let's question it. Start a thread for other questions and we'll get to work on those questions.

Sure. The government should remove some rights while imprisoned. The government should be able to make a specific case regarding each right removed.

"Why not?" is not a strong argument for the government to remove a citizen's rights.

The practical impact of restricting the voting rights of incarcerated Americans is promotion of white supremacy. How is that even controversial?

Both policies (no prisoners/no felons) result in white supremacy, even if those who advocate the policies are not white supremacists.

Facts don't care about your feelings, my dude.

 

 

 When you say it leads to white supremacy, it adds this "white people are demons" vibe that I think is unnecessary to the discussion.  It also makes you sound like you are racist against white people, but that's just my opinion.  

 

[Celery Man 20970]

42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure. The government should remove some rights while imprisoned. The government should be able to make a specific case regarding each right removed.

"Why not?" is not a strong argument for the government to remove a citizen's rights.

Just want to say that I don't disagree with you at all here.

 

Also I'm on board with many to most of the drug laws being explicitly racist.

[bad_teammate 13218]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

i agree that the laws are racially motivated.  i said so already. 

What does "racially motivated" mean to you?

[American Swindle 102]

Which leads me to a non-sequitur idea we all can agree on: End the War on Drugs! (not the band, they fucking rule.) 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

On 4/23/2019 at 11:05 AM, BrazilHorn said:

I think you decriminalize marijuana at federal level which will reduce a ton of incarceration for possession etc

enact meaningful prison reform. 

This is a great symbolic issue for Ds. 

Bulk of people in prison would skew D, it also gives Ds credibility with minority groups as they’re disproportionately impacted by drug laws etc today. 

No lose issue. 

Me personally I think even if you are released from prison if you’ve raped someone you shouldn’t be able to vote. 

I’d decriminalize all drugs.  I’m not sure weed is what is filling up our prisons.  When I clerked every drug charge I saw was meth, heroin, coke or PCP.  

[henrygandorf 29192]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

What does "racially motivated" mean to you?

sorry, out of the context of what gsu said (i was using his words).  the mandatory minimums when making the determination of crack vs cocaine purposely tipped the scales in a racist manner.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

On 4/24/2019 at 8:36 AM, Celery Man said:

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

He wants his record cleared.  

[bad_teammate 13218]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

 the mandatory minimums when making the determination of crack vs cocaine purposely tipped the scales in a racist manner.

What was the motivation behind purposefully tipping the scales in a racist manner?

[GSU&UT 1798]

15 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i agree that the laws are racially motivated.  i said so already.  i'm saying not everything is tied into depriving minorities/inmates of the vote.  not everything is a conspiracy.  

Your interpretation of white supremacy seems to be fixated on white people literally acknowledging they are superior. There are many black people who would argue that it's closer to what institutionalized racism is.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

22 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

It's been acknowledged that mandatory minimum sentencing was racially motivated (at least with crack vs. cocaine), this doesn't seem particularly controversial imo.

Who acknowledged that?  Because Crack scared the shit out of the inner city and black leaders and politicians were some of the biggest supporters of enhanced sentencing for crack.  Were they racist too?

[NowThis 931]

On 4/24/2019 at 9:31 AM, A Cellar Honker said:

Should convicted felons be allowed to purchase firearms?  Owning a gun is every bit a constitutional right as voting.  Should we allow them to purchase guns from prison?  Or only after they've served their sentence?

only if guns are for sale in the commissary. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What was the motivation behind purposefully tipping the scales in a racist manner?

Because crack scared the shit out of everyone in the 80s when it hit.  Black leaders were the first in line to support these laws.  It was their communities that were dealing with the crack heads.  Here is an article about it.  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/14/_if_tough_anti-drug_laws_are_racist_blame_black_leaders_137273.amp.html

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Because crack scared the shit out of everyone in the 80s when it hit.  Black leaders were the first in line to support these laws.  It was their communities that were dealing with the crack heads.  Here is an article about it.  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/14/_if_tough_anti-drug_laws_are_racist_blame_black_leaders_137273.amp.html

Is this you acting like institutionalized racism doesn't exist again? You can find black people supporting whatever ideas you want, that doesn't mean it didn't have an overwhelmingly disproportionate effect on black men, so much so that that these laws literally had to be reserved with the Fair Sentencing Act.

[henrygandorf 29192]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What was the motivation behind purposefully tipping the scales in a racist manner?

probably to keep them from vot...oh man!  you almost got me!!  nicely done, chief.

give it a fucking rest man.  racial oppression is real.  institutionalized racism is real.  there is a big umbrella of shittiness that goes back centuries.  nobody is disputing it.  but you can't make it all about voter suppression.  if you gave inmates a pen and paper and had them list the top 25 things that suck and were taken away from them by being inside, the right to vote would be #26 with a bullet.

you can't argue that there's a bigger issue at play (which there is), then use the acknowledgement of that statement to reverse engineer all the under-statements to also be true because of it.  just because the system is broken, doesn't mean that everything involved in the system needs an immediate 180.

also, by using the term "white supremacy" in this particular instance, you devalue all the other horrors that faction has been involved with. 

we litigated this the past two days.  i personally think there should be a line drawn at violent/sexual felonies.  i do not think the boston bomber should be able to vote.  i do not think a murderer (who took someone else's vote away) should be allowed to vote.  i do not think rapists and woman beaters should be allowed to vote, particularly on issues that involve women's rights.  i do not think this is as black or white as some are trying to making it (racial pun unintended). 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Is this you acting like institutionalized racism doesn't exist again? You can find black people supporting whatever ideas you want, that doesn't mean it didn't have an overwhelmingly disproportionate effect on black men, so much so that that these laws literally had to be reserved with the Fair Sentencing Act.

I don’t like the laws at all.  I want all drugs decriminalized.  They did have a disproportionate effect.  My point is that the black community leaders overwhelmingly supported these laws when they were passed.  Because it was their ox being gored.  Crack was a fucking plague on the inner cities.  And blacks were taking the brunt of it.  

[GSU&UT 1798]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

I don’t like the laws at all.  I want all drugs decriminalized.  They did have a disproportionate effect.  My point is that the black community leaders overwhelmingly supported these laws when they were passed.  Because it was their ox being gored.  Crack was a fucking plague on the inner cities.  And blacks were taking the brunt of it.  

Again, this doesn't mean it isn't a symptom of institutionalized racism. I don't know what your point is other than you seem to be acting like racism is only a thing if you loudly say the N-word or something.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Seems like criminalizing your political opposition would be an effective voter suppression strategy. 

[bad_teammate 13218]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

but you can't make it all about voter suppression. 

Who said it is "all" about voter suppression? Don't be dishonest.

The disempowering and disenfranchisement of blacks is the motivation behind racist laws and practices. That disenfranchisement has many vectors, and voting is one of them. This is not controversial or difficult to understand.

Quote

also, by using the term "white supremacy" in this particular instance, you devalue all the other horrors that faction has been involved with. 

I remember this argument from the "history buffs" who were so mad about the statues being removed.

Quote

i personally think there should be a line drawn at violent/sexual felonies.  i do not think the boston bomber should be able to vote.  i do not think a murderer (who took someone else's vote away) should be allowed to vote.  i do not think rapists and woman beaters should be allowed to vote, particularly on issues that involve women's rights.

Not even when they get out of prison?

[bad_teammate 13218]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Seems like criminalizing your political opposition would be an effective voter suppression strategy. 

No. No.

A coincidence.

An accident.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Are there democracies that allow inmates to vote?

How has it worked out?  Do they participate in voting? 

[NowThis 931]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Are there democracies that allow inmates to vote?

How has it worked out?  Do they participate in voting? 

Canada allows it 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/10/05/convicts-among-canadian-voters-to-whom-special-rules-apply.html

 

Inmates. People in provincial jails and federal prisons can apply to vote by mail or register to vote at advance polls set up inside institutions Oct. 9. Inmates vote for candidates in their home riding, or the riding of a relative, the place of their arrest or the court where they were convicted and sentenced.

[Chooky 13317]

Violent felons should unite and get the message out that if you don't allow them to vote they will beat your fucking ass.