In an attempt to correct the problem we have of thread drift on this forum, I thought I would move my reply to here. Somehow, this didn't seem appropriate in a thread about gun and ammo manufacturing in Oklahoma.
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 10:37:23 PM
Most people never vote. Should we take the franchise away from those who choose not to exercise it?
I think that voting is such a fundamental right (second only to life itself) that I think that it's not a valid use of state power to take it away from someone, under any circumstances. Our tendency of late to increase the number of crimes considered felonies, rather than misdemeanors, serves only to strengthen my opinion on the issue. Someone shouldn't lose their right to vote because they pass a hot check or speed excessively.
As someone who thinks highly of the second amendment, I would think that you would understand the value of retaining a check against government creeping into tyranny. With the thick undergrowth of laws we now have most of us, with enough investigation, could be charged with a felony for something or other we once did.
Moreover, it opens the door to states incorrectly purging voters from the rolls who have never actually committed a crime, as happened to thousands in Florida just before the 2000 election. The risk is too great and the reward too small, my friend.
One could even go so far as to say that removing someone's freedom and liberty by imprisoning them is wrong. We hold those ideals even higher as voting is a part of freedom and liberty. I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar, though I've been accused of being a strict constructionist on here before ;)
At some point, society has to have a way to remove those who pose a threat to the freedom and liberty of other citizens. Punishment for offenses against others (and people's own selves) is a concept which far pre-dates our Constitution.
I'm really not comfortable with prisoners and the mentally insane helping to select our elected officials. You can bet inmates would vote against a particulary good Sheriff or elected officials they associate as being responsible for them being in prison. They might also vote with incredible cynicism. I don't have a problem with them getting the right to vote back when they are no longer incarcerated. I also agree, there are certain rights, like losing gun ownership rights over hot checks which don't make sense.
Again, it's a matter of legislators trying to raise the stakes on crime in a futile attempt to act as a deterrent. I doubt many of these laws were authored as true deterrents rather than simply showing constituents that Congressman or Congresswoman Blowhard is tough on crime.
No they shouldn't.
When you infringe on the rights of others through commission of a felony, you forfeit all of the basic privileges granted by our constitution. We also limit your right to liberty in an effort to safeguard the rights of others, until such a time as you are rehabilitated or otherwise deemed safe to re-enter society.
Contrary to most public-school education, voting is not a right, it is a privilege granted by our constitution. As a privilege it is subject to a broad range of conditions, the lease of these is its forfeiture due to felonious action.
Inmates should not be allowed to vote. But once you are released and served your full sentence all your constitutional rights should be fully restored to you. If you can not be trusted to have all your constitutional rights fully restored to you then you should not have ever been released in the first place.
I disagree with voting being a privilege, I think it is a fundamental right guarunteed by our constitution. However, as with all rights, it can be forfiet. I think that the right to vote can, and should be, removed from someone within our justice system. In part because they commited a crime, but also because they have limited contact with the general public and are generally out of touch with the political enviroment. I also think that in most cases the right should be returned once they have served their time, with the exception of a few that are shown to be morally bankrupt (though they really shouldn't be released anyhow, but that is another discussion)
Quote from: jamesrage on April 28, 2010, 12:06:18 PM
Inmates should not be allowed to vote. But once you are released and served your full sentence all your constitutional rights should be fully restored to you. If you can not be trusted to have all your constitutional rights fully restored to you then you should not have ever been released in the first place.
So you disagree with sex offenders not being allowed to live near schools, or be in a occupation that puts them in contact with children on a regular basis? Just to clarify, when I mean sex offenders I mean the molesters and of that ilk, not the lady that has to register because she got drunk and flashed someone.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2010, 09:04:20 AM
At some point, society has to have a way to remove those who pose a threat to the freedom and liberty of other citizens. Punishment for offenses against others (and people's own selves) is a concept which far pre-dates our Constitution.
...
I'm really not comfortable with prisoners and the mentally insane helping to select our elected officials. You can bet inmates would vote against a particulary good Sheriff or elected officials they associate as being responsible for them being in prison. They might also vote with incredible cynicism. I don't have a problem with them getting the right to vote back when they are no longer incarcerated. I also agree, there are certain rights, like losing gun ownership rights over hot checks which don't make sense.
I could go either way on those adjudicated insane. On the one hand, I think taking the right to vote away from one class of people leads to it becoming more acceptable to do so for other classes of people. On the other hand, they have been adjudicated insane.
I wouldn't have brought it up had I not discovered that Oklahoma also strips the right to vote from people who never see a day of prison, namely those who are sentenced only to probation. That leads to ridiculous results like losing the right to vote over felony speeding, hot checks, and other relatively minor offenses that are nevertheless classed as felonies. Believe me, I have a lot less sympathy for murderers, but as the law stands, it makes no distinction whatsoever between a murderer and somebody who steals a couple grand from the till at work. Neither is, or should be, legal, yet there is a vast gulf between the severity of the crimes.
In any event, the purpose of incarceration isn't so much to isolate the criminal from society as a whole but to physically confine them because we feel they are a danger to society. (I'd argue that in Oklahoma, we go far beyond that, but I'm speaking generally here) Further isolating them from society only leads to more anti-social behavior.
Lastly, I find it incredibly disturbing that someone would argue that someone voting for the wrong person or being uninformed on the issues ought to disqualify them from voting. In the case of the former, I guess Gaspar or jamesrage wouldn't want
me to vote, since it's almost certain that I will not vote for his preferred candidates. And in the latter, there are millions of people who we all would agree are completely uninformed on the issues because their sole source of information is television news (of whatever leaning) and the attack ads that lead up to each election. If we're going to exclude prisoners from voting on those grounds, it's not exactly a stretch to go back to the days of poll taxes and literacy tests.
And practically speaking, there aren't enough potential criminal voters to have any major effect on elections anyway (if there are, our laws need to be fixed), so it seems utterly worthless to compromise ourselves to such a pointless end.
Last I checked, Maine and Vermont haven't exactly become controlled by the prisoners.
Edited to add: I apologize for the digression on the other thread, I ran across a mention of it in an AG's opinion while looking at a statute someone had posted and got annoyed. :(
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2010, 03:18:13 PM
Lastly, I find it incredibly disturbing that someone would argue that someone voting for the wrong person or being uninformed on the issues ought to disqualify them from voting. In the case of the former, I guess Gaspar or jamesrage wouldn't want me to vote, since it's almost certain that I will not vote for his preferred candidates. And in the latter, there are millions of people who we all would agree are completely uninformed on the issues because their sole source of information is television news (of whatever leaning) and the attack ads that lead up to each election. If we're going to exclude prisoners from voting on those grounds, it's not exactly a stretch to go back to the days of poll taxes and literacy tests.
To be ignorant of your surroundings is one thing, however, being completely isolated from society is another. In that case it can not be expected for someone to be able to have a say in the society that they are not a part of. That is why I advocate removal of voting rights while incarcerated and removed from society, but not beyond except in cases of an individual being morally bankrupt (which in my opinion should not be released back into society anyhow).
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2010, 03:18:13 PM
I could go either way on those adjudicated insane. On the one hand, I think taking the right to vote away from one class of people leads to it becoming more acceptable to do so for other classes of people. On the other hand, they have been adjudicated insane.
I wouldn't have brought it up had I not discovered that Oklahoma also strips the right to vote from people who never see a day of prison, namely those who are sentenced only to probation. That leads to ridiculous results like losing the right to vote over felony speeding, hot checks, and other relatively minor offenses that are nevertheless classed as felonies. Believe me, I have a lot less sympathy for murderers, but as the law stands, it makes no distinction whatsoever between a murderer and somebody who steals a couple grand from the till at work. Neither is, or should be, legal, yet there is a vast gulf between the severity of the crimes.
In any event, the purpose of incarceration isn't so much to isolate the criminal from society as a whole but to physically confine them because we feel they are a danger to society. (I'd argue that in Oklahoma, we go far beyond that, but I'm speaking generally here) Further isolating them from society only leads to more anti-social behavior.
Lastly, I find it incredibly disturbing that someone would argue that someone voting for the wrong person or being uninformed on the issues ought to disqualify them from voting. In the case of the former, I guess Gaspar or jamesrage wouldn't want me to vote, since it's almost certain that I will not vote for his preferred candidates. And in the latter, there are millions of people who we all would agree are completely uninformed on the issues because their sole source of information is television news (of whatever leaning) and the attack ads that lead up to each election. If we're going to exclude prisoners from voting on those grounds, it's not exactly a stretch to go back to the days of poll taxes and literacy tests.
And practically speaking, there aren't enough potential criminal voters to have any major effect on elections anyway (if there are, our laws need to be fixed), so it seems utterly worthless to compromise ourselves to such a pointless end.
Last I checked, Maine and Vermont haven't exactly become controlled by the prisoners.
Edited to add: I apologize for the digression on the other thread, I ran across a mention of it in an AG's opinion while looking at a statute someone had posted and got annoyed. :(
We also strip those adjudicated insane of their 2nd Amendment rights via Federal firearms laws and the Oklahoma conceal/carry. For conceal/carry the OSBI application asks about treatment for mental disorders, whether or not I've attempted suicide, wants to know if I've been treated for substance abuse, had a protective order filed on me, or simply if I've been arrested for any of the following: stalking, violating a protective order, illegal drug use or possession, or A & B or aggravated A & B.
Likening taking voting rights from convicted felons or the insane to poll taxes is stretching it a bit, don't you think?
Quote from: custosnox on April 28, 2010, 03:38:47 PM
To be ignorant of your surroundings is one thing, however, being completely isolated from society is another.
I think one can get periodicals in prison. Not that half the people I know who vote ever do such a thing. The vast majority just vote straight party lines without any sort of thinking on the issues at all. I'm just pointing out that the same arguments you use in support of taking away the right of felons to vote could be used against most people equally effectively.
Also, people don't get their vote back when they leave prison. They get it back when they finish parole. And many people lose their right to vote without ever seeing the inside of a prison.
Quote from: Conan71
Likening taking voting rights from convicted felons or the insane to poll taxes is stretching it a bit, don't you think?
If the reasoning for taking that right from felons weren't applicable to a large proportion of the non-felon electorate, I would.
It seems to me that it all comes down to further isolating people we see as undesirable from society. More punishment. As if locking them in prison isn't enough to keep them away. Perhaps we should stop allowing them to send letters, also?
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2010, 03:58:46 PM
I think one can get periodicals in prison. Not that half the people I know who vote ever do such a thing. The vast majority just vote straight party lines without any sort of thinking on the issues at all. I'm just pointing out that the same arguments you use in support of taking away the right of felons to vote could be used against most people equally effectively.
But periodicals don't really allow you to interact with society to really know what's going on. We can watch the news all day long but not trully understand everything that is going on there without actually being there. Same basic concept.
Also, from what I read of the law, in Oklahoma they get their ability to vote back according to what the sentensing judge says, which might be the time period of parole or might not be.
Quote from: custosnox on April 28, 2010, 05:15:48 PM
But periodicals don't really allow you to interact with society to really know what's going on. We can watch the news all day long but not trully understand everything that is going on there without actually being there. Same basic concept.
Also, from what I read of the law, in Oklahoma they get their ability to vote back according to what the sentensing judge says, which might be the time period of parole or might not be.
For most of our country's history, that's how the electorate got the information they needed to vote.
Regarding regaining the vote, that's what the law implies, but I don't think that's how it works. Having never been convicted of a felony in Oklahoma, I can't really say. Reading some AG opinions, I got the distinct impression that the law has been interpreted to mean that the
sentence is up to the judge, not when they regain the right to vote.
What adds insult to injury is that you can't even seek a pardon from the governor to regain your voting rights. All a pardon gets you here is a release from confinement.
There's no minimum education level to have the vote. That's what makes us such a gonzo republic. The stupidest people and the smartest people all get the same ballot. The most gregarious and active in public life, and the most secluded. Everyone gets the vote. It hasn't always been that way (for instance, back in the day, only landowners could vote, and obviously there was the whole slavery, 3/5's a person thing). But these days, anybody can vote and we don't judge them for how they want to exercise their franchise. Including by throwing it away. You can do that, too.
I honestly don't get the rationale behind denying prisoners the right to vote. As nathan said, withholding the core tenet of American citizenship as a punishment from actual citizens seems . . . unAmerican. And you're incorrect, Gaspar. Convicts don't forfeit the basic privileges of our Constitution; on the contrary, there are some constitutional rights (right to a trial by jury; right to a speedy trial and confrontation of witnesses; right from cruel and unusual punishment, etc) reserved solely for those working their way through the American crime-and-punishment system.
Gonzo is an interesting descriptor of the United States, especially considering we have enough nukes to destroy life on earth (well, except for cockroaches and ants) several times over.
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100320213942/muppet/images/thumb/e/eb/Gonzo2.jpg/300px-Gonzo2.jpg)
I shudder.
Quote from: we vs us on April 28, 2010, 11:20:58 PM
There's no minimum education level to have the vote. That's what makes us such a gonzo republic. The stupidest people and the smartest people all get the same ballot. The most gregarious and active in public life, and the most secluded. Everyone gets the vote. It hasn't always been that way (for instance, back in the day, only landowners could vote, and obviously there was the whole slavery, 3/5's a person thing). But these days, anybody can vote and we don't judge them for how they want to exercise their franchise. Including by throwing it away. You can do that, too.
I honestly don't get the rationale behind denying prisoners the right to vote. As nathan said, withholding the core tenet of American citizenship as a punishment from actual citizens seems . . . unAmerican. And you're incorrect, Gaspar. Convicts don't forfeit the basic privileges of our Constitution; on the contrary, there are some constitutional rights (right to a trial by jury; right to a speedy trial and confrontation of witnesses; right from cruel and unusual punishment, etc) reserved solely for those working their way through the American crime-and-punishment system.
If I am completely wrong, someone please correct me. I have always understood that if you are convicted of a felony, regardless of city, county, state or federal, you were stripped of the right to vote, and stripped of the right to purchase/own a firearm.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 28, 2010, 11:32:23 PM
If I am completely wrong, someone please correct me. I have always understood that if you are convicted of a felony, regardless of city, county, state or federal, you were stripped of the right to vote, and stripped of the right to purchase/own a firearm.
You are incorrect about the former, although it is illegal under federal law for a felon to posses a firearm absent a pardon or similar act.
Voting qualifications, beyond the minimum standards set at the federal level, which have nothing to say about crime, are handled entirely by the states. Here's a list (http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286). As mentioned in that list, some states even exclude certain misdemeanor offenders from voting.
Your question misses the point of the discussion by a wide mark, however. Regardless of what the law is now, should inmates and/or felons in general have the right to vote?
Quote from: we vs us on April 28, 2010, 11:20:58 PM
Gaspar. Convicts don't forfeit the basic privileges of our Constitution; on the contrary, there are some constitutional rights (right to a trial by jury; right to a speedy trial and confrontation of witnesses; right from cruel and unusual punishment, etc) reserved solely for those working their way through the American crime-and-punishment system.
I stand corrected. They forfeit MANY of the privileges of our constitution, because access to those privileges make them a danger to others. The privilege of voting would certainly be considered so. Lets explore the scenario. . .
The incarcerated would certainly vote for whomever promised the most lenient in sentencing, and whoever promoted the most ineffective justices. Like most voting blocks prisoners would focus on the politician that offered them the most.
From a politician's standpoint, the nearly 3 million incarcerated individuals would represent a MAJOR voting block. Why?. . .Because they are a, pardon the pun, captive audience who, with little else to do, would turn up to vote by a margin of almost 100%.
Now, I'm not saying all politicians pander. . . Wait. . .Yes I am! Some politicians would go on prison tours (through all 57 states ;) ) and even make supreme court appointments based on gaining that voting block of 3 million.
We would gain interest groups, lobbies and powerful politicians beholden to criminals and the organizations that they belong to and support. Pardons would be handed out, not based on merit or injustice, but as party campaign teasers to satisfy The League of Felonious Voters, or the Registered Sex Offenders of America.
I would also guarantee that the politics of prison and the various gangs would be happy to offer "counseling" to any individual that votes against gang/party rule.
Giving inmates the right to vote is just about as stupid as the previous suggestions to give illegal aliens and the resident's of other countries the right to vote in US elections.
Quote from: custosnox on April 28, 2010, 12:16:34 PM
So you disagree with sex offenders not being allowed to live near schools, or be in a occupation that puts them in contact with children on a regular basis? Just to clarify, when I mean sex offenders I mean the molesters and of that ilk, not the lady that has to register because she got drunk and flashed someone.
"Inmates should not be allowed to vote. But once you are released and served your full sentence all your constitutional rights should be fully restored to you.
If you can not be trusted to have all your constitutional rights fully restored to you then you should not have ever been released in the first place."
Quote from: jamesrage on April 29, 2010, 11:16:10 AM
"Inmates should not be allowed to vote. But once you are released and served your full sentence all your constitutional rights should be fully restored to you. If you can not be trusted to have all your constitutional rights fully restored to you then you should not have ever been released in the first place."
Which says to me that either yes you support them being allowed to have contact with children with absolutely no restrictions, or that they should always be given life sentences.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 29, 2010, 08:05:33 AM
I stand corrected. They forfeit MANY of the privileges of our constitution, because access to those privileges make them a danger to others. The privilege of voting would certainly be considered so. Lets explore the scenario. . .
The incarcerated would certainly vote for whomever promised the most lenient in sentencing, and whoever promoted the most ineffective justices. Like most voting blocks prisoners would focus on the politician that offered them the most.
From a politician's standpoint, the nearly 3 million incarcerated individuals would represent a MAJOR voting block. Why?. . .Because they are a, pardon the pun, captive audience who, with little else to do, would turn up to vote by a margin of almost 100%.
..
I would also guarantee that the politics of prison and the various gangs would be happy to offer "counseling" to any individual that votes against gang/party rule.
You have a fertile imagination. One which is proven quite wrong by Maine and Vermont. Nice try, though.
Perhaps you don't get it, but there are more of us than there are prisoners. If they want to agitate for more lenient sentences, we can agitate against that. As the Supreme Court has written on many occasions: "The solution to free speech you don't like is more free speech."
Your final issue is easily solvable. Simply stop letting inmates get away with all the smile that they do. Stop the prison violence, stop the gang rape, stop everything else untoward that goes on. It goes on because prison guards are bribed to look the other way. How about we make prison a humane place so that people don't come back more likely to reoffend?
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 03:01:31 PM
You have a fertile imagination. One which is proven quite wrong by Maine and Vermont. Nice try, though.
Perhaps you don't get it, but there are more of us than there are prisoners. If they want to agitate for more lenient sentences, we can agitate against that. As the Supreme Court has written on many occasions: "The solution to free speech you don't like is more free speech."
Your final issue is easily solvable. Simply stop letting inmates get away with all the smile that they do. Stop the prison violence, stop the gang rape, stop everything else untoward that goes on. It goes on because prison guards are bribed to look the other way. How about we make prison a humane place so that people don't come back more likely to reoffend?
Do naive much?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 29, 2010, 03:03:41 PM
Do naive much?
I guess the Supreme Court is naive, and Maine and Vermont don't exist, nor do any of the other hundreds of nations on this earth from whom we might occasionally learn something.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 03:01:31 PM
Your final issue is easily solvable. Simply stop letting inmates get away with all the smile that they do. Stop the prison violence, stop the gang rape, stop everything else untoward that goes on. It goes on because prison guards are bribed to look the other way. How about we make prison a humane place so that people don't come back more likely to reoffend?
A little drift here, but about the only way to stop the prison violence, et al is to seperate each of the prisoners. If this is done, then it would be argued that it would cause anti-social behaviors becasue they were not allowed to socialize.
Quote from: custosnox on April 29, 2010, 03:12:26 PM
A little drift here, but about the only way to stop the prison violence, et al is to seperate each of the prisoners. If this is done, then it would be argued that it would cause anti-social behaviors becasue they were not allowed to socialize.
I don't think you can really make that determination without first making a serious attempt to prevent inmate-on-inmate violence. Other countries seem to manage it ok.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 03:18:57 PM
I don't think you can really make that determination without first making a serious attempt to prevent inmate-on-inmate violence. Other countries seem to manage it ok.
Even with the best measures in place, I think the best we could hope for would be a large drop in, but I'm sure that in every country you would see that it still exists on some degree.
Quote from: custosnox on April 29, 2010, 03:21:20 PM
Even with the best measures in place, I think the best we could hope for would be a large drop in, but I'm sure that in every country you would see that it still exists on some degree.
Some states manage to keep the violence (especially rape) pretty low. We aren't one of those states. In 2003 (the latest numbers I can find), we were #7 in the nation in reported prison rapes. That sort of thing can't be good for rehabilitation.
While I'm sure there were plenty of gangs and violence in prisons previously, it seems to have taken off when we decided we didn't want to "coddle" them and let them have interesting things to do so they can better themselves. Rewards for good behavior, like (gasp!) TV would go a long way towards making people less willing to participate in violence against other inmates.
I'm drifting, but at least it's somewhat related to the topic! ;)
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 03:01:31 PM
Your final issue is easily solvable. Simply stop letting inmates get away with all the smile that they do. Stop the prison violence, stop the gang rape, stop everything else untoward that goes on. It goes on because prison guards are bribed to look the other way. How about we make prison a humane place so that people don't come back more likely to reoffend?
I have to admit, I admire simple solutions, however the process of "easily solving" the problem of prison violence would most likely involve infringement on the very inmate rights and freedoms you seem so very fond of.
Again, I have come to the conclusion that you adopt positions for the sake of argument rather than to present any significant contribution based in reason. Don't take that as an insult, you do a far better job of providing basis, research, and understanding than FOTD did, but you still attempt to drive the wrong end of the nail.
The privilege to vote in this country should be honored and subject to the unalienable right to liberty. When a man's liberty is suspended because it is deemed that his actions infringe on the rights of others, his vote should not be allowed to cancel the vote of his victims or any other member of society.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 29, 2010, 04:29:31 PM
I have to admit, I admire simple solutions, however the process of "easily solving" the problem of prison violence would most likely involve infringement on the very inmate rights and freedoms you seem so very fond of.
Again, I have come to the conclusion that you adopt positions for the sake of argument rather than to present any significant contribution based in reason. Don't take that as an insult, you do a far better job of providing basis, research, and understanding than FOTD did, but you still attempt to drive the wrong end of the nail.
The privilege to vote in this country should be honored and subject to the unalienable right to liberty. When a man's liberty is suspended because it is deemed that his actions infringe on the rights of others, his vote should not be allowed to cancel the vote of his victims or any other member of society.
We disagree. That doesn't mean I'm "driving the wrong end of the nail," it just means we place different weight on certain values. My opinions are offered in good faith (most of the time, on rare occasion I am contrary in the hopes of making people critically evaluate their positions) and are almost always based in reason and logic. I simply don't believe that it's moral to deny some people basic rights that I enjoy. Sorry you don't see it that way. To be honest, I sometimes have to remind myself that your positions (and a few others on this board) are thoughtfully held and not just the reactionary default that they sometimes reflect.
I like to think we're mostly all above the level of the folks who are Republicans because daddy was a Republican, are Democrats because daddy was a Democrat, or otherwise hold opinions only because that's what they grew up with.
Anyway, back closer to the topic: you're right, it wouldn't be that easy, although tossing people in SuperMax for the remainder of their sentence might be some deterrent to violent behavior on the inside. Combine that with a nice carrot and we might have something.
Surely we can agree that the current situation is untenable. Violence in prison is increasing recidivism rates which is driving the cost of the criminal justice system to an unsustainable level.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 04:44:47 PM
Anyway, back closer to the topic: you're right, it wouldn't be that easy, although tossing people in SuperMax for the remainder of their sentence might be some deterrent to violent behavior on the inside. Combine that with a nice carrot and we might have something.
Surely we can agree that the current situation is untenable. Violence in prison is increasing recidivism rates which is driving the cost of the criminal justice system to an unsustainable level.
On this new subject we are in total agreement.
America needs fewer laws, not more prisons. – James Bovard
Quote from: Gaspar on April 29, 2010, 04:48:26 PM
On this new subject we are in total agreement.
America needs fewer laws, not more prisons. – James Bovard
I'm glad to see that we do indeed agree on something. ;D
I too will chime in agreement on this. As the old saying goes, insanity is repeating the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result. Our criminal justice system is trully insane.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 29, 2010, 08:05:33 AM
I stand corrected. They forfeit MANY of the privileges of our constitution, because access to those privileges make them a danger to others. The privilege of voting would certainly be considered so. Lets explore the scenario. . .
The incarcerated would certainly vote for whomever promised the most lenient in sentencing, and whoever promoted the most ineffective justices. Like most voting blocks prisoners would focus on the politician that offered them the most.
From a politician's standpoint, the nearly 3 million incarcerated individuals would represent a MAJOR voting block. Why?. . .Because they are a, pardon the pun, captive audience who, with little else to do, would turn up to vote by a margin of almost 100%.
Now, I'm not saying all politicians pander. . . Wait. . .Yes I am! Some politicians would go on prison tours (through all 57 states ;) ) and even make supreme court appointments based on gaining that voting block of 3 million.
We would gain interest groups, lobbies and powerful politicians beholden to criminals and the organizations that they belong to and support. Pardons would be handed out, not based on merit or injustice, but as party campaign teasers to satisfy The League of Felonious Voters, or the Registered Sex Offenders of America.
I would also guarantee that the politics of prison and the various gangs would be happy to offer "counseling" to any individual that votes against gang/party rule.
Giving inmates the right to vote is just about as stupid as the previous suggestions to give illegal aliens and the resident's of other countries the right to vote in US elections.
To which I say: so? You've got a fantastic timeline there, some parts of which are eminently plausible, but it's still not a good enough reason to deny a group the vote. The fact that you (or I) don't like the possible consequences of extending a group suffrage simply isn't compelling enough reason to do so (cf. black civil rights, and/or the extension of the vote to women in the '20's).
Just so you don't pre-empt me with a Guido-style appeal to authority, no, I haven't read the case law and didn't complete -- or actually even attend -- law school, so I can't cite Supreme Court decisions specific to felons. I can tell you, though, that it's well within our historic tradition of expanding -- rather than rescinding -- rights to allow this to happen.
Here's an interesting if slightly dated read on some history of felon voting rights:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1789/why-cant-felons-vote
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 04:44:47 PM
We disagree. That doesn't mean I'm "driving the wrong end of the nail," it just means we place different weight on certain values. My opinions are offered in good faith (most of the time, on rare occasion I am contrary in the hopes of making people critically evaluate their positions) and are almost always based in reason and logic. I simply don't believe that it's moral to deny some people basic rights that I enjoy. Sorry you don't see it that way. To be honest, I sometimes have to remind myself that your positions (and a few others on this board) are thoughtfully held and not just the reactionary default that they sometimes reflect.
I like to think we're mostly all above the level of the folks who are Republicans because daddy was a Republican, are Democrats because daddy was a Democrat, or otherwise hold opinions only because that's what they grew up with.
Anyway, back closer to the topic: you're right, it wouldn't be that easy, although tossing people in SuperMax for the remainder of their sentence might be some deterrent to violent behavior on the inside. Combine that with a nice carrot and we might have something.
Surely we can agree that the current situation is untenable. Violence in prison is increasing recidivism rates which is driving the cost of the criminal justice system to an unsustainable level.
I probably shouldn't put words in your mouth, but I'm assuming you've not been a victim of a violent crime, nor anyone particularly close to you. Otherwise, I think you'd have a different view on punishment.
Who do you have in prison? Criminals. They engage in criminal behavior because many of them have social and mental problems which simply are not curable, or they have addictions which are another form of mental illness which is treatable, however many addicts never choose to make that change. You cannot change another person, the desire to change has to come from within.
In prison, you have anti-social personalities, manipulative personalities, sociopaths, psychopaths, schizophrenics, etc. I'm not spouting off adjectives, these are real diagnoses of large portions of the violent offenders in prison. They don't play well on the outside so they sure as heck don't play well on the inside. These are the people whom have not responded to any sort of of intervention or treatment in the past, that is why they are there.
My best friend's brother has spent the majority of his adult life in and out of prison. One of my cycling teammates spent nine years in prison for drug dealing (the first fellow I mentioned is still a worthless piece of crap and simply biding his time until he does something else to get sent back. The second one has flourished, has a great job, nice home, and nice wife and won't be a repeat offender). The biggest difference is example 1 doesn't give a smile and he's a sociopath. Example 2 wanted to change and didn't want to lose his freedom again. He's a total flaming conservative as well and believes in harsh punishment for wrong-doers. From discussions with both of them, I've got a pretty good understanding of how the "social" system works inside the walls and not from a filtered hyperbole standpoint.
As far as reported rapes, how many men want to report they have been raped? It's not a sexual gratification issue near as much as humiliation and domination as is usually the case in heterosexual rapes. If you isolated all prisoners to prevent prisoner on prisoner crimes, you would increase the costs of incarceration. That and you'd be seeing a myriad of lawsuits due to the isolation which would be required. FWIW, I've never met an ex-con who admits to have been raped. That always happened to other people. ::)
Quite honestly, there are a lot of people who will tell you that the horrors of prison are as good a deterrent effect as there is against crime. Just so you know my thoughts are not lock-step Republican on this: I'm anti-death penalty. I think that's too easy a sentence for one thing, a couple of other reasons are the incredibly high costs for death row inmates (to enjoy endless appeals, the additional security of death row, single celling) and the number of wrongly convicted men and women on death row. I became a convert after reading John Grisham's "An Innocent Man" and Dennis Fritz book (one of the subjects of Grisham's book). I believe as a national average, each death row prisoner costs taxpayers five times what a general population inmate costs per year in a maximum security prison.
I believe your intentions are good in your arguments, I simply don't think you have quite as much insight as to why liberties are stripped from those who violate other's liberties and who many of the violent offenders are.
Your screed would mean a lot more to me if it were true that most people who are in prison were there for violent crimes. Thing is, most people are there for drug and property crime.
If you've got better data on prison rape, I'd be glad to hear it, as there isn't a lot of good data out there since, as you mentioned, people are reluctant to report it.
I'm not at all saying that violent criminals shouldn't be locked up barring some sort of extenuating circumstance. There are cases where people are violent criminals under the letter, but not the spirit of the law, like in states without the make my day law who defend themselves against robbers, and I don't think those sort of folks should necessarily end up in prison. But yes, in general people who use violence ought to go to jail.
And FWIW, I've known a fair number of folks who spent time in Arkansas prisons. A few on drug charges and a few for property crimes. (Living with a guy who managed a pizza place, you will meet all kinds) I haven't talked to them extensively about their experiences, though. I get the feeling they aren't too interested in reliving the experience, so I try to let it lie despite my curiosity.
I want to make prison a place where I wouldn't feel bad sending someone to if I was to find myself battered again. It should be punishment, it should not be the corrupt cesspool it tends to be. It should be a place where most people have at least a chance of coming out rehabilitated, and not only the exceptional. We drastically underfund prisons and don't give the prisoners a chance to learn a trade or just expand their mind and we're surprised when recidivism rates are so high.
It also doesn't help that we have very little help for people with mental issues and instead wait until they inevitably have an episode that usually ends in violence and the ill person being locked up. More than just about anything about our criminal justice system, that pisses me off. I need to go take a shower before that works me into a rage. My best friend's father is a schizophrenic, who is perfectly nice when he's on his meds, but is rather unstable without them. Once someone helped him navigate the system so he could get veteran's benefits and SSDI, he's been on a relatively even keel. He still has to stay in a residential facility, but he's relatively autonomous and his family members can check him out basically whenever as long as they promise to keep him properly fed with drugs. Most people in his position end up in prison or homeless on the street.
Fixing that problem would probably also have a great benefit in making prison a less evil place.
Nathan, you missed your calling, you should be a warden. Lots of iealism in that post which won't meet with reality in the fun house but you can certainly try.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 29, 2010, 11:14:00 PM
Nathan, you missed your calling, you should be a warden. Lots of iealism in that post which won't meet with reality in the fun house but you can certainly try.
I take it you don't think it's possible to improve conditions in prisons? If that's true, perhaps we should work on at least separating the violent criminals from the nonviolent so their bad habits don't rub off. It's certainly true that there are some people, especially lifers, for whom no punishment will alter their behavior. Maybe a carrot would work, I don't know, but if not, that's what a supermax is for.
Quote from: nathanm on April 30, 2010, 12:00:13 AM
I take it you don't think it's possible to improve conditions in prisons? If that's true, perhaps we should work on at least separating the violent criminals from the nonviolent so their bad habits don't rub off. It's certainly true that there are some people, especially lifers, for whom no punishment will alter their behavior. Maybe a carrot would work, I don't know, but if not, that's what a supermax is for.
We do, it's called maximum security, medium security, and minimum security. Trust me Nathan, you aren't the first person to think of this. Prison isn't supposed to be Shangri-La, it's where we send those who take other's liberties (and property), those who can't function in society, and those who cheat the government.
I think Chief Dead Horse is about to pay us a visit...