Prisoners, right to vote

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Honestly?

Sort of. It was a joke.

Plus have you guys seen the documentary on the Arian brotherhood?
They are a prison gang spread throughout California.
The brotherhood is organized, lead, and executed all from within the prison system, yet their reach extends so far outside of the prison walls that they are able to make millions a year in drug trafficking and other black market operations.

You seriously want those guys voting?

You reallywant to give those guys voting rights considering they have serious enough cash to generate a lobbying organization strong enough to set up a viable politico machine?

Washington has enough problems without having to deal with this one too.

They're already voting. (or able to, at least.) And there's nothing stopping them from forming a lobby. Either way, the same argument could be used against any population. I believe the same was said about the Jewish/socialist population in Germany during the 30s and 40s. Was this merit enough to remove their rights? I mean, they did constitute a threat to the government- They (socialists) had a majority in legislature after all, so the Nazi party would have way more motivation to restrict their rights than we do to restrict the Aryan Brotherhood, who are not nearly as organized or as large as the SDP was in Germany.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Well I would say all such systems of Justice are not Justice. Justice is giving each their due.

That's incredibly vague, but the definition of 'due' seems to imply that you're describing a system in which individuals receive equal retribution to their intentions. (Which is what I would describe as justice.)

Originally Posted by 8bit

=
They're already voting. (or able to, at least.)
And there's nothing stopping them from forming a lobby.

not if they have been convicted of a felony they aren't. (or at least shouldn't be)

true, nobody is stopping them from forming a lobby, but who's to say that un-retractable voting rights wouldn't provide them with incentive enough to do so?

But perhaps lobbying isn't the best of scenarios, perhaps I meant under-the table bribing of certain politicians. (but really that's kinda what lobbying is, it just doesn't sound as "bad" as bribing) =\

Either way, the same argument could be used against any population. I believe the same was said about the Jewish/socialist population in Germany during the 30s and 40s. Was this merit enough to remove their rights? I mean, they did constitute a threat to the government- They (socialists) had a majority in legislature after all, so the Nazi party would have way more motivation to restrict their rights than we do to restrict the Aryan Brotherhood, who are not nearly as organized or as large as the SDP was in Germany.

=\ serious?

*mild rant not really pertaining to the discussion*

last time I checked Hitler's intentions wasn't keeping them alive in overcrowded prisons, he was shoving them into ovens en mass.

last time I checked the jews that were persecuted under nazi germany weren't unified by a system of beliefs and doctrines centered around hatred for all those with dark skin

last time I checked you didn't have to kill a man before you were allowed into the synagogue.

last time I checked the rabbi didn't kill you if you stopped going to synagogue. (aryan brotherhood maintains a strict blood-in blood-out membership policy)

/end rant

We don't need anymore justification for stripping felons of their voting right other than the simple fact that they violated the social contract on a federal level.

What kind of message would this send to the rest of the citizens?

Oh look this guy raped and pillaged an orphanage but he gets cable TV from 1-3, basketball at 5, and 3 square meals a day, plus a blanky to sleep on when his cell gets too cold.

Government is an enforcer of Justice primarily, cushy idealism takes back stage in this case.

You violate federal laws then you don't get to vote.
Tuff nutz.

Shoulda thought about that before you stabbed your ex wife to death.

I don't care how hard she was fukking the mailman when you walked in on her.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

I'm not usually one who argues using the "slippery slope" mentality, but if we labeled that particular policy from the OP as "inhumane" then who's to stop some neo-conservative judge from ruling that it's also inhumane to deny a felon his right to bear arms?

Given that arming you with the right to vote isn't nearly as dangerous to those around you or something that will enable you to commit crimes as arming you with a gun, there's quite a lot that will stop a neo-conservative judge ruling that we should arm our prisoners. And it's not like America has any concept of human rights anyway.

As I argued, violating the right to vote is more about freedom of expression than about liberty.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

As I argued, violating the right to vote is more about freedom of expression than about liberty.

ahh, sorry. I havent read the other posts, just the OP.

My bad

but seriously, they can express themselves on the urinal or the cell walls. I don't care.
They lost their political voice when they broke the social contract.

*edit*

but you're right, voting is theoretically less dangerous than arming felons with guns.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

but seriously, they can express themselves on the urinal or the cell walls. I don't care.
They lost their political voice when they broke the social contract.

No, they lost their right to liberty and I would argue their right to privacy. A single instance of disregard for the law may not mean that your right to vote in political issues should be suspended, because presumably at some point you are going to leave that prison and end up a member of the society governed by laws enforced by rulers that you did not have the opportunity to vote for.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

No, they lost their right to liberty and I would argue their right to privacy. A single instance of disregard for the law may not mean that your right to vote in political issues should be suspended, because presumably at some point you are going to leave that prison and end up a member of the society governed by laws enforced by rulers that you did not have the opportunity to vote for.

I think 50 years ago that would have held more water, but with the advent of globalization if you don't like the current administration you can leave and you would have several places to choose from.

I mean if Hypothetical Bob does his 20 years in jail for grand theft auto, is he really justified in feeling hurt for not being able to vote on issues while in jail?

No I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

Oh look this guy raped and pillaged an orphanage but he gets cable TV from 1-3, basketball at 5, and 3 square meals a day, plus a blanky to sleep on when his cell gets too cold.

And once again people confuse maximum security prison from minimum.

The latter is reasonably nice, the former is not.

Originally Posted by John

And once again people confuse maximum security prison from minimum.

The latter is reasonably nice, the former is not.

not all felons go to maximum security. =\

But those who rape orphanages do.

^huh.

That's interesting.
but could you explain how spurring jail protests would lead to an abuse of power?
theoretically if governments would go through the trouble to do that then what's stopping them from doing it already? Jail protests have already been a recent problem, especially in california where said organization retains most of it's power.

Originally Posted by John

But those who rape orphanages do.

actually that's a good point.

I would be ok with only felons in maximum security prisons being allowed to vote.
Otherwise if I were the law-maker it would still be an adamant negatory on granting voting rights to felons.

Ahh, I see. Me being an American, that thought didn't really come to mind.
It would indeed be a problem in such countries, China in-particular.

In America however I would probably still vote no if an amendment was issued on a ballot.

It seems unwise to let the incarcerated vote, since prisons can be in isolated places -- and constituencies with a high prisoner:freeman ratio could easily propel, say, a 'Free the prisoners' party to a significant standing.

People who've been let out of prison should be allowed to vote, though. It may stop the American government from passing mandatory minimum sentences which lock up democrats for arbitrary lengths of time, barring them for voting ever again.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

I think 50 years ago that would have held more water, but with the advent of globalization if you don't like the current administration you can leave and you would have several places to choose from.

I mean if Hypothetical Bob does his 20 years in jail for grand theft auto, is he really justified in feeling hurt for not being able to vote on issues while in jail?

No I don't think so.

It doesn't honestly help rehabilitation purposes if we consider any person who goes to prison no longer a part of our society. If we don't give those who care a chance to actually contribute to the society they will one day be re-entering, then as far as they're concerned, we might as well think they're dead men who honestly do have no rights. If society doesn't care about them, why should they care about society?

Originally Posted by Kite

It seems unwise to let the incarcerated vote, since prisons can be in isolated places -- and constituencies with a high prisoner:freeman ratio could easily propel, say, a 'Free the prisoners' party to a significant standing.

Okay firstly I very much doubt there is any constituency with a significant enough prisoner-to-civilian ratio that a "free the prisoners" party would actually win, secondly someone on the outside would have to start a "free the prisoners" party in order to actually be able to vote on it, and thirdly the party would have to actually win the election on a nationwide basis in order to actually succeed in getting someone with enough influence in the Ministry of Justice to let them go free, or even in Parliament to pass a law to say that these lawbreakers can go free.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

It doesn't honestly help rehabilitation purposes if we consider any person who goes to prison no longer a part of our society. If we don't give those who care a chance to actually contribute to the society they will one day be re-entering, then as far as they're concerned, we might as well think they're dead men who honestly do have no rights. If society doesn't care about them, why should they care about society?

Well, technically society is an abstraction and can't really care in the sense that an individual can, (Rousseau would probably disagree with me), however, collective individuals can vote on the issue thus voicing whether they care or not. Thus the society arbitrarily either cares for or doesn't care for the criminal's voting rights, albeit it's a crude replication and seeing as idea's arent self aware the point becomes a bit moot.
sorry i'm ranting.
So basically it would come down to a democratic vote (in Amercia), albeit an issue on which felons would not be able to vote.

Like I said, as far as western society is concerned, if people don't like the society they are in they can go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

Well, technically society is an abstraction and can't really care in the sense that an individual can, (Rousseau would probably disagree with me), however, collective individuals can vote on the issue thus voicing whether they care or not. Thus the society arbitrarily either cares for or doesn't care for the criminal's voting rights, albeit it's a crude replication and seeing as idea's arent self aware the point becomes a bit moot.

None of that actually seems relevant.

So basically it would come down to a democratic vote (in Amercia), albeit an issue on which felons would not be able to vote.

Like I said, as far as western society is concerned, if people don't like the society they are in they can go elsewhere.

It's not quite that simple although this is a statement I very much support, but I don't see how this statement has anything to do with this discussion. The law changes every day, so clearly it's not just "if they don't like the society they're in they can leave", people can see a need for change and support that change, even when they're in prison for committing a crime. Committing an act which happens to be against the law isn't really enough grounds upon which to say "you have completely disregarded your part in this society".

For one thing, I happen to know you smoke marijuana from previous discussions, and if caught may be fined, and a repeat offence may mean prison. I have no idea what other illegal activity you might have been up to, but put it this way - do you think that if imprisoned because you smoke marijuana you should be completely disregarded as no longer a member of this society until you re-enter it? Do you lose all of your rights for the duration of your imprisonment just because you thought you were better than the law in one (you might argue) tiny little instance? Or do you expect the law to have standards of reasonability and as such you should be sentenced and your rights suspended only insofar as it is actually relevant to the crime you have committed?

no it wasn't relevant at all. Sometimes my brain just vomits all over the internet.

*cleans it up*

sorry bout that.

There isn't really a good correlation between possessing/smoking marijuana for personal use and a convicted felon in maximum security prison, which is the stance that I'm maintaining as of two posts now.

Also I've never been caught smoking marijuanna simply because I'm smarter than the average stoner.
I don't keep weed in my car.
I don't smoke and drive.
I don't smoke in public.

Although almost didn't pass a drug test for a job, so that was kinda interesting, but lesson learned I suppose.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Committing an act which happens to be against the law isn't really enough grounds upon which to say "you have completely disregarded your part in this society".

but committing an act that lands you in maximum security prison is plenty of grounds for such actions.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

There isn't really a good correlation between possessing/smoking marijuana for personal use and a convicted felon in maximum security prison, which is the stance that I'm maintaining as of two posts now.

Right, it seems I didn't notice that, although being as I spend more time concentrating on the law than on prisons I wouldn't know what offences will get you into a maximum security prison. I'm thinking what you're proposing is similar to my "discretionary suspension of voting rights" idea.

Also I've never been caught smoking marijuanna simply because I'm smarter than the average stoner.
I don't keep weed in my car.
I don't smoke and drive.
I don't smoke in public.

But you're still breaking the law, which is something I'm sure a CERTAIN percentage of people in prison have done.

but committing an act that lands you in maximum security prison is plenty of grounds for such actions.

Well depending on the regime in question simply being a political prisoner, opposing the regime in a protest rather than voting for example, might land you in a maximum security prison. I think in this country maximum security is more about the likely behaviour of the prisoner in question and/or his treatment by other inmates than what law you've actually broken. For example, Charles Bronson only robbed a post office with a sawn-off shotgun and stole something like £27 pounds, he was only meant to do 7 years, and has only been out of prison for something like 50 days since the 70s/80s.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Right, it seems I didn't notice that, although being as I spend more time concentrating on the law than on prisons I wouldn't know what offences will get you into a maximum security prison. I'm thinking what you're proposing is similar to my "discretionary suspension of voting rights" idea.

oh, was that in previous posts of the thread?

But you're still breaking the law, which is something I'm sure a CERTAIN percentage of people in prison have done.

yes, but if I don't get caught then I don't get caught. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. A friend of mine got canned for 3 months. They pegged her for intent to distribute due to the large volume of weeds they found in her trunk. Needless to say, she was distributing.
She knew the risks going into the drug business. Now she's on probation and has to take weekly piss tests I think.
then again, she can still vote.

but I think marijuana should be legal anyway.

Well depending on the regime in question simply being a political prisoner, opposing the regime in a protest rather than voting for example, might land you in a maximum security prison.

exactly, which is why it would be such a problem. but then again a country taking political prisoners are more than likely on the verge of martial law anyway in which case the elections are probably mere shams and not really a true reflection of the democratic process at all, but that's merely speculation.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

yes, but if I don't get caught then I don't get caught. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. A friend of mine got canned for 3 months. They pegged her for intent to distribute due to the large volume of weeds they found in her trunk. Needless to say, she was distributing.
She knew the risks going into the drug business. Now she's on probation and has to take weekly piss tests I think.
then again, she can still vote.

but I think marijuana should be legal anyway.

And a lot of people think the behaviour they commit should be legal, but the law doesn't bend that way son. Regardless of what you think, you were arguing (although I understand now about max security) that anyone who breaks the law and gets put into prison needs to have their rights suspended. You may not be getting caught, but you're not put in prison just for being stupid enough to get caught, you're put in prison for that behaviour, and so your behaviour is what makes you less than a member of society in that vein of thought. A crime is nothing more than behaviour prohibited by law, and in smoking weed, you sir are violating that social contract.

exactly, which is why it would be such a problem. but then again a country taking political prisoners are more than likely on the verge of martial law anyway in which case the elections are probably mere shams and not really a true reflection of the democratic process at all, but that's merely speculation.

Or maybe it's a government that has decided that as protests often end in violence, protesting itself must be criminalized, and so democratic elections are perfectly fine legal and fair but anything further is criminalized.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

And a lot of people think the behaviour they commit should be legal, but the law doesn't bend that way son. Regardless of what you think, you were arguing (although I understand now about max security) that anyone who breaks the law and gets put into prison needs to have their rights suspended. You may not be getting caught, but you're not put in prison just for being stupid enough to get caught, you're put in prison for that behaviour, and so your behaviour is what makes you less than a member of society in that vein of thought. A crime is nothing more than behaviour prohibited by law, and in smoking weed, you sir are violating that social contract.

well, I guess it's convenient then that I find my opinion concerning marijuana laws to be superior to the collective societies decision on the matter.
and I am fully prepared to smoke more in active defiance of that particular social contract.

but seriously, when you look at the European's attitudes on the substance in comparison to ours it just seems trivial and unnecessary.

Or maybe it's a government that has decided that as protests often end in violence, protesting itself must be criminalized, and so democratic elections are perfectly fine legal and fair but anything further is criminalized.

Admittedly, it's a fine line to maintain, one that--too my knowledge--America has successfully been able to maintain.