NationStates

---

Voting Equality for Freed Inmates
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

The General Assembly:

Noting that freed inmates have already paid the legal consequence for their action, and therefore ought to be, rather than shunned out of society, reintegrated into it,

Believing that the right to vote ought not to be arbitrarily deprived from individuals due to such factors as prior criminal status that do not impede one's mental competency,

Concerned especially for the innocently convicted, who, through felon disenfrachisement laws, are unfairly deprived of voting rights for a crime they did not commit,

Asserting, therefore, that the disenfranchisement of former criminals constitutes unjust discrimination that must, in the name of civil equality, be addressed by this Assembly:

1. Prohibits member nations from denying a non-imprisoned, otherwise-eligible individual the right to vote on an equal basis with any other voter solely on account of their prior criminal activity, unless any of the following is true:
   
   
   1. said criminal activity directly pertained to any of the following crimes:
      
      1. voter fraud or other related acts,
      2. improperly aiding a foreign or domestic power in the subversion of the nation,
   2. said person is on either parole or probation for a previous crime,
2. Prohibits member nations from enacting measures that would excessively impede the right of an otherwise-eligible former criminal from voting,
   
   
3. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.

Part of a one-two punch with Fauxia.

How would this affect the nations who outlaw voting or have non-traditional jail/prison/punishment systems?

"Do some backwater nations still deny the vote to people just because they are currently, or have in the past been, incarcerated? If so, we ought to extend basic rights to them. We do not see why it should be limited to those who have served their sentence, however. What would be the argument against denying prisoners the vote?"

Cor Vare wrote:How would this affect the nations who outlaw voting

"They would be unaffected, since former inmates would simply get the same right to vote as any non-convicted person. If that right is non-existent because the nation does not have votes, the former inmate would get that non-existent right extended to them. At least, that is our reading of clause 1."

or have non-traditional jail/prison/punishment systems?

"I do not know. The Solidarity Movement, for instance, does not take away the right to vote based on criminal activity at all, so if that is a non-traditional system, we would be unaffected."

OOC: What about people who are on probation or out on parole? They're still serving their sentence and if they fuck it up, they'll go (back) to prison.

If you really want to begin the second mandate with "and", you should not capitalize "prohibits".

Cor Vare wrote: have non-traditional jail/prison/punishment systems?

You could not deny them voting rights solely on account of their prior criminal record.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: What about people who are on probation or out on parole? They're still serving their sentence and if they fuck it up, they'll go (back) to prison.

They are, technically, non-imprisoned, so voting rights under this resolution would, I believe, still go to them.

Attempted Socialism wrote:"Do some backwater nations still deny the vote to people just because they are currently, or have in the past been, incarcerated? If so, we ought to extend basic rights to them. We do not see why it should be limited to those who have served their sentence, however. What would be the argument against denying prisoners the vote?"

The fear is that they would us this right to vote themselves out of prison, I believe. I personally support giving the imprisoned the right to vote, but, it would never pass.

Wallenburg wrote:If you really want to begin the second mandate with "and", you should not capitalize "prohibits".

I do. Primarily because I support sentences as a concept.

IC) Will felons of the world be permitted to run for political office under this legislation?

The Republic Amalgam of Southeast Civis
Eve Atme

---

---

United Massachusetts wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:If you really want to begin the second mandate with "and", you should not capitalize "prohibits".

I do. Primarily because I support sentences as a concept.

OOC: Except statutory format explicitly rejects this. If we cannot conform to basic statutory format considerations, we run the risk of introducing uncertainty in grammatical interpretation of clauses.

Eve Atme wrote:IC) Will felons of the world be permitted to run for political office under this legislation?

The Republic Amalgam of Southeast Civis
Eve Atme

---

(Image)

From The Office of Diplomatic Relations for The Republic Amalgam of Southeast Civis
Atticus J.H. Goodrich Ambassador to the World Assembly from Eve Atme

---

No, sir.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:I do. Primarily because I support sentences as a concept.

OOC: Except statutory format explicitly rejects this. If we cannot conform to basic statutory format considerations, we run the risk of introducing uncertainty in grammatical interpretation of clauses.

If you all would really like, I can remove the "and".

United Massachusetts wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:"Do some backwater nations still deny the vote to people just because they are currently, or have in the past been, incarcerated? If so, we ought to extend basic rights to them. We do not see why it should be limited to those who have served their sentence, however. What would be the argument against denying prisoners the vote?"

The fear is that they would us this right to vote themselves out of prison, I believe. I personally support giving the imprisoned the right to vote, but, it would never pass.

OOC: also the fact that, for some local governments, the inmates of a prison might outnumber that district's actual non-convict inhabitants and putting effective control over who forms those districts' governments into the hands of people who aren't really residents of the towns & villages involved simply seems inappropriate...

United Massachusetts wrote:

Cor Vare wrote: have non-traditional jail/prison/punishment systems?

You could not deny them voting rights solely on account of their prior criminal record.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: What about people who are on probation or out on parole? They're still serving their sentence and if they fuck it up, they'll go (back) to prison.

They are, technically, non-imprisoned, so voting rights under this resolution would, I believe, still go to them.

Attempted Socialism wrote:"Do some backwater nations still deny the vote to people just because they are currently, or have in the past been, incarcerated? If so, we ought to extend basic rights to them. We do not see why it should be limited to those who have served their sentence, however. What would be the argument against denying prisoners the vote?"

The fear is that they would us this right to vote themselves out of prison, I believe. I personally support giving the imprisoned the right to vote, but, it would never pass.

IC)prisoners on parole are still serving punishment and rehabilitation for their crimes and should not be able to vote beaus of that status. after they finish their rehabilitation they should then vote.

The Republic Amalgam of Southeast Civis
Eve Atme

---

---

Eve Atme wrote:IC)prisoners on parole are still serving punishment and rehabilitation for their crimes and should not be able to vote beaus of that status. after they finish their rehabilitation they should then vote.

OOC: This sounds sensible enough. I presume the same goes for probation? And my apologies for not arguing in IC, but my characters are currently a bit busy.

Done.

"So, no news is good news, eh?"

I'm thinking it might just be people working/studying/sleeping/taking a break in the last 10 hours.

Wallenburg wrote:I'm thinking it might just be people working/studying/sleeping/taking a break in the last 10 hours.

I know. As do I, as does everybody. We're all people. I just have a tendency to get excited over small things

If we are mandated to re-enfranchise dissidents we will have no choice but to sentence them to death or life in prison.

MeRconitonitopia wrote:If we are mandated to re-enfranchise dissidents we will have no choice but to sentence them to death or life in prison.

"I would remind you that the World Assembly defends freedom of speech and expression in resolutions such as 'Freedom of Assembly', 'Freedom of Expression', and 'Freedom of the Press'."

"I think you should consider the incentives this would create in sentencing. I wouldn't be surprised to see nations resort to indefinite probation, purely to keep disenfranchisement."

OOC: I'm also a bit worried about how this would affect nations that use rehabilitation instead of prison, But I've not exactly figured out how that works for me yet. Just don't forget that we exist too.

Wallenburg wrote:I'm thinking it might just be people working/studying/sleeping/taking a break in the last 10 hours.

Some of us simply do not have very much time this time of year.

"I see no reason why convicted pirates, thieves, and fraudsters should be allowed to vote. Thankfully, the dead can't vote." Delegate Blackbourne begins his opposition speech. "I would expect that the list of crimes deemed serious enough to merit capital punishment would be expanded to reduce the risk of criminals seizing control of our democracy.

"I believe the issue here, fundamentally, is that you believe former criminals are being deprived of rights, rather than seeing that those who break the law have no right to make the law. In the World Assembly, when a nation known for its willful non-compliance makes demands of legislation authors, those authors ignore them, and for good reason. Laws are not written for those who ignore them, and they shouldn't be voted on by those who ignore them either."

OOC:
Addressed is spelled wrong.

Excidium Planetis wrote:"I see no reason why convicted pirates, thieves, and fraudsters should be allowed to vote. Thankfully, the dead can't vote." Delegate Blackbourne begins his opposition speech. "I would expect that the list of crimes deemed serious enough to merit capital punishment would be expanded to reduce the risk of criminals seizing control of our democracy.

"I believe the issue here, fundamentally, is that you believe former criminals are being deprived of rights, rather than seeing that those who break the law have no right to make the law. In the World Assembly, when a nation known for its willful non-compliance makes demands of legislation authors, those authors ignore them, and for good reason. Laws are not written for those who ignore them, and they shouldn't be voted on by those who ignore them either."

OOC:
Addressed is spelled wrong.

"Ambassador Blackboure do you truly have so many criminals that you are at risk of criminals seizing control through their collective vote? In the Solidarity Movement, apart from very low crime rates, the organising effort of elections that could meaningfully impact any national policy is so large that voters would notice if former criminals suddenly banded together. It is simply not a threat to us, nor any country we consider our equal."
Ambassador Illum sends a meaningful look towards the delegation of Excidium Planetis.
"Furthermore, we believe that due punishment is, for most practical purposes, what society has agreed is the required penance for forgiveness. We have exit strategies and educational programmes for almost all criminals, and will help them back into society after they have been punished - which, incidentally, would not be in a prison, we do not need those - so at the time a person is a former criminal, we would have very little reason to think they might repeat offenses afterwards. Laws are written for both those who follow them, ignore them, wish to change them and so on. What matters is not the person making an argument, but the argument they make. Is "former criminal" a trait that disables persons from making informed decisions on laws or elections? Would it make a person unable to present an argument that could be evaluated on its merits? We would argue no, and that is why current and former criminals in the Solidarity Movement vote on equal grounds to everyone else."

"Here in Kenmoria, we have voting equality for all criminals with the exceptions of those convicted of treason, and those convicted of murder. The latter case is currently under parliamentary reviewal, but we must ask for an exception for treason to be added into the draft."

Neville: We would prefer it if the proposal explicitly reserved to member states the right to decide national policy regarding the enfranchisement of currently incarcerated convicts.