Should Felons be Allowed to Vote? Florida to Have Referendum

[San Lumen]

Civic involvement is a key part of reintegration into general society, voting is an important part of this and allows someone to feel invested in their community. Your constitutional rights should not be withheld after you've already served your sentence and it is wrong to withhold those rights.

I agree completely and I really can't see the argument against this referendum

[USS Monitor]

Civic involvement is a key part of reintegration into general society, voting is an important part of this and allows someone to feel invested in their community. Your constitutional rights should not be withheld after you've already served your sentence and it is wrong to withhold those rights.

I agree completely and I really can't see the argument against this referendum

Some people don't believe in rehabilitation.

[Genivaria]

I agree completely and I really can't see the argument against this referendum

Some people don't believe in rehabilitation.

Some people hold stock in private prisons.

[USS Monitor]

Some people don't believe in rehabilitation.

Some people hold stock in private prisons.

Private prisons... Bleah....

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Anyways, the privlidge to vote isn't in the constitution.
-It really isn't even a right in America. Making voting less protected than, say... owning a gun.

The privlidge to vote is mostly upheld because of gun ownership. The resaults are expected to be upheld, also because of gun ownership.

Felons aren't allowed to have guns, ergo they don't get a vote.

In short, your vote holds about as much influence as the damage that you can cause with a gun... vs the military.
-Which... actually was the case of the 1946 election in Athens, Tennessee. (and others, as that sparked a row of anti-corruption movements in Meigs County, Tennessee)

The aftermath of such things is a tricky business:

Fighting GIs, keeping them from shooting them people's houses and beating up people. My fists got so sore I couldn't stick them in my pocket ... If you fight them with your fists, they had respect for you. But you didn't use blackjacks or guns on them. If you did they'd gang up on you and kill you." ~Athens County Sheriff, Bill White

Maintaining elections without potential credible threat of force is like saying the Cold War between the USSR and USA could've existed for so long without nuclear detereance on one side only.

There's the govenment stand against tyrrany, and the individual stand. A line that shall not be allowed to cross.
-Why Trump won

[San Lumen]

Anyways, the privlidge to vote isn't in the constitution.
-It really isn't even a right in America. Making voting less protected than, say... owning a gun.

The privlidge to vote is mostly upheld because of gun ownership. The resaults are expected to be upheld, also because of gun ownership.

Felons aren't allowed to have guns, ergo they don't get a vote.

In short, your vote holds about as much influence as the damage that you can cause with a gun... vs the military.
-Which... actually was the case of the 1946 election in Athens, Tennessee. (and others, as that sparked a row of anti-corruption movements in Meigs County, Tennessee)

The aftermath of such things is a tricky business:

Fighting GIs, keeping them from shooting them people's houses and beating up people. My fists got so sore I couldn't stick them in my pocket ... If you fight them with your fists, they had respect for you. But you didn't use blackjacks or guns on them. If you did they'd gang up on you and kill you." ~Athens County Sheriff, Bill White

Maintaining elections without potential credible threat of force is like saying the Cold War between the USSR and USA could've existed for so long without nuclear detereance on one side only.

Voting is a right not a privilege. Im really sorry every election doesn't come down to a handful of votes.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Anyways, the privlidge to vote isn't in the constitution.
-It really isn't even a right in America. Making voting less protected than, say... owning a gun.

The privlidge to vote is mostly upheld because of gun ownership. The resaults are expected to be upheld, also because of gun ownership.

Felons aren't allowed to have guns, ergo they don't get a vote.

In short, your vote holds about as much influence as the damage that you can cause with a gun... vs the military.
-Which... actually was the case of the 1946 election in Athens, Tennessee. (and others, as that sparked a row of anti-corruption movements in Meigs County, Tennessee)

The aftermath of such things is a tricky business:


Maintaining elections without potential credible threat of force is like saying the Cold War between the USSR and USA could've existed for so long without nuclear detereance on one side only.

Voting is a right not a privilege. Im really sorry every election doesn't come down to a handful of votes.

Where is it stated as a right? Besides the declaration heard around the world of no taxation without representation... followed by a shot, also heard around the world.

Were it not for an armed and willing citizenry, that shot would've been the end of the American revolution, and not its begining.
-"The [free] world ends not with a bang, but a whimper"

I've already listed a 20th century application of firearms enforcing the lawful election resaults in two counties that otherwise would not have followed those resaults. I doubt I will be hard-pressed to find a 21st century example before I am permitted to die at the age of 120.

That supposed right to vote, only exists because someone, sometime, somewhere, was willing to take lives and lay down theirs merely to be heard.
-Be mindful of that come election day this November.
(irony: US forces throwing-out Vietnam's election resaults because it was pro-communist; in the respect of it becoming communist by the choice of its people, I'm glad America lost, I'm also glad that America involvment ultimately helped contribute to Vietnam's continued soveriegnty [albeit in "A boy named Sue" kind of way])

[Katganistan]

Anyone who has served their time should NOT have their rights (any rights) denied. It's wrong to continue to punish them beyond their sentence.

I agree. It only encourages the feeling that they can't ever be part of society/get a fair shake, which makes reintegration into society more difficult.

That IS the goal, isn't it? Rehabilitation and reintegration?

[San Lumen]

Voting is a right not a privilege. Im really sorry every election doesn't come down to a handful of votes.

Where is it stated as a right? Besides the declaration heard around the world of no taxation without representation... followed by a shot, also heard around the world.

Were it not for an armed and willing citizenry, that shot would've been the end of the American revolution, and not its begining.
-"The [free] world ends not with a bang, but a whimper"

I've already listed a 20th century application of firearms enforcing the lawful election resaults in two counties that otherwise would not have followed those resaults. I doubt I will be hard-pressed to find a 21st century example before I am permitted to die at the age of 120.

That supposed right to vote, only exists because someone, sometime, somewhere, was willing to take lives and lay down theirs merely to be heard.
-Be mindful of that come election day this November.
(irony: US forces throwing-out Vietnam's election resaults because it was pro-communist; in the respect of it becoming communist by the choice of its people, I'm glad America lost, I'm also glad that America involvment ultimately helped contribute to Vietnam's continued soveriegnty [albeit in "A boy named Sue" kind of way])

try the 15 and 19th amendment for starters

[Dysmastan]

Should Felons be Allowed to Vote?

Yes. It's unfair to deny somebody the right to vote in a republic or democracy possessing a judicial system, if the restriction isn't included in the sentence/punishment meted out by a fair judge & jury.

[Salandriagado]

Anyways, the privlidge to vote isn't in the constitution.
-It really isn't even a right in America. Making voting less protected than, say... owning a gun.

The privlidge to vote is mostly upheld because of gun ownership. The resaults are expected to be upheld, also because of gun ownership.

Felons aren't allowed to have guns, ergo they don't get a vote.

In short, your vote holds about as much influence as the damage that you can cause with a gun... vs the military.
-Which... actually was the case of the 1946 election in Athens, Tennessee. (and others, as that sparked a row of anti-corruption movements in Meigs County, Tennessee)

The aftermath of such things is a tricky business:

Fighting GIs, keeping them from shooting them people's houses and beating up people. My fists got so sore I couldn't stick them in my pocket ... If you fight them with your fists, they had respect for you. But you didn't use blackjacks or guns on them. If you did they'd gang up on you and kill you." ~Athens County Sheriff, Bill White

Maintaining elections without potential credible threat of force is like saying the Cold War between the USSR and USA could've existed for so long without nuclear detereance on one side only.

There's the govenment stand against tyrrany, and the individual stand. A line that shall not be allowed to cross.
-Why Trump won

I don't know what constitution you're reading, but you're missing a whole lot of it (Art. 1 Sec. 2. Clause 1, and the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments).

[Arlenton]

Wait. Don't referendums need 60% to pass in Florida?

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I firmly believe in the complete and total forfeiture of one's civil rights for the duration of one's conviction. I do not, however, believe that a man should be disenfranchised after completing his sentence, nor, for that matter, subject to other restrictions unless the nature of his crimes and/or character is such that makes these additional sanctions necessary.

I think the extent of post-incarceration restrictions should be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the offender's character and the nature of his crime, his behaviour in prison and his previous personal record. While I can understand and approve stripping political rights from a hardened jailbird unlikely to reform, it clearly does no justice to disenfranchise an otherwise ordinary man who happened to slip up for the first time in the heat of passion or during a moment of weakness.

[Liriena]

Yes, fellons should be allowed to vote. Being convicted of a crime, specially a minor one, should not forever take away your right to vote.

[Liriena]

Anyone who has served their time should NOT have their rights (any rights) denied. It's wrong to continue to punish them beyond their sentence.

I agree. It only encourages the feeling that they can't ever be part of society/get a fair shake, which makes reintegration into society more difficult.

That IS the goal, isn't it? Rehabilitation and reintegration?

My heart and mind say yes, but the social sadism worms inside me say that the goal is vicarious bloody revenge for stuff that doesn't involve me and joy at the rationalized misery of others.

[Ifreann]

I agree. It only encourages the feeling that they can't ever be part of society/get a fair shake, which makes reintegration into society more difficult.

That IS the goal, isn't it? Rehabilitation and reintegration?

My heart and mind say yes, but the social sadism worms inside me say that the goal is vicarious bloody revenge for stuff that doesn't involve me and joy at the rationalized misery of others.

Kinky.

[San Lumen]

Wait. Don't referendums need 60% to pass in Florida?

yes they do

[Katganistan]

Anyways, the privlidge to vote isn't in the constitution.
-It really isn't even a right in America. Making voting less protected than, say... owning a gun.

The privlidge to vote is mostly upheld because of gun ownership. The resaults are expected to be upheld, also because of gun ownership.

Felons aren't allowed to have guns, ergo they don't get a vote.

In short, your vote holds about as much influence as the damage that you can cause with a gun... vs the military.
-Which... actually was the case of the 1946 election in Athens, Tennessee. (and others, as that sparked a row of anti-corruption movements in Meigs County, Tennessee)

The aftermath of such things is a tricky business:


Maintaining elections without potential credible threat of force is like saying the Cold War between the USSR and USA could've existed for so long without nuclear detereance on one side only.

There's the govenment stand against tyrrany, and the individual stand. A line that shall not be allowed to cross.
-Why Trump won

I don't know what constitution you're reading, but you're missing a whole lot of it (Art. 1 Sec. 2. Clause 1, and the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments).

It's the Constitution as Understood By People Who Never Read It but Heard About It from Unbiased Sources and not Fake Media.

[Annihitor the Incred]

I agree. It only encourages the feeling that they can't ever be part of society/get a fair shake, which makes reintegration into society more difficult.

That IS the goal, isn't it? Rehabilitation and reintegration?

My heart and mind say yes, but the social sadism worms inside me say that the goal is vicarious bloody revenge for stuff that doesn't involve me and joy at the rationalized misery of others.

Seriously, rehabilitation? The point of punishment is... you got it, punishment. Not correction. Not even deterrence of others - we know that does not work. Legal punishment is retribution for committed unsanctioned harm.

[Katganistan]

My heart and mind say yes, but the social sadism worms inside me say that the goal is vicarious bloody revenge for stuff that doesn't involve me and joy at the rationalized misery of others.

Seriously, rehabilitation? The point of punishment is... you got it, punishment. Not correction. Not even deterrence of others - we know that does not work. Legal punishment is retribution for committed unsanctioned harm.

:rofl:

Right.

Of course.
Which is why prison guards are called CORRECTION OFFICERS, and prisons headed by DEPARTMENTS OF CORRECTION.

Perfect sense.

[Liriena]

Seriously, rehabilitation? The point of punishment is... you got it, punishment. Not correction. Not even deterrence of others - we know that does not work. Legal punishment is retribution for committed unsanctioned harm.

:rofl:

Right.

Of course.
Which is why prison guards are called CORRECTION OFFICERS, and prisons headed by DEPARTMENTS OF CORRECTION.

Perfect sense.

Ouch.

[Annihitor the Incred]

Seriously, rehabilitation? The point of punishment is... you got it, punishment. Not correction. Not even deterrence of others - we know that does not work. Legal punishment is retribution for committed unsanctioned harm.

:rofl:

Right.

Of course.
Which is why prison guards are called CORRECTION OFFICERS, and prisons headed by DEPARTMENTS OF CORRECTION.

Perfect sense.

That's terminology. I am speaking of intrinsic, deontological purpose of the action. That is not words, but principle. One breaks a law, one brings revenge down.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Where is it stated as a right? Besides the declaration heard around the world of no taxation without representation... followed by a shot, also heard around the world.

Were it not for an armed and willing citizenry, that shot would've been the end of the American revolution, and not its begining.
-"The [free] world ends not with a bang, but a whimper"

I've already listed a 20th century application of firearms enforcing the lawful election resaults in two counties that otherwise would not have followed those resaults. I doubt I will be hard-pressed to find a 21st century example before I am permitted to die at the age of 120.

That supposed right to vote, only exists because someone, sometime, somewhere, was willing to take lives and lay down theirs merely to be heard.
-Be mindful of that come election day this November.
(irony: US forces throwing-out Vietnam's election resaults because it was pro-communist; in the respect of it becoming communist by the choice of its people, I'm glad America lost, I'm also glad that America involvment ultimately helped contribute to Vietnam's continued soveriegnty [albeit in "A boy named Sue" kind of way])

try the 15 and 19th amendment for starters

An 1870 revision seems a bit late for a foundational right in America, wouldn't you say?

Means Americans didn't have that right protected at all for the first 100 years.

US Supreme Court seems to side with my view on this matter
“[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.” US-SC ruling on Bush vs Gore, 2001.
-Odd statistical note, is that it mentions there being only 4 million released felons... and Florida has 1.2 million of them...

Buuuuut, although not a direct, stated birth-right, it is a right by will and enforcement of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The right to bare arms, lawfully assemble, and vote, are all interconnected.

[Salandriagado]

Right.

Of course.
Which is why prison guards are called CORRECTION OFFICERS, and prisons headed by DEPARTMENTS OF CORRECTION.

Perfect sense.

That's terminology. I am speaking of intrinsic, deontological purpose of the action. That is not words, but principle. One breaks a law, one brings revenge down.

Ah, so you're just making wild unsupported claims.

[Annihitor the Incred]

That's terminology. I am speaking of intrinsic, deontological purpose of the action. That is not words, but principle. One breaks a law, one brings revenge down.

Ah, so you're just making wild unsupported claims.

Am I? What is the purpose of punishment then, objectively?