Should Felons be Allowed to Vote? Florida to Have Referendum

[Salandriagado]

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

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

Whatever the person doing the punishing says it is. There is no other sense in which "purpose" is remotely objective. I note that you still haven't presented any form of argument in favour of your claims.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

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

Whatever the person doing the punishing says it is. There is no other sense in which "purpose" is remotely objective. I note that you still haven't presented any form of argument in favour of your claims.

So if their intended punishment is the suspension of their right to vote for the rest of their life it's alright?

I mean, if committing a felony can get your right to bare arms revoked, surely the right to vote can... in fact, the 14th even makes an exception to its protection of voters just for crimminals.

[Annihitor the Incred]

A crime is committed. Punishment descends. Ergo, punishment is the purpose. Argument?

[San Lumen]

A crime is committed. Punishment descends. Ergo, punishment is the purpose. Argument?

so the punishment should include you can never vote again?

[Annihitor the Incred]

A crime is committed. Punishment descends. Ergo, punishment is the purpose. Argument?

so the punishment should include you can never vote again?

It makes sense, you cannot deny. You violate someone's rights, you forfeit yours. Tif tor far. Then, what sort of vote will a criminal cast? A criminal vote.

[San Lumen]

so the punishment should include you can never vote again?

It makes sense, you cannot deny. You violate someone's rights, you forfeit yours. Tif tor far. Then, what sort of vote will a criminal cast? A criminal vote.

While your a prisoner yes. But why should that apply after? What exactly is a criminal vote?

[Washington Resistance Army]

If they've served their debt to society and have been released, sure.

[Annihitor the Incred]

It makes sense, you cannot deny. You violate someone's rights, you forfeit yours. Tif tor far. Then, what sort of vote will a criminal cast? A criminal vote.

While your a prisoner yes. But why should that apply after? What exactly is a criminal vote?

A vote cast by a mind capable of breaking the law. What value does such a vote hold? Only negative and danger!

[San Lumen]

While your a prisoner yes. But why should that apply after? What exactly is a criminal vote?

A vote cast by a mind capable of breaking the law. What value does such a vote hold? Only negative and danger!

Im sorry but that makes no sense. someone who goes to prison for burglary and serves their time of say 3 years should be barred from voting for the rest of their days?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

If they've served their debt to society and have been released, sure.

I suppose they can appeal to Donald Trump for a pardon, in the meantime.

[San Lumen]

If they've served their debt to society and have been released, sure.

I suppose they can appeal to Donald Trump for a pardon, in the meantime.

no one appeals to the governor for that as elections are run by the states.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I suppose they can appeal to Donald Trump for a pardon, in the meantime.

no one appeals to the governor for that as elections are run by the states.

Commas, they're important.

Governors cannot pardon federal crimes, though. Need to appeal to a higher executive power in that case.

[Annihitor the Incred]

A vote cast by a mind capable of breaking the law. What value does such a vote hold? Only negative and danger!

Im sorry but that makes no sense. someone who goes to prison for burglary and serves their time of say 3 years should be barred from voting for the rest of their days?

The mildest part of the punishment, no, next to 3 wasted years? A formality, really. You prove yourself irresponsible and then don't vote.

[Greater USA]

If someone commits a serious crime, they have demonstrated no respect for the rule of law. I'm not sympathetic to the notion that they should have the ability to influence politics based on their record. Should we really grant voting rights to money launderers, those who have committed sexual abuse, and felons in similar categories?

Mind you, I support legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing other drugs. I also don't apply the above standard to someone who has committed petty offenses/misdemeanors. But we have to draw a line somewhere.

[Free Arctic Territories]

I sort of see the value of losing your rights as deterrence. Our prison system, right now, is a money and people eating black hole, and the only way prisoners will be "corrected" once inside is by rotting away for life in prison or inevitably dying a horrible death, or, if they are released, find themselves at the bottom of society, back where they started. Minor crimes are excusable, and people can be corrected, but this system of funneling people into cages without looking at the cause of the problem should be stopped. We need strict deterrents to severely discourage people from breaking the law, as well as working to reduce poverty and lift marginalized communities out of the dust, and shrinking the prison population (through pardons, reductions of sentences, and execution for the sociopaths and pedos and such that can't be saved).

[San Lumen]

If someone commits a serious crime, they have demonstrated no respect for the rule of law. I'm not sympathetic to the notion that they should have the ability to influence politics based on their record. Should we really grant voting rights to money launderers, those who have committed sexual abuse, and felons in similar categories?

Mind you, I support legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing other drugs. I also don't apply the above standard to someone who has committed petty offenses/misdemeanors. But we have to draw a line somewhere.

This referendum excludes sexual predators and murderers.

[Greater USA]

If someone commits a serious crime, they have demonstrated no respect for the rule of law. I'm not sympathetic to the notion that they should have the ability to influence politics based on their record. Should we really grant voting rights to money launderers, those who have committed sexual abuse, and felons in similar categories?

Mind you, I support legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing other drugs. I also don't apply the above standard to someone who has committed petty offenses/misdemeanors. But we have to draw a line somewhere.

This referendum excludes sexual predators and murderers.

OK, but there are other crimes of a grave magnitude. Bribery, certain forms of assault/abuse, certain kinds of grand theft, etc. Where is the line drawn in the referendum?

[Salandriagado]

Whatever the person doing the punishing says it is. There is no other sense in which "purpose" is remotely objective. I note that you still haven't presented any form of argument in favour of your claims.

So if their intended punishment is the suspension of their right to vote for the rest of their life it's alright?

I mean, if committing a felony can get your right to bare arms revoked, surely the right to vote can... in fact, the 14th even makes an exception to its protection of voters just for crimminals.

No. "X is the purpose of Y" and "doing Y for purpose X is alright" are wildly different things.

[Salandriagado]

A crime is committed. Punishment descends. Ergo, punishment is the purpose. Argument?

Words have meaning. That is not what "purpose" means. Also, you are assuming your conclusion.

[Annihitor the Incred]

A crime is committed. Punishment descends. Ergo, punishment is the purpose. Argument?

Words have meaning. That is not what "purpose" means. Also, you are assuming your conclusion.

Yes. Some things cannot be questioned, thus assumption is not assumption but axiom. It is mathematical.

[Salandriagado]

Words have meaning. That is not what "purpose" means. Also, you are assuming your conclusion.

Yes. Some things cannot be questioned, thus assumption is not assumption but axiom. It is mathematical.

No it isn't. The whole point of axioms is that everybody agrees on them. That is clearly not the case here.

[Arlenton]

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

yes they do

So, if I'm not mistaken, this needs at least 60% of the vote to pass. I don't think it will TBH.

[Annihitor the Incred]

Yes. Some things cannot be questioned, thus assumption is not assumption but axiom. It is mathematical.

No it isn't. The whole point of axioms is that everybody agrees on them. That is clearly not the case here.

Number of believers has no bearing on truth. Try again.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Lawmakers who decide what isn't a felony shouldn't get to pick who gets to determine whether or not they stay in office. Bit circular a power structure there, isn't it?

Felons absolutely should be allowed to vote.

[Saiwania]

People who've been released from prison obviously should be able to vote again, but I don't think there is any real point in letting anyone who is incarcerated to vote. These are people who because of their circumstances- likely won't be informed on the issues, aren't able to follow the news or participate in any aspect of civic life and perhaps will have undue biases against the judicial and criminal justice system.

But for people who're now out and aren't on parole, all punishment should be lifted in that situation; because those people are supposed to be able to reintegrate back into society. If they can't, it facilitates recidivism.