Should Felons be Allowed to Vote? Florida to Have Referendum

[Telconi]

but i'm arguing that there are other crimes which constitute exceptions, which is reasonable for public safety.

Then I repeat, if they still pose a danger to public safety, why are they out in the first place? Unless you support mandatory life sentences for all crimes?

Question isn't rather they're capable of voting. Question is raher they're capable of voting responsibly.

And I repeat, what makes them any less capable than you or I? I believe I've spoken with you before and already know that you favor life sentences until the person is rehabilitated, correct? Which means you believe in rehabilitation. And if a criminal has served their time and been judged adequate to rejoin the public, why should they not be considered worthy to vote?

They haven't. In our current system they are assigned an arbitrary period of confinement at conviction. They're then put in a cement box with other, possibly worse criminals, and forced to survive a potentially harmful period of imprisonment with minimal support or rehabilitative procedures.

If there was any sort of indication that a released felon was rehabilitated, then sure, restoration of rights would be a given. But, in reality, there isnt. The only thing that release indicates is that they have spent some arbitrary period of time in a prison. By all indications, released prisoners are no better, and in many cases, worse, than the person who first went into that prison.

[Hediacrana]

So how precisely is public safety at risk in countries like Canada and Ireland, where people who have been convicted are still able to vote?

America has a much larger prison population than either Ireland or Canada. so it would have a much more profound affect.

Not an answer. Please tell me why public safety did not collapse in Canada when convicted people received the right to vote.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Tfw Canada has a recidivism rate of 30% for non-violent offenders.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrc ... ex-en.aspx

That sounds frighteningly huge, in all honesty. Every third "corrected citizen" goes and commits hideousness again. Is this a problem to you?

And the US' is 76% for state prisons. The majority of which are non-felons.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Then I repeat, if they still pose a danger to public safety, why are they out in the first place? Unless you support mandatory life sentences for all crimes?


And I repeat, what makes them any less capable than you or I? I believe I've spoken with you before and already know that you favor life sentences until the person is rehabilitated, correct? Which means you believe in rehabilitation. And if a criminal has served their time and been judged adequate to rejoin the public, why should they not be considered worthy to vote?

They haven't. In our current system they are assigned an arbitrary period of confinement at conviction. They're then put in a cement box with other, possibly worse criminals, and forced to survive a potentially harmful period of imprisonment with minimal support or rehabilitative procedures.

If there was any sort of indication that a released felon was rehabilitated, then sure, restoration of rights would be a given. But, in reality, there isnt. The only thing that release indicates is that they have spent some arbitrary period of time in a prison. By all indications, released prisoners are no better, and in many cases, worse, than the person who first went into that prison.

There is a system. It is called parole, probation, or early release. A convicted felon was deemed rehabilitated and worthy of being released to the general public. But still they are denied the right to vote for the rest of their lives.

[West Leas Oros]

America has a much larger prison population than either Ireland or Canada. so it would have a much more profound affect.

Not an answer. Please tell me why public safety did not collapse in Canada when convicted people received the right to vote.

Bad question. America is not Canada. We have a much higher recidivism rate here in the states.

[Annihitor the Incred]

That sounds frighteningly huge, in all honesty. Every third "corrected citizen" goes and commits hideousness again. Is this a problem to you?

And the US' is 76% for state prisons. The majority of which are non-felons.

Well obviously, US's population is that much bigger. Just goes to show that leniency is questionable here.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Not an answer. Please tell me why public safety did not collapse in Canada when convicted people received the right to vote.

Bad question. America is not Canada. We have a much higher recidivism rate here in the states.

We do. And it is higher among state prisons (most of whom are not felons) than it is among federal prisoners (most of whom are).

[Al-Ismailiyya]

And the US' is 76% for state prisons. The majority of which are non-felons.

Well obviously, US's population is that much bigger. Just goes to show that leniency is questionable here.

Erm. You realise how percentages work, right?

[Annihitor the Incred]

Well obviously, US's population is that much bigger. Just goes to show that leniency is questionable here.

Erm. You realise how percentages work, right?

Yes, and rhetorical questions do little but litter a thread. Just goes to show that leniency is questionable here.

[West Leas Oros]

All that I have been been trying to say this whole time, is that list of exceptions need to be updated to include crimes like Arson, attempted murder, and certain types of theft.

[Hediacrana]

Not an answer. Please tell me why public safety did not collapse in Canada when convicted people received the right to vote.

Bad question. America is not Canada. We have a much higher recidivism rate here in the states.

You are the one to talk about recidivism; I asked about how enfranchising felons is a threat to public safety. You did not substantiate that claim in any way.

But if you really want to talk about recidivism instead of substantiating your claim, I believe the sensible argument would be that denying people a say in the law is going to further alienate them from the law, making chances of recidivism, if anything, higher.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Erm. You realise how percentages work, right?

Yes, and rhetorical questions do little but litter a thread. Just goes to show that leniency is questionable here.

Twas not a rhetorical question. I am merely trying to make sure that you are aware that the size of a population would have little effect on the percentage.

[Telconi]

They haven't. In our current system they are assigned an arbitrary period of confinement at conviction. They're then put in a cement box with other, possibly worse criminals, and forced to survive a potentially harmful period of imprisonment with minimal support or rehabilitative procedures.

If there was any sort of indication that a released felon was rehabilitated, then sure, restoration of rights would be a given. But, in reality, there isnt. The only thing that release indicates is that they have spent some arbitrary period of time in a prison. By all indications, released prisoners are no better, and in many cases, worse, than the person who first went into that prison.

There is a system. It is called parole, probation, or early release. A convicted felon was deemed rehabilitated and worthy of being released to the general public. But still they are denied the right to vote for the rest of their lives.

When 3/4 of your "rehabilitated" people commit crimes again, they aren't really rehabilitated are they?

[Annihitor the Incred]

All that I have been been trying to say this whole time, is that list of exceptions need to be updated to include crimes like Arson, attempted murder, and certain types of theft.

All that. I would include all theft, harassment, fraud (don't need more of that in politics), vandalism (public property, what's that?!1!). While we're at it, consequently ban them from running for any office to boot. Can't vote for themselves anyway.

There is a system. It is called parole, probation, or early release. A convicted felon was deemed rehabilitated and worthy of being released to the general public. But still they are denied the right to vote for the rest of their lives.

When 3/4 of your "rehabilitated" people commit crimes again, they aren't really rehabilitated are they?

[Al-Ismailiyya]

All that I have been been trying to say this whole time, is that list of exceptions need to be updated to include crimes like Arson, attempted murder, and certain types of theft.

So we're now disenfranchising vandals, too? The OP already said that murder, rape, and other crimes like them would be excepted, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

[West Leas Oros]

Bad question. America is not Canada. We have a much higher recidivism rate here in the states.

You are the one to talk about recidivism; I asked about how enfranchising felons is a threat to public safety. You did not substantiate that claim in any way.

But if you really want to talk about recidivism instead of substantiating your claim, I believe the sensible argument would be that denying people a say in the law is going to further alienate them from the law, making chances of recidivism, if anything, higher.

Because, if someone were to commit a crime, they would be likely to act and vote in a criminal manner.

[Letwinist States]

But if you really want to talk about recidivism instead of substantiating your claim, I believe the sensible argument would be that denying people a say in the law is going to further alienate them from the law, making chances of recidivism, if anything, higher.

I agree there, if you do not feel like anybody cares about you and no longer feel like a part of society, you may indeed raise the chances of recidivism.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

There is a system. It is called parole, probation, or early release. A convicted felon was deemed rehabilitated and worthy of being released to the general public. But still they are denied the right to vote for the rest of their lives.

When 3/4 of your "rehabilitated" people commit crimes again, they aren't really rehabilitated are they?

And when I asked how you wanted to determine who was rehabilitated, you basically gave me a description of a more bureaucratic parole board. Nothing would change.

All that I have been been trying to say this whole time, is that list of exceptions need to be updated to include crimes like Arson, attempted murder, and certain types of theft.

All that. I would include all theft, harassment, fraud (don't need more of that in politics), vandalism (public property, what's that?!1!). While we're at it, consequently ban them from running for any office to boot. Can't vote for themselves anyway.

So we're just disenfranchising all criminals now? We're going to take voting rights from the guy who stole a candy bar for the rest of his life? Got ya.

[Annihitor the Incred]

When 3/4 of your "rehabilitated" people commit crimes again, they aren't really rehabilitated are they?

And when I asked how you wanted to determine who was rehabilitated, you basically gave me a description of a more bureaucratic parole board. Nothing would change.

All that. I would include all theft, harassment, fraud (don't need more of that in politics), vandalism (public property, what's that?!1!). While we're at it, consequently ban them from running for any office to boot. Can't vote for themselves anyway.

So we're just disenfranchising all criminals now? We're going to take voting rights from the guy who stole a candy bar for the rest of his life? Got ya.

It's principle. More of that is needed everywhere. Further reflected by not actually mattering to the criminal. Just a formality for propriety's sake.

[Arlenton]

Medical marijuana legalization got only 57%. This felons voting issue should be much more divisive. Which is why I really doubt it will pass. Or even have much of a chance, frankly.

However this is an issue that stretches across party lines and race.

The medical Marijuana issue did too and didn't get 60%. And I don't see how this can have any more support than medical marijuana.

[West Leas Oros]

All that I have been been trying to say this whole time, is that list of exceptions need to be updated to include crimes like Arson, attempted murder, and certain types of theft.

So we're now disenfranchising vandals, too? The OP already said that murder, rape, and other crimes like them would be excepted, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

So you're saying that burning things with criminal intent is not a danger? I'm not trying too disenfranchise anyone! I am only saying that public safety should be a concern in this debate!

[Letwinist States]

Because, if someone were to commit a crime, they would be likely to act and vote in a criminal manner.

How does one vote in a criminal manner?

Either way, this argument is based on normative offender types. Saying that a person who commits a crime is inherently evil barely holds up, in my experience at least.

[West Leas Oros]

Because, if someone were to commit a crime, they would be likely to act and vote in a criminal manner.

How does one vote in a criminal manner?

Either way, this argument is based on normative offender types. Saying that a person who commits a crime is inherently evil barely holds up, in my experience at least.

I never said that. I simply am trying to show another side of the same issue.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Fundamentally, if you don't perform the duties of good citizenship you lose some of the rights associated with it. It's largely symbolic but I lean towards criminals not being allowed to vote.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

And when I asked how you wanted to determine who was rehabilitated, you basically gave me a description of a more bureaucratic parole board. Nothing would change.


So we're just disenfranchising all criminals now? We're going to take voting rights from the guy who stole a candy bar for the rest of his life? Got ya.

It's principle. More of that is needed everywhere. Further reflected by not actually mattering to the criminal. Just a formality for propriety's sake.

It's lunacy. We already have enough of that.

So we're now disenfranchising vandals, too? The OP already said that murder, rape, and other crimes like them would be excepted, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

So you're saying that burning things with criminal intent is not a danger? I'm not trying too disenfranchise anyone! I am only saying that public safety should be a concern in this debate!

They are a danger at that time. That does not mean they would be one for the rest of their lives.

And yes. By definition, you are advocating for disenfranchisement. It literally means "to deprive someone of the right to vote". Google could have easily helped you with that.