Should felons be allowed to vote in a democracy?

So I'm on the debate team in meh school, and I was wondering people's opinion who haven't researched this topic at all.

So, whatchya think? Should ex-cons be allowed to vote? Or should they not? And the all important ...why?


-Pandemic

 

well, I say they shouldnt because they broke the law. now I havnt really thought about my decision, this is just the answer that came into my head.

 

No. If you are going to take away most of their constitutional rights by imprisoning them, you might as well take away their right to vote.

...which leads me to another topic: Is imprisoning right or wrong?

No. If you are going to punish somebody, don't be a ***** about it. Either A) complete anarchy, B) exile the felon from the country, or C) kill them.

 

They should in my opinion. Even if they're in gaol at the time, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. After all, it's their sentence that's their punishment. They shouldn't have a whole lot of extra crap dumped on them on top of their original sentence just because of it. It'd be like punishing them for being punished.

As for whether imprisoning is wrong, I've gotta say that I believe it's completely right. It's the death penalty that's wrong.

 

If they are ex-cons, then they should be able to vote, they are still citizens, they should still have a say in what is going on. When we let them out, we are putting them back into society, if we don't let them vote, then are they truly part of society? No they aren't. However, we do let them out, we do put them back into society, so we should let them vote.

They aren't being punished anymore. So we should give them those privilages taken from them during their prison time back to them.

For example. Say a kid gets grounded for a week, when his week of punishment is up, should we stop him from going out like he is still being punished? No, because he isn't being punished anymore. If we didn't let him go, it would be like he is always grounded. Same for felons, they should get those rights back after they have served their time. If we didn't, then why are they back at all? Why not keep them in prison, or just kill them. Felons are people too, they should have just as much say in matters as everyone else.

 

I agree with darkone. Their punishment lasts a certain period of time and it should end with that. It's already hard enough for them to be accepted back into society, making it even harder only raises the chance they'll commit a crime again imo.

 

I think that ex-convicts should be allowed to vote because it has been proven that being an active, participating member of the community actually helps with rehabilitation. It's also very costly to deny ex-convicts the right to vote because of all the bureaucracy involved.

Why shouldn't ex-convicts be allowed to vote? Is it because they are untrustworthy in character? But if that were the case then shouldn't we exclude admitted racists and other people with shady backgrounds?

 

I agree with most of the other people, they're punishment is up, it makes no sense to take away rights like this after they have served their time.

 

This brings up the question should people who didn't complete high school or go to college vote... If your going to restrict the people who can vote in an already restricted democratic system its just pointless to even have a vote.

Ex convicts should be allowed vote because its either the democrats or republicans...and thats kinda a tricky choice to screw up...why would a murderer, fraudster, robber, negligent driver or rapist make a poorer choice than the drunkard, gambler or morbidly obese person in picking 1 of 2 parties?

 

They should and they should not.

They should not because they have proven to be bad citizens, and would you expect good votes from bad citizens? But they should on another hand, otherwise it sounds pretty easy to abuse this rule, by imprisoning even just for one day all the people who don't suit you, so only the ones you know who will vote for your ideas will remain, while the others would just have to STFU whatever the laws and people you will have to vote for or against.

I would say they should have a "lower" vote during the time they are in jail.

And I am against long imprisoning, and for death penalty: imprisoning somebody for more than 4-5 years is to me just a waste of money, time and energy: the guy in jail is useless for himself and the society, while he/she still costs money. A good society cannot grow by disabling its citizens, so either you use the best from them, either you get rid of them. Imprisoning somebody is just an hypocritical and unassumed way to kill somebody: you do not officially kill him/her, because he/she remains alive, but he/she is technically dead, by having his/her days restricted to the minimum possible by being stucked in a small room. This is insane, and typically the kind of laws of people who don't give a f#ck about other people, but want to look good, this is useless, painful and cost useless charges to the rest of the community. And it drives the guy in jail mad, which makes him/her more likely to be even worse when back in liberty.

A simple bullet in the head is much more simplier, cost-effective and, yes, painless. But death penalty should absolutely remain a ultimate way to deal with extrem cases. My opinion is that most guys who are guilty should just be assigned to work on building sites, in factories, to deal with the rubbish, to help repair after a storm etc, you know, all these tedious tasks everybody need but nobody want to do. There is a lot of sh#t to do in our cities and societies, why not assign such tasks to them? It doesn't cost much more money to monitor them working than to monitor them doing nothing, but it's productive, and might bring them some experience if they have none.

Death penalty is barbarian, but jail is worse.

If people were correctly educated, we wouldn't need jails, judges, and weapons and laws.

 

Ok i say yes for two reasons...

1. They have respect
2. They're ppl too.....

 

Hu... interesting responces, lol. They pretty much all line up with all the evidence I've seen, for both sides XD.

I personally think they should be ale to vote, because (as somebody has said) they're still citizens of their government. Granted, they broke the law, but as the government hasn't gone to the extreme of 1. expelling them, or 2. killing them, why would you take away arguably the most important right in a democratic society?

And Imagine... would you randomly happen to have any notable guy saying this?

Don't go looking for it if you don't know of any off the top of your head (unless you're insanely bored ), but if you do then do tell. I've found people saying it doesn't... but nobody saying it does. It makes logical sense that it would... because not being able to vote effectively ostrisizes them from society... but some guy with a PhD saying it sounds better then me just being like "BELIEVE ME BECAUSE IT'S LOGICAL!! RAWWWWWR!"


- Pandemic

 

Well, I tend to be a bit conservative on issues of law enforcement...

I don't think anyone convicted of any kind of felony should ever regain the right to vote with a few exceptions (almost all political in nature such as corruption, voter fraud, etc. because otherwise political parties could aim arrests at likely voters).

Why? Well, as Fenix pointed out cost is definitely an issue, but it's also an issue whenever a non-felon casts a ballot. You have to do the legitimacy checks anyway so why would it be more expensive to deny the right to vote to a felon? It's not.

Furthermore, I feel that felons have given up their right to participate in the legitimacy of society because they have seriously violated the trust of their society. I don't think they have the right to try to shape that society. I personally don't want a convicted child molester voting on stiffer penalties for sexual predators.

I also think it is a form of punishment. While most people don't take the right to vote seriously, I do. Removing someone's right to vote permanently (or even for a time) only further supports the realization in their mind that their society is still keeping an eye on them and knows of their indiscretions.

Lastly, this still doesn't take away someone's ability to express opinions on the issues. They still have the right of free speech and they can still express themselves about the issues, they just can't take any action.

 

Ya... I've thought of this. I would agree here, but only here, that they shouldn't get their right to vote back.

Uh, you kinda condradicted yourself... I agree with your second opinion though, that it wouldn't cost more. But I don't really think that economic cost is much of an issue when you're talking about basic democratic rights .

This is kinda the main thing that keeps me from completely wanting felons to have their right to vote back. As they've broken the trust of their government, it would make sense that they should pay. However... I would agree that spending time in jail pays off most of their "debt". They need some sort of long-term punishment, but for instance, they already lose their right to bear arms. That makes sense... because felons with guns would be even more likely to commit crimes, However, felons with the right to vote would NOT neccissarially makes them more likely to commit crimes. In fact the opposite it true (or so I believe); or at least not not allowing them to. Er... lemme explain that a lil - I think that it would be more likely that not allowing them to vote would irritate them more then allowing them to vote would make them good, but you should allow them to vote not neccissarially to help them, but to not make them mad. If that makes sense.

You know, I honestly never thought of this before. Very good point... however, I would go back to my uber long paragraph, and say that the right to vote, to any citizen (felons included) is more important then getting their opinion out. Granted, you do the latter more, but the former is more important. Quality over quantity


- Pandemic

 

what's a felon?

 

Kind of like a Melon, but more angry.

 

then why should a known war protestor or former soldier be allowed to vote on issues of military cutback? they both have experience and obvious standpoints on the proposal but they're votes must be counted because they are members of society and have that right, so does the pedophile, it might not be optimal but i think its important to maintain that freedom so that more double standards can't arise in other areas that would be beneficial to politicians.

 

Yes they should be allowed to vote. Not allowing them to vote carries the same sentiment of predjudice of taking away voting rights from any group, i.e. this is not any different than, for example, not allowing women or poor people to vote, which is then of course not acceptable in a so called democracy as it breaks its fundamental values and rights, especially the part about the complete equality of all people. Also, by alienating these people from society we deprive them of further rehabilitation and this way risk further disorder.

@ Jisse- Giving them a 'lower' vote, we just make them seem worth less than anyone else. And in the case of political issues, a felon doesnt necessarily have an inferior opinion.

I am generally against prisons and most establishment anyway.

 

If they are in jail, that means they have been guilty,
if they have been guilty, that means there is officially something wrong with their social behaviors.
If their social behaviors do not match enough with the society general rules to make them go in jail, they should not be able to vote like any other person.
Being in jail is already somehow being removed from the society.

I am against the fact that previous convicts may be unable to vote for the rest of their lives, because this rule could be abused in order to make a kind of dictatorship, but I am also against the fact that current convicts may be able to vote like any other person, that is why I suggest a kind of "lower vote".

The fact that anybody can vote exactly the same way is non-sense to me anyway, because nobody has the same knowledges and awareness and involvement etc about how his/her country runs and should run, about how he/she is involved in his/her country etc. Why would people who pay a hell of taxes and/or people who volunteered for voluntary social works and/or people who did a good job when holding some official positions should have the same vote power than another guy who never did anything worthy for his/her country of his/her whole life? The opinions of some people is much more worthy and weighty and important than the ones of some others to me regarding such important things.

 

Ya... this has annoyed me... the fact that Joe has the same opinion on all issues as a guy with a PhD. It gives a false sense of equality, where there is none.

On the other sie though... there really isn't a way to fix this. It's either this (false sense of equality) or we recognize the fact that people aren't equal. That leads to other problems, setting up a heirarchy of sorts. That, as stated by above, could lead to tyrrany.

So, in the end, I think I'd rather have equal votes for all then a possible tyrrany.


- Pandemic