Should felons be allowed to vote in a democracy?

The tyranny is to impose something irrelevant to people, like "equality".

Equality is a human fantasy, and as such it can hardly be used to rule a society made of people who are all different.

 

Arent you human??? =P We are all different, but we are all the same unit of a person, the same exact structure and the same exact essence. So yes, of course we are equal, since differences cannot be accounted to any general statistic, being so very variable. If anything, being different just renders us more equal.

A businessman and a builder might have different roles in a society, yet they count the same as just 2 people, with positions equally important, as one cannot function without the other, the rest is unexistant.

I am anyway more for a council democracy, as much as I hate building parties and manipulation.

- that ends it

Anyone wanting to discuss equality, call me, not here

 

Yes, it is impossible for everybody, or anybody for that case, to be equal. However, not allowing felons to vote just because they are felons doesn't make sense.

Being a felon doesn't make you anything else, it just makes you unobediant to society. Unless you're wanting the more obediant people to have more of a say in government, then the idea that felons should have less of a right to vote then other people makes no sense. And I can't think of any good reason why you would want this to be; in fact I can think of a reason why NOT to let this be the case. Mainly because it could create a kind of loop... innocent people voting for laws that help them. Again, this is oppression (and the main problem with a true democracy, but I won't go into that now...).


- Pandemic

 

I maintain that if there were no felons, the problem would be solved.

However, assuming the felons are present within the nation, their right to vote should be lowered based on how "morally wrong" society decides their actions were. Anybody who purposefully kills a human, 0. A rapist? 1/10 of a vote. Somebody who destroys somebody else's property? maybe ~1/2 of a vote.

Pandemic... if people vary so much, as you stated earlier, won't that counter-act the looping problem? People have different opinions BECAUSE they are so different, therefore, they will have different opinions on the laws that would "oppress" felons.

Also, you claimed that "oppression" would occur from the "morally straight" oppressing the "morally wrong." However, all oppression in history is a result of the "morally wrong" oppressing either the "morally wrong" OR the "morally straight." Therefore, the chances of oppression are extremely unlikely.

 

I hold that this is not a good idea, because it recognizes that people are, in fact, not equal. This could (possibly) lead down the path of oppression. Why take this chance?

They would have different ideas, yes, but the same general idea. Like, they would argue what kind of ice cream they want, but they all know that they want ice cream.

Well, first off not all felons are "morally wrong". Some are wrongfully convicted, and some are convicted over crimes of passion. Thus, at least some of the "morally straight" are oppressing some of the "morally wrong".

The flipside is also true. Not all "morally straight" people are completely "morally straight". Some would-be felons are not convicted, and some are just not caught. Thus, at leave some of the "morally straight" are in fact "morally wrong".

And in history, I would argue that the same is true. There is at least a mix of people on both sides, the oppressed and not-oppressed.

Of course you'll now probably argue that that is such a small portion of the two groups that it is irrellivant. However, I would say not. It takes only one person in a non-corrupt government to create a very corrupt one. Take Nazi Germany for instance. It was in fact a Democracy before Hitler came to power. However, due to the depression of WWI Hilter (one of the "morally straight" who was in fact not so) used his influence to steer down the path of Nazi-ism. This led to, as we all hopefully know, the Holocaust - an oppression of both the "morally straight" and "morally wrong". Pretty much anybody who opposed him.


- Pandemic

 

So who is considered a felon?
You have a parking ticket you got like 3 years ago. You broke the law. It's still on the system. Means nothing to anyone really. But cause it's there you can't vote. Where does it end really. They are paying for their crimes with fines or community service or time. There's no need to punish then again by banning them from voting.

Actually I thought there was a law against punishing someone twice for the same crime.

 

No. They have served their term, but that still doesn't make up for the fact that they commited a crime.

Prison is full of racism,gangs, and groups. Obviously they will continue to do what they do in the public just try to avoid prison. I'm not talking about all felons when I talk about this just the ones that have been convicted of being in a racial group or gang.

If felons would be allowed to vote I bet votes for McCain on the presidential election would be much higher then it was.

 

the8thark the law says no one can be punished for a crime more than once, however in this case the loss of the right to vote is part of the initial punishment.

As for the question at hand I would say felons that have been released back into society should have the right to vote. As for someone with a PhD having the same amount of say as your average Joe, while that may be fair or unfair depending on your point of view is it really that significant? What's important is not who has more say but who has more ability to influence. Who would you be more likely to listen to a PhD or an average Joe? That in my opinion is the key, while they may each only have one vote the PhD will have significantly more influence on the outcome of the vote than the average Joe (and your average Joe will still probably have more influence than your average felon).

Another thing that can be looked at would be voter turnout for felons. I would wager that felons don't vote as often as your average citizen, which in effect gives felons a smaller voice anyway.

 

Thanks for your viewpoint LordK. And I agree with you totally. But I'd rather listen to both equally. The average Joe and Mr. PHD. As both have very differewnt but equally valid viewpoints no the same situation. And also the average joe most times out numbers Mr. PHD so that a bigger collective voice.

But in this country where voting is compulsary. I think the Ex felons would go and vote as to not be in trouble again with the law.

And lastly I'm not 100% sure about this but i'm sure there's something in your national constitution saying about all people being equal and having a say in who is voted in the democratically elected government. And disallowing current felons from the opportunity to vote goes against this. In my understanding it says everyone has this right. It doesn't say oh only good behaving citizens can vote. No it says everyone.

So to that I believe even serving felons should have the opportunity to vote in the US.

 

Yeah we are pretty much intelligent guys looking out for the well being of everyone we love so why shouldn't we be able to vote?

 

eh, felons are looking out of the well being of everyone?

 

Yes they create employment. If everyone was perfect then there'd be no need for police or prisons. Then a lot of cops and prison officers would be unemployed. And caterers to feed them all etc. The list goes on.

 

I don't believe that felons should be given the right to vote. IMO it's just a matter that they broke the rules of society and since they did this they forfeit some of their rights given to them from society.

 

I agree with Cell here.

If you don't care enough about society to follow along with it, they shouldn't really be allowed to vote for a change in it.

 

In theory, societie's laws are created by the operation of democracy. In democracy not everyone agrees with the laws that are made. If you throw somebody in jail for a law they don't agree upon, and then take away their right to vote, isn't that just fascism???

Prisoners have every 'right' to be able to vote precisely because they are being affected, arguably more so, by the operation of the democratic society they are in. Even if you agree with the laws you have transgressed, why does transgressing these laws nullify your right to vote on them or the people who create them? Doesn't your agreement with the laws that have incarcerated you speak well of your social judgement (in assessing the necessities of these laws)and further justify your right to vote ??

Because prisoners are punished by the democratic society which holds rights over them BECAUSE they are citizens of that democracy, makes it necessary that their rights to remain a citizen, and therefore a participant in democracy, are kept. Otherwise, you are punishing non-citizens with no democratic rights, thus invalidating the state's right to incarceration.

 

...Well ****.