Should convicted felons be allowed to vote after serving their time in prison? \ stacker news ~AskSN

pull down to refresh

Should convicted felons be allowed to vote after serving their time in prison?

542 sats \ 50 comments \ @Aardvark 15 Feb AskSN

Even though the system fails horribly, Isn't the purpose of jail to rehabilitate the prisoner? Isn't it hypocritical to strip the right to vote away for life after the "debt to society" has been repayed? Should the type crime matter?

view all related items

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheMorningStar 16 Feb

India doesn't allow them but they can fight in elections from inside. Kinda weired?

60 sats \ 12 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Feb

I'm generally for more restricted voting, but I agree with you about debt to society, yada yada yada...

46 sats \ 8 replies \ @Aardvark OP 15 Feb

Personally I think our entire legal system is fucked anyhow. Part of that is that people don't have a path back into normal society.

68 sats \ 4 replies \ @anon 15 Feb

The biggest problem with the justice system is that people do not understand what beyond a reasonable doubt means.

Juries tend to put law enforcement on a pedestal (thanks to slave training..i mean public school). Their attitude is generally: "whelp! If they did not do it why would the nice policeman and lawyer try to put them away?" They do not appreciate the idea that we are born free. That there should be an overwhelming bias toward acquittal and that the burden of proof ought to be heavy.

The standard to be a voter and a jury member should be much higher. Founders had it right but americans got soft and let marxists infiltrate and erode our freedoms. This is a great example.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark OP 16 Feb

In school we had "officer friendly" come and tell us how much we should trust the police and that we should never be afraid to tell them anything.

51 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Feb

I already understood this was a problem, but I didn't fully appreciate it until I was in jury selection. The majority of potential jurors answered "yes" to "Do you assume a police officer is always telling the truth?" and "Would you always side with a police officer's claim over a defendant's?"

The only dissenters to all the deranged sycophantic questions were me, an old hippie defense attorney, and a young progressive lady.

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @Aardvark OP 15 Feb

That's legitimately disgusting. It's the cops job to prove you guilty, and lying is encouraged.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Feb

It was really gross and even worse, the selected jurors were the most blindly trusting of the cops.

reply on another page

50 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Feb

I don't think voting is particularly important, but some of the other lifetime restrictions on felons are pretty egregious. My understanding is that many occupational licenses just can't be obtained by anyone with a felony conviction.

35 sats \ 1 reply \ @Aardvark OP 15 Feb

We're definitely in agreement with voting not being important, but I think it just another thing that demonstrates how our system isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing.

I think removing the right to own a firearm is probably way more of a problem than voting.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 16 Feb

If voting is unimportant then democracy would be too- so what would you replace it with?

Anarchy?

Where/when has that ever worked?

31 sats \ 2 replies \ @freetx 15 Feb

Agreed. I think voting should be restricted to tax payers and/or land owners. Essentially a "shareholder" model

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb

edit: how do you define taxpayer?

Agree

that eliminates a lot of fraudulent votes and a lot of dumb voters

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 16 Feb

So go back to feudalism? Good luck with that.

51 sats \ 0 replies \ @Butterfinger 15 Feb

No, just like nobody should be able to decide anything in your own life.

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @openyoureyes 16 Feb

I understand that you are not allowed to wear a gun. But taking away voting rights is not fair and makes no sense. Like taking away freedom of speech.

42 sats \ 4 replies \ @User21000000 15 Feb

Coming from a country where everyone 18 and over legally have to vote I’d say yes. But I also think it should be if you want to vote not have to vote

9 sats \ 3 replies \ @Aardvark OP 15 Feb

I definitely don't like the idea of legally being forced to vote.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 16 Feb

Australia is a penal colony

No one in Australia should vote because everyone is a felon

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @User21000000 16 Feb

Exactly nothing like it

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @User21000000 15 Feb

Yes there is no point making everyone vote as the ones not interested draw dicks or leave them blank anyway so what’s the point

21 sats \ 15 replies \ @kruw 16 Feb

No one should be allowed to vote. Democracy should be abolished.

0 sats \ 14 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 16 Feb

You would replace it with what?

0 sats \ 13 replies \ @kruw 16 Feb

You don't have to ask "what do you replace the freed slaves with?". The point of abolishing democracy is to free the victims of democratic regimes from their enslavement. There is no "step 2" required.

0 sats \ 12 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 16 Feb

Er, so you don't believe in government? You prefer anarchy?

0 sats \ 11 replies \ @kruw 16 Feb

I do not "believe in" government authority (though it's impossible to deny the existence of government power.)

Anarchy is self rule. This is much preferable to being ruled by a swarm of parasites who breed using your blood.

0 sats \ 10 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 16 Feb

Humans are weak and vulnerable as individuals. Humans gain security and wealth in groups. Most people can see this and do not want to live in a state of lawlessness and anarchy where the strongest will steal and enslave the weak. In the absence of government the first thing humans will do is form into groups and develop defense of their wealth and security...ie form governments. If you want to minimise the government authority over you go somewhere where the government is weak and failing- except you won't, because it would not be a pleasant experience...and you know it.

view all 10 replies

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 16 Feb

absolutely not

purpose of jail is punishment

is it hypocritical? no

the type of crime matters: violent criminals should never vote

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 17 Feb

All citizens should have the inalienable right to vote - anything less is not a true democracy.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LowK3y19 16 Feb

Like they even care to vote

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @mister_monster 16 Feb

The unnamed premise here is that voting is a universal right. I could go into why this concept is a bad idea, but suffice to say, it isn't. Lots of things are, natural rights and such, voting is not one of them.

Should a person have a vote after serving time for a crime? That's entirely up to the organization in which he would vote. He should, of course, be free to leave that organization if he so chooses, as should everyone.

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 16 Feb

You would prefer to have no government by the sound of it?

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @mister_monster 17 Feb

That's not what I said at all. And no, I would not prefer to have no government.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 17 Feb

Fair point but in saying that how is someone who has served time supposed to leave the 'organisation' that withholds their voting rights if that 'organisation' is the government? Do you mean people who have served prison time should have to move to another country if they want to vote?

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @mister_monster 17 Feb

Again, we are framing it as a right. It is not. Political "rights" are hard won and not given freely or easily. If you live in a polity where people vote on the rules or how it's run, those people decide things like that. So, if those people think you should vote, they'll vote for that.

I'd like to live in a world where there are no victimless crimes and where association with a state is voluntary to a large degree, that way, if you wrong someone somewhere and are punished, it's nor because you're involuntarily subject to rules of the state, but because you wronged members of that state. We aren't there yet. But the same rules on voting apply either way.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 17 Feb

If the majority do withhold the right to vote from anyone they are restricting their level of democracy and excluding people who have already served their time.

Of course they can do this and a majority commenting here today seem to think they should- but this only demonstrates how far we are from a level of enlightenment where individuals are ready and capable of achieving any significant level of self sovereignty...they still lack the empathy for others that is required for true self sovereignty.

view all 4 replies