Felon Disenfranchisement

[Millhouse]

I definitely think it is wrong to strip the right to vote after serving a sentence. Ban some of them from buying guns, getting a drivers licence, etc., thats fine. But not voting though.

But the felons that are serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole, I tend to be on the side that they should not be allowed to vote. Non-citizens shouldnt be allowed to vote as well, like those extradited here from a foreign country, and also illegals as well.

Otherwise, I really dont have an issue with those serving a sentence being able to vote, as they will be a citizen at some point.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-18-2018, 03:53 PM)Dill Wrote: ...among them people who also notice this shaves off percentages of minority voters...

So your claim is the purpose or reason for this is driven by racism, despite the fact the majority of disenfranchised voters are [very likely] white?

Unsurprisingly [sarcasm], it's hard to get the total/exact numbers - which the absolute numbers would be the relevant criteria to making a claim it's race based.  While minorities are disproportionately disenfranchised, it's likely still the case they are outnumbered by white felons.

Only numbers I could find was in Florida, 56% of disenfranchised voters were white....70% in Minnesota.

And, you know, most of those white felons are probably skinheads and they vote 100% Republican (or so I've heard).

[masterpanthera_t]

Quick question: does a felony crime require some sort of violence to be considered as such? I'm asking because I'm trying to understand how "danger to society" applies to felonies as a whole.

If the answer to the above is yes, then my answer to the poll is that I get the taking away freedoms (housed in prison), taking away guns (again danger to society), but I still don't see the point of taking away someone's voting rights, using "danger to society" as an argument. I am not sure how a vote by a felon is anymore dangerous than a vote by an average citizen. I could be persuaded based on a good argument, however.
So, I would probably vote never, unless I'm persuaded by an argument why taking away a felon's voting rights (especially any and all types of felons, vs. on a case by case basis) makes more sense to protect society.

If the answer is no, then I'm curious to know, how do "non-violent" felonies (if there is such a thing) take someone's voting rights away vs. a misdemeanor not doing so (assuming this is the case)? Obviously, I would still vote "never", since in this scenario all the other things from above apply, while the crime is not as "violent".

Edit:
Wanted to add that prisons should not be allowed to be profited from, and certainly should not be privatized.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-18-2018, 04:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: It confuses me that we think this is a good idea to take someone's right to vote. 

Are you ok with taking their right to bear arms away? What about their right to travel? Why are you ok with them losing SOME of their rights but not others?

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2018, 04:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I wasn't aware of that, but personally I consider it punitive.  That's why when I really thought about it, it seemed when your imprisonment/parole was over, then you should be able to vote.   

It's seen as punitive by just about everyone but the judiciary, so you're definitely not along in the way you view it.

(04-18-2018, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: In what way do you mean?  Like I said, if they do work that benefits the prison or the state I have no problem.  And I understand people who sell food, bedding whatever to the prison will make a profit so that's an exception although necessary.  

Well, the privately owned prisons are one thing, but the exploitation piece I was referencing was just the fact that it is involuntary servitude with little to no wages that the state would otherwise have to pay market wages for.

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2018, 04:54 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Quick question: does a felony crime require some sort of violence to be considered as such? I'm asking because I'm trying to understand how "danger to society" applies to felonies as a whole.

No. A little under half (about 47%) of people imprisoned in state and federal prisons were in for non-violent offenses, mostly drugs.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-18-2018, 04:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's seen as punitive by just about everyone but the judiciary, so you're definitely not along in the way you view it.


Well, the privately owned prisons are one thing, but the exploitation piece I was referencing was just the fact that it is involuntary servitude with little to no wages that the state would otherwise have to pay market wages for.

Yes in that part I have no issue.  

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2018, 05:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes in that part I have no issue.  

I think I'd have less of an issue with it were it not for some of the other issues in play with the criminal justice system. Justice is anything but blind in this country.

[treee]

(04-18-2018, 04:54 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So your claim is the purpose or reason for this is driven by racism, despite the fact the majority of disenfranchised voters are [very likely] white?

Unsurprisingly [sarcasm], it's hard to get the total/exact numbers - which the absolute numbers would be the relevant criteria to making a claim it's race based.  While minorities are disproportionately disenfranchised, it's likely still the case they are outnumbered by white felons.

Only numbers I could find was in Florida, 56% of disenfranchised voters were white....70% in Minnesota.

And, you know, most of those white felons are probably skinheads and they vote 100% Republican (or so I've heard).

Well this is a strawman if I've ever seen one. 

[JustWinBaby]

(04-18-2018, 05:11 PM)treee Wrote: Well this is a strawman if I've ever seen one. 

How so?  Talking about percentages as it relates to votes in this case seems like the real strawman.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2018, 04:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. A little under half (about 47%) of people imprisoned in state and federal prisons were in for non-violent offenses, mostly drugs.

So, you don't consider purveying drug abuse a danger to society?  

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2018, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, you don't consider purveying drug abuse a danger to society?  

They aren't violent crimes, which is what he asked about. Also, not all of those in prison for drugs are in prison for dealing hard drugs. Some are in there only for marijuana or for possession.

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-18-2018, 06:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They aren't violent crimes, which is what he asked about. Also, not all of those in prison for drugs are in prison for dealing hard drugs. Some are in there only for marijuana or for possession.

I definitely don't see the rationale for preventing people in for drug possession from voting.

[BmorePat87]

(04-18-2018, 04:54 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So your claim is the purpose or reason for this is driven by racism, despite the fact the majority of disenfranchised voters are [very likely] white?

Unsurprisingly [sarcasm], it's hard to get the total/exact numbers - which the absolute numbers would be the relevant criteria to making a claim it's race based.  While minorities are disproportionately disenfranchised, it's likely still the case they are outnumbered by white felons.

Only numbers I could find was in Florida, 56% of disenfranchised voters were white....70% in Minnesota.

And, you know, most of those white felons are probably skinheads and they vote 100% Republican (or so I've heard).

And Florida is 60% white while Minnesota is 85% white, so a greater percentage of minority voters are being disenfranchised than white voters in those cases. 

[BmorePat87]

No voting in prison but full voting rights once you're out.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2018, 09:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No voting in prison but full voting rights once you're out.

and clear from parole or probation.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-18-2018, 09:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: And Florida is 60% white while Minnesota is 85% white, so a greater percentage of minority voters are being disenfranchised than white voters in those cases. 

Right but his point is you are still disenfranchising more whites than blacks so as a racist it’s counterproductive.

[BmorePat87]

(04-18-2018, 09:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Right but his point is you are still disenfranchising more whites than blacks so as a racist it’s counterproductive.

Not true because we're looking at what proportion are you disenfranchising. 

In Minnesota, for example, there are 52,000 disenfranchised voters. 

4,740,450 white people in Minnesota with 36,400 of them being disenfranchised. This removes 0.77% of their voting population.
836,550 minorities with 15,600 being disenfranchised. This removes 1.86% of their voting population. 

So the argument still exists that a higher percentage of minorities are affected. We know


If I argue it's partisan, I can look at percentages from 2016 exit polls to draw some conclusions. 57% of white people voted GOP, so that's a net loss of 5,096 republican voters. With minorities, it's 74%, so that's a net loss of 7,488 democratic voters.

All in all, Republicans trade 5,100 votes of theirs to lose 7,500 Democratic votes for a net game of a 2,400 votes. 

Certainly seems inconsequential, but it's there. 



I've also seen the numbers of 1 in every 13 people who are black versus 1 in every 56 people who are white. 

So there are 156,000,000 eligible white voters and 3.5 million white people who cannot vote. Meanwhile there are  27,000,000 eligible black voters and 3.2 million black people who cannot vote. 

At this point, it is NOT inconsequential. 2.19% of White people who are old enough to vote cannot while 10.6% of black people who are old enough to vote cannot. If we play the partisan numbers, that's 4.5m non GOP voters lost and only 2.08m GOP voters loss for a net gain of 2.42m voters.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-18-2018, 10:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Not true because we're looking at what proportion are you disenfranchising. 

MORE white fellons - a majority, in fact - are disenfranchised than black fellons.  If that makes the law racist, then the law is REALLY BAD at racism.
Geez, next you're going to tell me welfare reform is racist eventhough there's more white people on welfare.

[BmorePat87]

(04-18-2018, 10:59 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: MORE white fellons - a majority, in fact - are disenfranchised than black fellons.  If that makes the law racist, then the law is REALLY BAD at racism.
Geez, next you're going to tell me welfare reform is racist eventhough there's more white people on welfare.

I'd recommend reading the rest of my post that completely shuts down your argument. 

"So there are 156,000,000 eligible white voters and 3.5 million white people who cannot vote. Meanwhile there are 27,000,000 eligible black voters and 3.2 million black people who cannot vote.

At this point, it is NOT inconsequential. 2.19% of White people who are old enough to vote cannot while 10.6% of black people who are old enough to vote cannot. If we play the partisan numbers, that's 4.5m non GOP voters lost and only 2.08m GOP voters loss for a net gain of 2.42m voters."


There are 125 million more white voters and yet there are nearly identical numbers of disenfranchised black and white people.