home

Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 07:13:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

A NY Times editorial calls attention to a ruling last week by the European Court of Human Rights overturning a British law that prohibits prison inmates from voting. The ruling reflects a greater respect for democracy than we see in the U.S., where incarcerated offenders are rarely permitted to vote, and where many states disenfranchise felons (sometimes permanently) even after they've been released from prison.

Why does the U.S. care less than other countries about the right of these citizens to vote?

Of the nearly five million people who were barred from participating in the last presidential election, for example, most, if not all, would have been free to vote if they had been citizens of any one of dozens of other nations. ... This issue deserves a full hearing in the United States, which shows less regard for the rights of prisoners and ex-offenders than just about any of its peers.

< Bush Creates New 'Big Brother' Agency | A Million More >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote | 23 comments (23 topical)
    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#1)
    by fafnir on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    Yeah, even Iraqi "prisoners" have the right to vote. It is shameful that America, the most powerful icon of representative democracy and freedom in the world, denies its citizens an individual, constitutional right to vote.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#2)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    Are we talking about inmates or just convicted felons? Inmates have a host of restrictions placed on the fundamental rights non-inmates enjoy, i.e. free movement. I don’t see it as such a stretch to restrict the inmate’s ability to vote. However, if we are talking about folks who are just convicted felons; shouldn’t all their rights be reinstated? How about their right to posses and carry a firearm? Also, the ‘everybody else allows it’ argument is stupid. If the idea had merit then argue its merit.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    Why does the U.S. care less than other countries about the right of these citizens to vote?
    Simple. Other countries weren't initially founded by puritan rejects more concerned with retribution than rehabilitation. PW- I agree in most cases. As long as someone didn't use a weapon in a crime, I have no problem with that right being reinstated. Also, in fairness, if their conviction has to do with voting, that right should not be reinstated.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    It is shameful that America, the most powerful icon of representative democracy and freedom in the world, denies its citizens an individual, constitutional right to vote.
    It is shameful, I agree. However, if we were to remember Florida 2000 (if we must) when thousands of felon voters, many with their voting rights restored in Florida and other States where the felony was committed were effectively purged from voter rosters by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush. May I remind you that 90 percent of those purged were African-American voters, who, in Florida, vote over 95 percent democratic. Honest democracy left this land long ago. We saw it again in 2004 in Ohio and we will see it in 2006, 2008… (unless we create a system with a paper trail, not these electronic machines) I cannot and will never postulate America as a forerunner in representative democracy again.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    Pig, A key part of its merit is that it HAS been accepted and practiced in other industrial nations we respect, do business with, are partners with in a myriad of endeavors commercial and political. Personally, I'm all for letting prisoners vote. Keeps them involved in the society we're supposedly going to free the majority of them back into. Give them books, information, workshops, everything education oriented...and get rid of all the weightlifting equipment. Make them all soft, calm and informed instead of buff, angry and ignorant.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#6)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    Dadler, All you've done is to push the argument back onto those nations who have gone this route, without offering any actual reasoning for why it is a good idea. Is it really a good idea just because other nations have adopted it? If so, does this mean that all of the ideas that those nations have adopted are also good ideas that we too should adopt? Where does it end (or begin)? If the justification for adopting a "good idea" is that other nations have adopted it, how does the first nation to adopt it justify doing so? Should we all just emulate China, since they are an industrialized nation we respect and with whom we do business? After all, if we're going to bow to peer-pressure, shouldn't we go with the country with the most peers? I don't have a problem at all with denying voting rights to those in prison. As noted above, that's just one more penalty for committing crimes against society. But I think there should be a mechanism for having their voting rights re-instated after they have served their sentences.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    One strategy to guarantee prisoners the right to vote is to eliminate the contradiction inherent in them being counted as constituents of congressmen. The congressmen who count on them for Federal $$$, as they are 'representing' them, will immediately lobby to overturn the no-vote rule. Currently a small town in Upstate NY with a population of 200, can get greater representation by just building a prison, even though only 200 are allowed to vote and 20,000 are counted as living there. keep the count at 200 and the congressmen will freak. Once they have voting rights, their reps. may stop just using them, and start working for them.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    It seems to me that incarceration is cause for suspension of one's soverign franchise. If one is under Parole, than the state still has a legitimate reason to suspend franchise. If one has been released because their "Debt to society" has been paid, then their franchise should be restored. If you base the suspension of franchise on the fact their debt is not paid, what are they doing out of prison? I should expect such a concept to be too difficult for you, as you've proven yourself unable to answer a simple yes or no question.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#9)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    In my opinion, the "Their debt has been paid" argument holds no water. It's no secret that in many states a felony conviction precludes a citizen from being able to vote. That is not ex post facto law, and it IS part of their debt. It can not be repaid. Simply getting off parole should not automatically restore all rights. If a convicted felon desires to have that right reinstated there are mechanisms in every state that allow a court to do that. Let them earn the right back if the desire it so much. If they earn it back it is my belief that the specif rights will be more valuable to them when they face the choice of whether or not to reoffend. I would agree there are certain felonies that we could argue the rights should automatically reinstate, but a blanket reinstatement policy seems to be a bad idea to me.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    "If a convicted felon desires to have that [voting] right reinstated there are mechanisms in every state that allow a court to do that." Well, that settles that. All we're left with is whether we feel that felons should, or should not, lose their voting rights in the first place. jp has it right, just because someone else does something doesn't mean we should as well. Anyway, is there anyone who has a good argument for felons not to lose their right to vote?

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    Char-everyone knows that the biggest and most dangerous criminals always vote republican.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#12)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    I don't care if they vote Martian. My point still stands. If they lost it, make them earn it back. People almost always treat something they earned better than something they were given.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#13)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    "Courts outside this country are actually expanding the rights of prison inmates to cast ballots, on the theory that the right to vote is a basic human right that should be abridged only after careful deliberation and under the rarest circumstances." I guess the careful deliberations of the jury that judged the person guilty isn't enough? At least not for the EU. The idea of inmates, as opposed to former inmates, voting does raise an interesting question, however. Suppose I'm an inmate serving a sentence in a federal prison in Illinois and they give me the right to vote while in prison. Do I get to vote in Maryland, where I own a home and live when not serving a prison sentence, even though I'm not currently residing in the state? Or do I get to vote in Illinois, a state I have no personal interest in and in which I am residing only because I am being forced to? The absentee balloting for ex patriot citizens does not seem to answer the question, as they are outside the country, not in another state. And if we go with the latter approach, will my brother be entitled to vote in Maryland just because he happens to be there on election day, even though he lives on the other side of the country? Any thoughts on how we would work this out?

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#14)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    Convicted felons also lose the right to bear arms. In Florida, they lose the right to own a business, even a multi-generational family business. If a drug crime, they lose their driver's license for two years after release. I find that most of the convicted care about these rights more than the right to vote. That being said, why does america hate democracy?

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    If you want to vote, don't commit a felony. That seems pretty clear. Bring it!

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    If felons are stripped of their voting rights, doesn't it mean there's a risk of political consideratons in the judicial process itself? In that sense allowing inmates to vote would support the American independent judicial system by removing certain non-judicial temptations from it.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#17)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    I guess I do not see the problem... let 'em vote. Wrong wingers are simply scared that persons other than white, middle-class lemmings will start wielding political clout in this country.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    Which is why the right to vote should be added to the Federal bill of rights -- over-ruling all State laws in this regard - most especially for Federal elections. Why should the State decide which U.S. Citizens may or may not participate in a Federal election? The right to vote should be suspended for Felons while incarcerated but reinstated upon release. This should be a specific Federal statute over-ruling all State law. That will prevent Jeb (et.al) from creating an error-ridden list full of Felons and Non-Felons using State law as a means to disenfranchise largely impoverished/ethnic voters. Felons should have all of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and Federal/State Statute after release and serving of probation. That should include Privacy/Employment/Education rights (i.e. Internet databases of offenders, Reinstatement of Government Education Assistance eligibility) and the Right to Bear Arms - however, the Right to Bear Arms for all citizens should have Statutes that require registration and limit the range of weapons available for legal sale. None of you need an UZI - I don't care why you want it.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    If they lost it, make them earn it back.
    There are any number of activities that are ignored by the Free Market that would benefit American society which I'm quite sure Prisoners would happily volunteer to take part in. I'm also quite sure the technology exists to keep them supervised while they're doing it. I'm also quite sure it would be cheaper, more humane, and ultimately better for society than packing miserable human beings at gunpoint into concrete gladiator academies full of abusive guards and system-bred sociopaths.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#20)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    “however, the Right to Bear Arms for all citizens should have Statutes that require registration and limit the range of weapons available for legal sale.”
    This is asinine. Should the right to speech or religious affiliation be subject to registration and content-based regulation? It is entirely appropriate for law-abiding folks to have unrestricted access to any of the weapons a foot soldier in the US military has; the intent is reasonable parity. Sure, it’s dangerous for folks to have these things. Most of the freedoms we enjoy now are relatively dangerous; that is, near absolute security could be obtained by their restriction. However, it is cowardly and disgusting to yield fundamental liberty for simple security or piece of mind. You should be no more ready to yield your fundamental right to self-defense and defense against tyranny, through firearm regulation, than to yield your right against unreasonable search, free speech, due process, and so forth in an effort to secure against terrorism.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    It is entirely appropriate for law-abiding folks to have unrestricted access to any of the weapons a foot soldier in the US military has;
    By this standard, I should have the right to own a Javelin anti-armor or Stinger anti-aircraft missile, both weapons usable by a common foot soldier. That line of thinking seems quite asinine to me. If it's parity your concerned about PW, I'll share the words of a family member who talked about those that stockpiled military grade weapons in case the govt. some day came for them. "If they really want you and your weapons, they won't fool around. They'll just call in arty and be done with you." Or these days, a UAV might deliver a piping hot Hellfire missile.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    There has to be a certain amount of trust in government if there is to be any valid social contract. As much as I detest our present government, I still obey the law and pay taxes. I also entrust to this corrupt government the expectation of providing for our "common defense". (Despite the fact they interpret that as "Common Offense".) There are far more desperate and/or mentally ill people in this nation that would take advantage of easier access to brutal weaponry than there are principled Libertarians holding their guns for the day they feel they must overthrow a government. I have myself been victim of random violent crimes and have also narrowly escaped from others. In all of those circumstances, your average person would have anticipated a low risk of becoming a victim of such. In all cases, the attackers were armed with deadly weapons. The Republicans have succeeded in destroying the word Terrorism. (propagandists are pretty good at destroying the means to communicate intelligently). Terrorism no longer equates to random violence in the mind of your average American. You should take that into account when writing about it. A social contract requires certain trade offs. Our forefathers didn't write their documents in anticipation of institutionalized sociopaths roaming the streets with relatively cheap, lightweight, and easy to use weapons capable of killing 20 people in seconds. For example, the riots that occured after MLK's assasination (probably by our own CIA) - while the indignation was righteous - were still criminal and thus, since I believe them to be criminal, prefer for those persons not to have access to superior or equal weaponry as have the civilian police or the National Guard. There were better ways to deal with the criminal nature of our government - both back then and in the here and now.

    Re: Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote (none / 0) (#23)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Adept-
    “By this standard, I should have the right to own a Javelin anti-armor or Stinger anti-aircraft missile, both weapons usable by a common foot soldier.”
    Perhaps, but I was thinking more along the lines of RPGs, fully automatic rifles, grenades, and so forth. It seems to me the Iraqi insurgents are doing quite well with these. But if American soldiers could call in air strikes on, say, Chicago with the same enthusiasm as they did in Fallujah then your eccentric relative may have a point. TS-
    “Our forefathers didn't write their documents in anticipation of institutionalized sociopaths roaming the streets with relatively cheap, lightweight, and easy to use weapons capable of killing 20 people in seconds.”
    Probably not; however, in retrospect I hope they would have realized the need for the common man to have unfettered access to at least the caliber and quality of weapon your sociopath is more than wiling to acquire and carry in spite of the law.

    Inmates Should Be Allowed to Vote | 23 comments (23 topical)