Should Ex-Felons have the right to vote?

[vietgurl]

WASHINGTON - Jack Kemp, the former Republican vice presidential candidate and HUD secretary, urged Congress on Tuesday to require states to restore voting rights for felons once they complete their sentences.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kemp, who was Bob Dole's running mate in 1996, made the recommendation during the first in a series of hearings about the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits literacy tests, poll taxes and other infringements on minority voting.

Some key provisions of the 40-year-old law expire in 2007. One requires areas with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing their election laws.

Congress is expected to extend that provision for 25 years, but the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution is trying to determine whether the law should be tweaked.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., stirred the lone moment of dissent among witnesses with his suggestion that Congress should amend the act to guarantee voting rights for ex-felons.

"It's important, if we're going to call ourselves a democracy, that everybody more or less have the right to vote," Nadler said.

Kemp quickly endorsed the idea, pointing out that minorities are disproportionately charged with felonies.

"My answer is unambiguously yes," said Kemp, a former congressman from New York, one of a handful of states that restores voting rights to criminals once they complete their prison term or probation. "It is a restriction that needs to be modified."

Former Colorado Lt. Gov. Joe Rogers, a member of a national commission on the Voting Rights Act, disagreed. He said states should be able to set their own requirements and argued that the number of felons isn't high enough to influence elections.

Besides the section requiring federal clearance for some states and localities to change their voting laws, two other key provisions are expiring in 2007. One requires foreign language assistance at the polls, and another allows for federal election observers to be used to deter intimidation of minority voters.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_go_co/voting_rights


I have absolutely no opinion on this matter so I was wondering what everyone else thought.

 

[Ikohn4ever]

they did serve their time and should have the rights of everyone else in the country. I mean most people dont even vote so I doubt it would make much of a difference.

 

[Quackzilla]

They are Americans too, I don't see anything in the constitution that says a citizens right to vote can be revoked.

 

[zionoverfire]

I think Felons should have the right to vote.

 

[alonzomourning23]

Being released form jail should mean that part of your life is behind you, assuming you don't screw up again. The government shouldn't continue to hold it over your head unless there is a very good reason.

 

[kakomu]

I guess the idea of restricting a felon from many facets of what is essentially american is quite detrimental to their rehabilitation. I can't really see the restriction of voting as any more of a prolonged slap on the wrist. Certainly not being able to vote while incarcerated was painful enough for them

 

[Duo_Maxwell]

I have a mixed view, I'd say not until your time is served totally and in full, that's including parole and/or probation. In other words, I don't believe a child molester sentenced to 10-30 years, but paroled after 10 should be able to vote until the full 30 years is up. One hand essentially you have people who have broken the law, voting for people who will decide to make laws. But on the other if they serve their time entirely and in full without breaking the terms, the restrictions of parole are often lifted and the restriction of their voting rights should be lifted as well I believe. Incidently though, I think we need to somehow reform the whole system of parole/probation because it doesn't work as it should anymore.

 

[PittsburghAfterDark]

[quote name='Quackzilla']They are Americans too, I don't see anything in the constitution that says a citizens right to vote can be revoked.[/QUOTE]

Non-enumerated states right.

 

[U2K Tha Greate$t]

Nobody should vote, because when people vote, i never seen any of the changes that they speak about doing.

Voting is dumb, thank you and good day!

 

[mykevermin]

Although I do agree that felons deserve the right to vote upon release, I would also argue that it's probably one of the more overstated avenues through which ex-felons still "serve time" after release. The difficulty in finding housing and employment as a result of felon status, not to mention laws such as "Megan's Law" that identify a person as a felon through public records, do far more to infringe upon the rights of a person who has been released than the ability to participate in a political system that well over 1/3 of most Americans already don't participate in.

 

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Democrats need to push this. Ex-felons could make up a growingly important core constituancy group.

They're already taking favor with convicted child molestors in trying to limit the scope and aplicability of public safety versus illusory individual rights. Well, sorry, when you aim to protect one group of criminals with ridiculous recivitism rates why not take up protections for other convicted criminals too? I fail to see why you should gain back all of your rights when your actions violated public saftey and welfare and you were convicted by a judge and jury of your peers.

Convicted felons should be paying this small price the rest of their lives. I need look no further than Mark and Denise Rich to know that felons rarely pay full price for their actions.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Democrats need to push this. Ex-felons could make up a growingly important core constituancy group.[/QUOTE]

Oh I don't know. Seems to me that Republicans would benefit from the impending influx of Republican criminals - you know, Delay, Rove, Abramoff, Ney, Reed...

Not to mention the Kozlowskis and Kenneth Lays of America.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Democrats need to push this. Ex-felons could make up a growingly important core constituancy group.

They're already taking favor with convicted child molestors in trying to limit the scope and aplicability of public safety versus illusory individual rights. Well, sorry, when you aim to protect one group of criminals with ridiculous recivitism rates why not take up protections for other convicted criminals too? I fail to see why you should gain back all of your rights when your actions violated public saftey and welfare and you were convicted by a judge and jury of your peers.

Convicted felons should be paying this small price the rest of their lives. I need look no further than Mark and Denise Rich to know that felons rarely pay full price for their actions.[/QUOTE]

Recidivism rates have hovered consistently between 60-70% for all felons; you can isolate whomever you want, it doesn't change to a statistically meaningful degree.

If you think that people should still "pay a small price," why release them at all? Why provide them with the guise that they are free, when they can't vote, they can't find housing, they can't get a decent job (or a job at all)? This isn't freedom; we're lying to people by telling them "your time is up; you're free to go." Shall we create a ghetto with nothing but convicts, so that everything is ceteris paribus? So that we don't have to deal with them, they don't have to stay in prison, and they aren't being discriminated against for gainful employment? Would you really like to see that?

Either release them as free people, or keep them incarcerated forever. PAD, you are looking at the criminal justice system as a means of extracting revenge and punishment, and failing to understand the role that 'justice' should play in it.

 

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You know how funny it's going to be when you have the following?

DeLay; Charges thrown out. Rove; nothing. Abramoff, nothing. Frist, nothing.

I'm going to laugh my ass off when the only thing Democrats are trying to run on, corruption, turns out to be something they don't even have to run on. 'Tis what happens when your party has no ideas, you don't appeal to the mainstream, can't win national elections and all you can do is say no for a political living.

 

[Cheese]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I need look no further than Mark and Denise Rich to know that felons rarely pay full price for their actions.[/QUOTE]


I know how you feel...

President Bush (41)
Armand Hammer. In 1989, President Bush pardoned Armand Hammer, former head of Occidental Petroleum. Shortly before the pardons, Mr. Hammer reportedly had
contributed over $100,000 to the Republican Party and $100,000 to the Bush-Quayle Inaugural Committee. Mr. Hammer’s attorney Bruce Kauffman, a Philadelphia attorney and Republican activist, was well-known to President Bush's then-Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, who appointed Mr. Kauffman to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Aslam Adam. On January 18, 1993, two days before leaving office, President Bush
pardoned Aslam Adam, a Pakistani drug trafficker who had served eight years of a 55-
year sentence in federal prison in North Carolina. Mr. Adam was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute $1 million worth of heroin. President Bush did not respond to requests from the media for an explanation of the reasons behind this pardon. The assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Adam, Ken Andresen, stated, "This move by President Bush as he was on the verge of leaving office strikes me as exceedingly peculiar, given his strong rhetoric regarding his efforts to fight crime in general and drugs in particular."

Orlando Bosch. In 1990, the Bush Justice Department granted a parole to Orlando
Bosch after being lobbied by Jeb Bush, the son of the President. Mr. Bosch was an anti-Castro activist who was suspected of dozens of bombings, as well as the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner which killed 73 civilians aboard.

 

[soulvengeance]

Back to topic, yes, I think felons should regain their right to vote after serving their time.

 

[Ikohn4ever]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know how funny it's going to be when you have the following?

DeLay; Charges thrown out. Rove; nothing. Abramoff, nothing. Frist, nothing.

I'm going to laugh my ass off when the only thing Democrats are trying to run on, corruption, turns out to be something they don't even have to run on. 'Tis what happens when your party has no ideas, you don't appeal to the mainstream, can't win national elections and all you can do is say no for a political living.[/QUOTE]


well that usually happens when you can afford to buy justice, plus having the president able to pardon you just in case is always nice.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know how funny it's going to be when you have the following?

DeLay; Charges thrown out. Rove; nothing. Abramoff, nothing. Frist, nothing.[/QUOTE]

I see nothing funny about politicians of either party getting away with wanton corruption.

Some, but not all, will be found guilty. Of course, I fully expect you to run from the topic when that happens.

 

[PittsburghAfterDark]

[quote name='camoor']I see nothing funny about politicians of either party getting away with wanton corruption.[/QUOTE]

Oh, what exactly is your stance on a politician that obstructs justice, perjurs himself, lies to the nation and allows personal problems to allow the defence of the nation to take second fiddle to his political capital being expended surviving legal and political ramifications of his actions?

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know how funny it's going to be when you have the following?

DeLay; Charges thrown out. Rove; nothing. Abramoff, nothing. Frist, nothing.

I'm going to laugh my ass off when the only thing Democrats are trying to run on, corruption, turns out to be something they don't even have to run on. 'Tis what happens when your party has no ideas, you don't appeal to the mainstream, can't win national elections and all you can do is say no for a political living.[/QUOTE]

All this, and you still get outraged when a politician lies about an affair. The last paragraph could very easily describe the whole of clintons impeachent process.

And prosecuting someone for perjury when it regards a completely personal and private issue, of no business to the public, is little more than a witch hunt and a technicality. The charges facing republicans today actually involve political and security issues.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh, what exactly is your stance on a politician that obstructs justice, perjurs himself, lies to the nation and allows personal problems to allow the defence of the nation to take second fiddle to his political capital being expended surviving legal and political ramifications of his actions?[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about Clinton.? While perosnally I believe what goes on between consenting adults is their own business, because of his public profile I think Clinton's BJ from Monica was a very selfish action. It's a shame that it will keep him from being viewed as one of the greatest US Presidents.

 

[niceguyshawne]

[quote name='camoor']Are you talking about Clinton.? While perosnally I believe what goes on between consenting adults is their own business, because of his public profile I think Clinton's BJ from Monica was a very selfish action. It's a shame that it will keep him from being viewed as one of the greatest US Presidents.[/QUOTE]


I think the only ones who really care about the BJ anymore are the right wingers. Everyone else knows he did a good job while in office.

 

[evanft]

Lying about going to war>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lying about a BJ

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I have a mixed view, I'd say not until your time is served totally and in full, that's including parole and/or probation. In other words, I don't believe a child molester sentenced to 10-30 years, but paroled after 10 should be able to vote until the full 30 years is up. One hand essentially you have people who have broken the law, voting for people who will decide to make laws. But on the other if they serve their time entirely and in full without breaking the terms, the restrictions of parole are often lifted and the restriction of their voting rights should be lifted as well I believe. Incidently though, I think we need to somehow reform the whole system of parole/probation because it doesn't work as it should anymore.[/QUOTE]

I think this is a good outline of a fair system.

As for parole, you should just do what we did in Virginia with George Allen as governor: abolish it (best thing he did as governor).

 

[evanft]

Parolees should have to wear ankle bracelets.