Senate OKs bill to exempt firearms from federal regulation

[custosnox]

now is where I get to correct myself.  In Oklahoma felons retain their right to vote after their incarceration.  There are some states where felons can loose their ability to vote for life.

[custosnox]

You might want to check Oklahoma law on that one. Or Florida law. Or Arkansas law, or any of the other 34 states that don't restore a felon's right to vote once they've been released. In 12 of those states, the only way to get your franchise back is to get a pardon from the Governor. A further 23 states don't allow those on parole to vote. 18 of those don't even allow those on probation (including Oklahoma) to vote.

Only two states have sane policy on this issue and never prevent a person from voting. Oklahoma is not as bad as the 12 states that permanently bar felons (or in some cases certain felons) from ever voting again, but it's still stone-age stuff.

Felons ability to vote in Oklahoma is only restricted by determination of judgment.

Persons convicted of a felony shall be ineligible to register for a period of time equal to the time prescribed in the judgment and sentence

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=78446&hits=511+491+429+366+180+160+98+43+

Only 10 states suspend voting for life, according to the ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/ex-offenders

[nathanm]

In Oklahoma felons retain their right to vote after their incarceration.

No, in Oklahoma, felons don't regain the right to vote until after their entire sentence has run, including parole. Even felons whose sentence is only probation lose their right to vote until probation is completed.

I shouldn't have clicked on the AG opinions that cite that law. Apparently, in Oklahoma, a pardon doesn't remove the impairments to your rights as it does in some other jurisdictions.

¶2 In Kellogg v. State, 504 P.2d 440, 441-42 (Okl. Cr. 1972), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals stated:

"As to the effect of a pardon, it is true in some jurisdictions that a pardon 'completely frees the offender from the control of the state and relieves him of all legal disabilities resulting from his conviction.' Taran v. United States, 266 F.2d 561, 566 (8th Cir.1959). State v. Meyer, 228 Minn. 286, 37 N.W.2d 3, 13. Although Oklahoma may have once followed such a view, the present position in this jurisdiction is that a conviction 'is not wiped out by a pardon, as the pardon by the executive power does not blot out the solemn act of the judicial branch of the government.'

[custosnox]

No, in Oklahoma, felons don't regain the right to vote until after their entire sentence has run, including parole. Even felons whose sentence is only probation lose their right to vote until probation is completed.

I shouldn't have clicked on the AG opinions that cite that law. Apparently, in Oklahoma, a pardon doesn't remove the impairments to your rights as it does in some other jurisdictions.

I was basing my initial comment on what my government teacher (and attorney) told us.  I'm not sure if I got something out of context or if he was mistaken.  After some quick research I see that there is some merit to what you posted.  However what I have found on it doesn't line up with your number.  But that is aside of the point.  The whole point in your comment was about the removal of rights to felons.  I'm not sure how I feel about this.  Yes, it is a basic right of citizens, however, why should our leaders be chosen by those who choose to break the law?

[nathanm]

why should our leaders be chosen by those who choose to break the law?

More importantly, why shouldn't they get a say? It is one of the rights we hold most fundamental to our being. From it flows our ability to control our government and keep it from running roughshod over us. One could easily invoke the slippery slope argument here.

[Conan71]

More importantly, why shouldn't they get a say? It is one of the rights we hold most fundamental to our being. From it flows our ability to control our government and keep it from running roughshod over us. One could easily invoke the slippery slope argument here.

it's piling on the loss of certain rights to form more of a deterrent to crime. Deterrents only work for those who tend to obey laws in the first place.  I'm willing to bet an overwhelming majority prisoners serving sentences for felonies never voted and wouldn't if they were given the right back.     

[nathanm]

I'm willing to bet an overwhelming majority prisoners serving sentences for felonies never voted and wouldn't if they were given the right back.     

Most people never vote. Should we take the franchise away from those who choose not to exercise it?

I think that voting is such a fundamental right (second only to life itself) that I think that it's not a valid use of state power to take it away from someone, under any circumstances. Our tendency of late to increase the number of crimes considered felonies, rather than misdemeanors, serves only to strengthen my opinion on the issue. Someone shouldn't lose their right to vote because they pass a hot check or speed excessively.

As someone who thinks highly of the second amendment, I would think that you would understand the value of retaining a check against government creeping into tyranny. With the thick undergrowth of laws we now have most of us, with enough investigation, could be charged with a felony for something or other we once did.

Moreover, it opens the door to states incorrectly purging voters from the rolls who have never actually committed a crime, as happened to thousands in Florida just before the 2000 election. The risk is too great and the reward too small, my friend.

[custosnox]

I think that voting is such a fundamental right (second only to life itself) that I think that it's not a valid use of state power to take it away from someone, under any circumstances.

However, our justice system retains the ability to remove that which you hold most fundamental, life, under specific circumstances

[Red Arrow]

I think that voting is such a fundamental right (second only to life itself) that I think that it's not a valid use of state power to take it away from someone, under any circumstances. Our tendency of late to increase the number of crimes considered felonies, rather than misdemeanors, serves only to strengthen my opinion on the issue. Someone shouldn't lose their right to vote because they pass a hot check or speed excessively.

I'll agree that no one should lose the right to vote over a hot check, speeding and such.  I think there are some particularly nasty crimes such as mass murder that warrant taking away the right to vote.  Maybe some others deserve to be reinstated after their "debt to society" has been paid.

[custosnox]

I'll agree that no one should lose the right to vote over a hot check, speeding and such.  I think there are some particularly nasty crimes such as mass murder that warrant taking away the right to vote.  Maybe some others deserve to be reinstated after their "debt to society" has been paid.

Beyond the violent crimes you list, I think exceptionally immoral, like cheating dozens of elderly out of their retirment funds with a scam.  I really don't like the idea of people like that having a say in our government.  But I do agree that those that are in for something like a bad check, or other such crimes should get their rights reinstated.

[nathanm]

However, our justice system retains the ability to remove that which you hold most fundamental, life, under specific circumstances

I also strongly disagree with that. Being from the South, I grew up with the idea of the death penalty as being a necessary thing. At some point the number of people on death row who had turned out to be wrongfully convicted caused me to critically evaluate my position on the death penalty for the first time. I came to realize a few things: If the death penalty was really a deterrent, we wouldn't have thousands upon thousands of people on death row in this country. Unless we can be sure that we're not executing an innocent person, carrying out a death sentence on that person is certainly immoral. Given the number of people on death row who were exonerated, that put doubt in my mind as to whether we could ever be sure.

After thinking on that for a while, I came to the conclusion that putting someone in prison renders them no longer a threat to society, and therefore killing them is not morally justified, since I believe the only just use of deadly force is to stop an imminent threat to life.

Other people can reach their own conclusions, but that's how I draw the moral calculus there.

Tying that back in to removing a felon's right to vote, I consider the purpose of prison to isolate those who have proven they are a danger to society and, if possible, rehabilitate them for release. I don't see how taking away their right to vote works to either of those ends. Worse, I think that such actions only serve to make the criminal feel even less connected to society, thus more likely to reoffend.

Neither the death penalty nor denying suffrage to felons work to the end supporters claim.

Pragmatically, what does it matter if felons get to vote? Unless the government and laws are completely out of step with society's morals, there will always be fewer felons than non-felons, so the rest of us can easily overwhelm any influence they have. If there are more felons than non-felons, we have bigger problems to worry about than felons having the right to vote.

[custosnox]

I also strongly disagree with that. Being from the South, I grew up with the idea of the death penalty as being a necessary thing. At some point the number of people on death row who had turned out to be wrongfully convicted caused me to critically evaluate my position on the death penalty for the first time. I came to realize a few things: If the death penalty was really a deterrent, we wouldn't have thousands upon thousands of people on death row in this country. Unless we can be sure that we're not executing an innocent person, carrying out a death sentence on that person is certainly immoral. Given the number of people on death row who were exonerated, that put doubt in my mind as to whether we could ever be sure.

After thinking on that for a while, I came to the conclusion that putting someone in prison renders them no longer a threat to society, and therefore killing them is not morally justified, since I believe the only just use of deadly force is to stop an imminent threat to life.

Other people can reach their own conclusions, but that's how I draw the moral calculus there.

Tying that back in to removing a felon's right to vote, I consider the purpose of prison to isolate those who have proven they are a danger to society and, if possible, rehabilitate them for release. I don't see how taking away their right to vote works to either of those ends. Worse, I think that such actions only serve to make the criminal feel even less connected to society, thus more likely to reoffend.

Neither the death penalty nor denying suffrage to felons work to the end supporters claim.

Pragmatically, what does it matter if felons get to vote? Unless the government and laws are completely out of step with society's morals, there will always be fewer felons than non-felons, so the rest of us can easily overwhelm any influence they have. If there are more felons than non-felons, we have bigger problems to worry about than felons having the right to vote.

You may disagree with it, but it is still a power that rests in the scope of the state. 

Just as a counter argument on your reasons for not agreeing with the death penalty, it is intended to be more then just a punishment for a crime and to remove them from society.  in theory (and at least some practice) it is also intended as a deterent by placing the absolute penalty for a crime.

Personally I'm not completely convinced that this is the correct choice.  I don't think the threat of life imprisonment is going to work either.  A new system is needed.

IMO the removal of voting rights is more of a "you have shown that you can not be trusted with making important decistions".  This certaintly should not apply to your basic run of the mill crimes.  It is debatable on the more notorous crimes.

[nathanm]

Personally I'm not completely convinced that this is the correct choice.  I don't think the threat of life imprisonment is going to work either. 

As I mentioned, we each draw our own moral conclusion regarding these things. In the end, if more people think/vote/speak like me, the system will change in the way I desire. If not, it won't. That's one of the great things about this country. We can disagree without resorting to violence thanks to things like voting.

For what it's worth, many other countries seem to get along fine without the death penalty, and even manage to have a lower major crime rate despite greater urbanization.

[jamesrage]

You're half right. Criminals do often illegally acquire guns. Why is it that we should let them acquire them more cheaply through legal means?

Wouldn't criminals getting guns cheaply through legal means instead of illegal means also mean everyone else getting guns cheaply through legal means?