Should Inmates Be Allowed To Vote?

[Conan71]

In an attempt to correct the problem we have of thread drift on this forum, I thought I would move my reply to here.  Somehow, this didn't seem appropriate in a thread about gun and ammo manufacturing in Oklahoma.

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.

One could even go so far as to say that removing someone's freedom and liberty by imprisoning them is wrong.  We hold those ideals even higher as voting is a part of freedom and liberty.  I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar, though I've been accused of being a strict constructionist on here before

At some point, society has to have a way to remove those who pose a threat to the freedom and liberty of other citizens.  Punishment for offenses against others (and people's own selves) is a concept which far pre-dates our Constitution. 

I'm really not comfortable with prisoners and the mentally insane helping to select our elected officials.  You can bet inmates would vote against a particulary good Sheriff or elected officials they associate as being responsible for them being in prison.  They might also vote with incredible cynicism.  I don't have a problem with them getting the right to vote back when they are no longer incarcerated.  I also agree, there are certain rights, like losing gun ownership rights over hot checks which don't make sense. 

Again, it's a matter of legislators trying to raise the stakes on crime in a futile attempt to act as a deterrent.  I doubt many of these laws were authored as true deterrents rather than simply showing constituents that Congressman or Congresswoman Blowhard is tough on crime.

[Gaspar]

No they shouldn't.

When you infringe on the rights of others through commission of a felony, you forfeit all of the basic privileges granted by our constitution.  We also limit your right to liberty in an effort to safeguard the rights of others, until such a time as you are rehabilitated or otherwise deemed safe to re-enter society.

Contrary to most public-school education, voting is not a right, it is a privilege granted by our constitution.  As a privilege it is subject to a broad range of conditions, the lease of these is its forfeiture due to felonious action.

[jamesrage]

Inmates should not be allowed to vote. But once you are released and served your full sentence all your constitutional rights should be fully restored to you.  If you can not be trusted to have all your constitutional rights fully restored to you then you should not have ever been released in the first place.

[custosnox]

I disagree with voting being a privilege, I think it is a fundamental right guarunteed by our constitution.  However, as with all rights, it can be forfiet. I think that the right to vote can, and should be, removed from someone within our justice system.  In part because they commited a crime, but also because they have limited contact with the general public and are generally out of touch with the political enviroment.   I also think that in most cases the right should be returned once they have served their time, with the exception of a few that are shown to be morally bankrupt (though they really shouldn't be released anyhow, but that is another discussion)

[custosnox]

Inmates should not be allowed to vote. But once you are released and served your full sentence all your constitutional rights should be fully restored to you.  If you can not be trusted to have all your constitutional rights fully restored to you then you should not have ever been released in the first place.

So you disagree with sex offenders not being allowed to live near schools, or be in a occupation that puts them in contact with children on a regular basis?  Just to clarify, when I mean sex offenders I mean the molesters and of that ilk, not the lady that has to register because she got drunk and flashed someone.

[nathanm]

At some point, society has to have a way to remove those who pose a threat to the freedom and liberty of other citizens.  Punishment for offenses against others (and people's own selves) is a concept which far pre-dates our Constitution.  
...
I'm really not comfortable with prisoners and the mentally insane helping to select our elected officials.  You can bet inmates would vote against a particulary good Sheriff or elected officials they associate as being responsible for them being in prison.  They might also vote with incredible cynicism.  I don't have a problem with them getting the right to vote back when they are no longer incarcerated.  I also agree, there are certain rights, like losing gun ownership rights over hot checks which don't make sense.  

I could go either way on those adjudicated insane. On the one hand, I think taking the right to vote away from one class of people leads to it becoming more acceptable to do so for other classes of people. On the other hand, they have been adjudicated insane.

I wouldn't have brought it up had I not discovered that Oklahoma also strips the right to vote from people who never see a day of prison, namely those who are sentenced only to probation. That leads to ridiculous results like losing the right to vote over felony speeding, hot checks, and other relatively minor offenses that are nevertheless classed as felonies. Believe me, I have a lot less sympathy for murderers, but as the law stands, it makes no distinction whatsoever between a murderer and somebody who steals a couple grand from the till at work. Neither is, or should be, legal, yet there is a vast gulf between the severity of the crimes.

In any event, the purpose of incarceration isn't so much to isolate the criminal from society as a whole but to physically confine them because we feel they are a danger to society. (I'd argue that in Oklahoma, we go far beyond that, but I'm speaking generally here) Further isolating them from society only leads to more anti-social behavior.

Lastly, I find it incredibly disturbing that someone would argue that someone voting for the wrong person or being uninformed on the issues ought to disqualify them from voting. In the case of the former, I guess Gaspar or jamesrage wouldn't want me to vote, since it's almost certain that I will not vote for his preferred candidates. And in the latter, there are millions of people who we all would agree are completely uninformed on the issues because their sole source of information is television news (of whatever leaning) and the attack ads that lead up to each election. If we're going to exclude prisoners from voting on those grounds, it's not exactly a stretch to go back to the days of poll taxes and literacy tests.

And practically speaking, there aren't enough potential criminal voters to have any major effect on elections anyway (if there are, our laws need to be fixed), so it seems utterly worthless to compromise ourselves to such a pointless end.

Last I checked, Maine and Vermont haven't exactly become controlled by the prisoners.

Edited to add: I apologize for the digression on the other thread, I ran across a mention of it in an AG's opinion while looking at a statute someone had posted and got annoyed.

[custosnox]

Lastly, I find it incredibly disturbing that someone would argue that someone voting for the wrong person or being uninformed on the issues ought to disqualify them from voting. In the case of the former, I guess Gaspar or jamesrage wouldn't want me to vote, since it's almost certain that I will not vote for his preferred candidates. And in the latter, there are millions of people who we all would agree are completely uninformed on the issues because their sole source of information is television news (of whatever leaning) and the attack ads that lead up to each election. If we're going to exclude prisoners from voting on those grounds, it's not exactly a stretch to go back to the days of poll taxes and literacy tests.

To be ignorant of your surroundings is one thing, however, being completely isolated from society is another.  In that case it can not be expected for someone to be able to have a say in the society that they are not a part of.  That is why I advocate removal of voting rights while incarcerated and removed from society, but not beyond except in cases of an individual being morally bankrupt (which in my opinion should not be released back into society anyhow).

[Conan71]

I could go either way on those adjudicated insane. On the one hand, I think taking the right to vote away from one class of people leads to it becoming more acceptable to do so for other classes of people. On the other hand, they have been adjudicated insane.

I wouldn't have brought it up had I not discovered that Oklahoma also strips the right to vote from people who never see a day of prison, namely those who are sentenced only to probation. That leads to ridiculous results like losing the right to vote over felony speeding, hot checks, and other relatively minor offenses that are nevertheless classed as felonies. Believe me, I have a lot less sympathy for murderers, but as the law stands, it makes no distinction whatsoever between a murderer and somebody who steals a couple grand from the till at work. Neither is, or should be, legal, yet there is a vast gulf between the severity of the crimes.

In any event, the purpose of incarceration isn't so much to isolate the criminal from society as a whole but to physically confine them because we feel they are a danger to society. (I'd argue that in Oklahoma, we go far beyond that, but I'm speaking generally here) Further isolating them from society only leads to more anti-social behavior.

Lastly, I find it incredibly disturbing that someone would argue that someone voting for the wrong person or being uninformed on the issues ought to disqualify them from voting. In the case of the former, I guess Gaspar or jamesrage wouldn't want me to vote, since it's almost certain that I will not vote for his preferred candidates. And in the latter, there are millions of people who we all would agree are completely uninformed on the issues because their sole source of information is television news (of whatever leaning) and the attack ads that lead up to each election. If we're going to exclude prisoners from voting on those grounds, it's not exactly a stretch to go back to the days of poll taxes and literacy tests.

And practically speaking, there aren't enough potential criminal voters to have any major effect on elections anyway (if there are, our laws need to be fixed), so it seems utterly worthless to compromise ourselves to such a pointless end.

Last I checked, Maine and Vermont haven't exactly become controlled by the prisoners.

Edited to add: I apologize for the digression on the other thread, I ran across a mention of it in an AG's opinion while looking at a statute someone had posted and got annoyed.

We also strip those adjudicated insane of their 2nd Amendment rights via Federal firearms laws and the Oklahoma conceal/carry.  For conceal/carry the OSBI application asks about treatment for mental disorders, whether or not I've attempted suicide, wants to know if I've been treated for substance abuse, had a protective order filed on me, or simply if I've been arrested for any of the following: stalking, violating a protective order, illegal drug use or possession, or A & B or aggravated A & B.

Likening taking voting rights from convicted felons or the insane to poll taxes is stretching it a bit, don't you think?

[nathanm]

To be ignorant of your surroundings is one thing, however, being completely isolated from society is another.

I think one can get periodicals in prison. Not that half the people I know who vote ever do such a thing. The vast majority just vote straight party lines without any sort of thinking on the issues at all. I'm just pointing out that the same arguments you use in support of taking away the right of felons to vote could be used against most people equally effectively.

Also, people don't get their vote back when they leave prison. They get it back when they finish parole. And many people lose their right to vote without ever seeing the inside of a prison.

Likening taking voting rights from convicted felons or the insane to poll taxes is stretching it a bit, don't you think?

If the reasoning for taking that right from felons weren't applicable to a large proportion of the non-felon electorate, I would.

It seems to me that it all comes down to further isolating people we see as undesirable from society. More punishment. As if locking them in prison isn't enough to keep them away. Perhaps we should stop allowing them to send letters, also?

[custosnox]

I think one can get periodicals in prison. Not that half the people I know who vote ever do such a thing. The vast majority just vote straight party lines without any sort of thinking on the issues at all. I'm just pointing out that the same arguments you use in support of taking away the right of felons to vote could be used against most people equally effectively.

But periodicals don't really allow you to interact with society to really know what's going on.  We can watch the news all day long but not trully understand everything that is going on there without actually being there.  Same basic concept. 

Also, from what I read of the law, in Oklahoma they get their ability to vote back according to what the sentensing judge says, which might be the time period of parole or might not be.

[nathanm]

But periodicals don't really allow you to interact with society to really know what's going on.  We can watch the news all day long but not trully understand everything that is going on there without actually being there.  Same basic concept. 

Also, from what I read of the law, in Oklahoma they get their ability to vote back according to what the sentensing judge says, which might be the time period of parole or might not be.

For most of our country's history, that's how the electorate got the information they needed to vote.

Regarding regaining the vote, that's what the law implies, but I don't think that's how it works. Having never been convicted of a felony in Oklahoma, I can't really say. Reading some AG opinions, I got the distinct impression that the law has been interpreted to mean that the sentence is up to the judge, not when they regain the right to vote.

What adds insult to injury is that you can't even seek a pardon from the governor to regain your voting rights. All a pardon gets you here is a release from confinement.

[we vs us]

There's no minimum education level to have the vote.  That's what makes us such a gonzo republic.  The stupidest people and the smartest people all get the same ballot.  The most gregarious and active in public life, and the most secluded.  Everyone gets the vote.  It hasn't always been that way (for instance, back in the day, only landowners could vote, and obviously there was the whole slavery, 3/5's a person thing).  But these days, anybody can vote and we don't judge them for how they want to exercise their franchise.  Including by throwing it away.  You can do that, too.

I honestly don't get the rationale behind denying prisoners the right to vote.  As nathan said, withholding the core tenet of American citizenship as a punishment from actual citizens seems . . . unAmerican. And you're incorrect, Gaspar.  Convicts don't forfeit the basic privileges of our Constitution; on the contrary, there are some constitutional rights (right to a trial by jury; right to a speedy trial and confrontation of witnesses; right from cruel and unusual punishment, etc) reserved solely for those working their way through the American crime-and-punishment system.   

[cynical]

Gonzo is an interesting descriptor of the United States, especially considering we have enough nukes to destroy life on earth (well, except for cockroaches and ants) several times over. 



I shudder. 

There's no minimum education level to have the vote.  That's what makes us such a gonzo republic.  The stupidest people and the smartest people all get the same ballot.  The most gregarious and active in public life, and the most secluded.  Everyone gets the vote.  It hasn't always been that way (for instance, back in the day, only landowners could vote, and obviously there was the whole slavery, 3/5's a person thing).  But these days, anybody can vote and we don't judge them for how they want to exercise their franchise.  Including by throwing it away.  You can do that, too.

I honestly don't get the rationale behind denying prisoners the right to vote.  As nathan said, withholding the core tenet of American citizenship as a punishment from actual citizens seems . . . unAmerican. And you're incorrect, Gaspar.  Convicts don't forfeit the basic privileges of our Constitution; on the contrary, there are some constitutional rights (right to a trial by jury; right to a speedy trial and confrontation of witnesses; right from cruel and unusual punishment, etc) reserved solely for those working their way through the American crime-and-punishment system.   

[dbacks fan]

If I am completely wrong, someone please correct me. I have always understood that if you are convicted of a felony, regardless of city, county, state or federal, you were stripped of the right to vote, and stripped of the right to purchase/own a firearm.

[nathanm]

If I am completely wrong, someone please correct me. I have always understood that if you are convicted of a felony, regardless of city, county, state or federal, you were stripped of the right to vote, and stripped of the right to purchase/own a firearm.

You are incorrect about the former, although it is illegal under federal law for a felon to posses a firearm absent a pardon or similar act.

Voting qualifications, beyond the minimum standards set at the federal level, which have nothing to say about crime, are handled entirely by the states. Here's a list. As mentioned in that list, some states even exclude certain misdemeanor offenders from voting.

Your question misses the point of the discussion by a wide mark, however. Regardless of what the law is now, should inmates and/or felons in general have the right to vote?