Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:26 pm
I gave you the reason why I could think of which would apply to very serious offenders. As I said, the over-felonization of American law these days really militates against any such reason that would or may apply to serious or significant offenders.
To take two examples, you've stated your opinion, but not the reason or justification for why the current system is just or appropriate or should stand. [/quote]
There is no "current system" in the US. There are 50 current systems, and about 36 of them are "you lose your right to vote while you are in prison, but get it back either at the completion of incarceration or at end of probation/parole." I don't think I have too much of an objection to that. So, those current systems, I think, are appropriate. Don't you agree? (I got the impression that you did think that was o.k., but I don't want to put words in your mouth) If so, why? If not, why not? I've given you my "why" answer previously, but I haven't heard yours.
Regarding the systems that require petitions to restore voting rights - one interesting point is where a defendant has been ordered to pay restitution to their victim. They don't get their rights back until they've fully paid the restitution. That doesn't sound unfair.
Florida's, incidentally, is up for a referendum in November. The “Voting Restoration Amendment,” Amendment 4, would automatically restore voting rights to felons who have served their sentences, completed parole or probation and paid restitution. Murderers and sex offenders would be excluded. Honestly, I don't have a serious issue with that, and I'd probably vote yes on it. I would think they would exclude, also, anyone convicted of voter fraud, election fraud, ballot box stuffing, felony campaign finance law criminal convictions, and the like -- anything going to the integrity of the election that rises to the level of a felony conviction.
What do you think?
"A serious offense of a violence, theft or significant fraud nature would be considered an offense against society itself and renders the convicted felon untrustworthy to participate in civil government.."
I specifically dealt with trustworthiness and participation in an earlier post.
Sure, you expressed your view of it - but, you asked what a justification would be for it. I gave you one. Just because you don't find it persuasive doesn't mean it's not sufficient to persuade others, and it's a matter of the popular will, isn't it? Democratic vote by the people, or their elected representatives.
I've given you my view, which differs from some states, and agrees with many.
"(I)f we applied the "traditional" definition of what a felony is or should be, then losing the right to vote for commission of those crimes -- generally malum in se, rather than malum prohibtum -- and generally extremely serious crimes with mens rea of intent to commit the offense, etc. - we have a defined set of very serious circumstances which I have no serious quarrel with adding the loss of the right vote to the mix."
I addressed the demarcation between so-called serious crimes and others, suggesting that the existence of an arbitrary distinction does not in itself justify it's application as a cut-off for voting rights, while suggesting that systems which limit participation threaten both the security and the legitimacy of democracy.
There are very few distinctions in law that could not reasonably be made at some other point, or at no point at all. I haven't suggested that the distinction between serious felonies and misdemeanors must be the distinction, and that no other distinction or line could be drawn. I've suggested what I thought seemed reasonable under the circumstances.
I do dispute that the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum crimes is arbitrary - malum in se means that a thing is evil in and of itself (against the law because it is by its nature something any civil society would prohibit). Malum prohibitum is something that is illegal because the legislature says it's illegal, not because there is something inherently wrong with the act. Murder is malum in se. Barbering hair without a license is malum prohibitum. Fraud is malum in se. Going 65 in a 55 zone is malum prohibitum. To suggest a dividing line for heightened punishment based on roughly that distinction is not "arbitrary."
In any case, this is a two part conversation, actually - we're discussing what rationales have been advanced in favor of limiting the voting rights of felons (which is a different question from what your or my view on what is an appropriate rule or law to have in this circumstance and why we think that). And, of course, we're also discussing what you and I both think is an appropriate law.
Of the options, one would be "felons never lose the right to vote, even if they are in jail at the time and they can always cast a write-in vote from prison." Do you think that should be the rule? If so, why? If not, why not? Would you have some felons lose the right, but not others? Would you have all felons lose the right but have it restored upon release? Upon expiration of probation or parole? Would you have some felons lose the right (which ones?) and have it restored upon release/parole/probation completion? Why?
I am not positive or clear what position on this issue you are espousing, so if you can clarify, that might be helpful. I suspect that your and my view on it does not differ too greatly.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar