Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:59 pm
I'm addressing the point quoted below...
"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, and loss of the right to vote would part of the sentence."
One might argue that committing any crime (or, more practically, being convicted of any criminal offence) in some way compromises the contract between the community and the individual.
Sure, but there are degrees. I don't think speeding is the same thing as murder, nor would I want the rule to be that people who get speeding tickets lose their right to vote, but murderers, rapists, Ponzi schemers who bilk retirees out of millions.... not so sure that losing their right to vote is the same thing as punishing someone unfairly for a "mistake" they made in their salad days.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:59 pm
The consequences of a criminal conviction are invariably punitive, and generally speaking proportional to the seriousness or severity of the offence. But if severity of offence is to act as a determinant in judgements as to the 'trustworthiness' of an individual, and consequently impact their ability to take part in electoral processes, then certain questions arise: What level of trust must society have in any individual in order to ensure their vote is legitimate; what is the nature of that 'trust' and what exactly is society 'entrusting' voting citizens with, and; where does the demarcation between the trustworthy and the untrustworthy citizen reside, such that society might legitimately endorse or withhold any individual's ability to participate in democracy?
There are lot of potential answers to that question. The best I can say about what my view of it is -- is that that if 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.
However, I have no serious quarrel with allowing them to vote either after their criminal sentence is served. I don't really think that we need to be catering to prison inmates, though, and perp-walking them to the voting booths or setting up prison voting booths.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:59 pm
I'd suggest that the foundation of our modern democratic systems is participation, not trust. History and common sense tell us that the wider or broader the level of participation the more secure or robust our democratic institutions become.
I don't know that this is true - what history are you referring to. I think common sense tells us that participation by those who care and are informed (hopefully a broad section of the populace cares and is informed, but if not, random votes by those who have little to no understanding of issues and events would not, applying common sense, seem to add anything good to the mix.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:59 pm
This is because, through our participation, our leaders and representatives are kept in-check and forced to conform to the common will--as Rousseau put it--to consider our interests as a higher priority than their own. Indeed, rights of Suffrage were so hard fought for by so many, and so trenchantly resisted by others, for this very reason.
Well, sure, the right to vote should not be taken away because some people are thought stupid, uninformed, or ill-suited to democracy. But, that, to me, is different from someone forfeiting their right to vote because they commit extremely serious crimes.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:59 pm
Now we're asked to consider if the permanent dis-enfranchisement of a broad section of the community, which is to say, limiting participation rather than extending it, is a more desirable prospect because we cannot 'trust' a certain category of individual. And yet, all we are entrusting the previously convicted with is that they make a decision on their own behalf on the same grounds as everybody else - on the basis of their personal belief systems, ideologies, and policy preferences etc.
I don't think we're being asked to consider that at all. In almost all of the US, there is no such "permanent" disenfranchisement. Overwhelmingly, state-by-state, the rule is that while serving their sentence, and sometimes through probation and parole, there is disenfranchisement, but then once that's all served and done, the right comes back either automatically, or in a handful of states through petition filed by the convicted person. The John Oliver nonsense implies, very strongly, that the rule in the US is that felons never get to vote again. That's not true, not even close.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:59 pm
This trustworthiness argument seems bogus to me - or at the very least a red herring. It casts democracy as an exercise in trust rather than a participatory process, and suggests that it's not the untrustworthiness of someone with a criminal conviction per se which is really in question here but more that some think that they cannot be trusted to vote for the right candidate and/or for the right reasons - particularly because we wouldn't think of applying such 'trustworthiness' conditions to any non-criminal individual, no matter how ill-considered, ill-conceived, or odious their personal views may be or how untrustworthy they actually were. This renders the dis-enfranchise argument arbitrary.
As mentioned, the consequences of criminal conviction are punitive and applied by law and by degrees, but even when a sentence has been served, and all probationary conditions met, exclusionary systems place people who have paid their debt to society at the fringes of that society - it leaves them with no say in how that society, their society, might operate: it renders them democratically voiceless.
In which states does this happen?
By your logic, why not make it so even convicts on death row get to vote?
I guess why not, indeed?
At bottom, I'm not strongly wedded to any position on this issue. It's a public policy issue to be decided by the voters in each State (or country). The US has been described as the most punitive in this regard. However, the wikipedia article on the topic (while saying the US is the most punitive) notes that very few states extend any voting disenfranchisement beyond completion of parole/probation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:59 pm
In this regard, while we might regard the committing of a criminal act compromising to the social contract between the community and the individual, permanently excluding someone who has paid their social debts from democratic participation not only breaks that contract as well, but it ensures that it remains forever broken, and by that it systematically forecloses on the possibility of full rehabilitation and reintegration and on the individual assuming their full role as a citizen. Essentially, it criminalizes democratic participation.
Well, it doesn't seem as if the general rule in the US is permanent disenfranchisement. For most, the loss of the right ends when prison/parole/probation end. Sounds fair. The few states that go beyond that, typically it's based on specified circumstances of the crimes committed, and they will allow the right to be restored by petition.
I really think that a John Oliver rant on this was a bit misplaced, and overblown.
I think your position is very fair on this - a case can be made even beyond what you're saying - let them vote even while on prison, on death row for child rape and murder, or on work release from federal prison - whatever - but, to suggest that the US has some rule that forever bans any felon from voting is inaccurate. The vast vast majority of felons get their right to vote back after they finish their probation.
“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