|
Post by bc2ca on Apr 30, 2019 8:16:04 GMT
You can doubt it all you want, but feeling connected to society has shown to be beneficial to inmates and their success in reintegrating. Having a voice through being able to vote is a reason to become/stay connected. Incentivizing the general population to vote is a whole other discussion. Low voter rates is not a reason to block inmates from voting or expect them to have a higher voting rate than the nonincarcerated population. We are just going to look at this differently. It happens. You aren’t changing my mind and I’m not changing yours so we move on. Funny thing is I didn't really think I'd support Bernie on this idea until I started researching it. I was surprised to see Vermont and Maine have never disenfranchised inmates. Given that Bernie is represents Vermont, it isn't a surprise or outrageous stance as you represented in your OP.
|
|
PrettyInPeank
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,691
Jun 25, 2014 21:31:58 GMT
|
Post by PrettyInPeank on Apr 30, 2019 10:10:39 GMT
So I decided to research human rights, to see if it encompassed political rights. According to the UN, it does. So assuming prisoners should only lose rights that contradict being imprisoned (freedom to assemble or attend public events would be contradictory, or for Americans, also bearing arms) then they should be allowed to vote regardless wouldn't they? Am I misinterpreting it? Wouldn't stripping them of their right to vote be for arbitrary reasons then, since it doesn't contradict or impinge on their sentence in any way? UN International Human Rights: Economic, social and cultural rights The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976. The human rights that the Covenant seeks to promote and protect include: the right to work in just and favourable conditions; the right to social protection, to an adequate standard of living and to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental well-being; the right to education and the enjoyment of benefits of cultural freedom and scientific progress. Civil and political rights The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its First Optional Protocol entered into force in 1976. The Second Optional Protocol was adopted in 1989. The Covenant deals with such rights as freedom of movement; equality before the law; the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; peaceful assembly; freedom of association; participation in public affairs and elections; and protection of minority rights. It prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; slavery and forced labour; arbitrary arrest or detention; arbitrary interference with privacy; war propaganda; discrimination; and advocacy of racial or religious hatred. Source: www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/
|
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879
Aug 16, 2014 17:52:53 GMT
|
Post by likescarrots on Apr 30, 2019 12:56:58 GMT
Due to the racial disparities in incarceration rates, I feel that allowing those in prison to vote is one step on the path to criminal justice reform, so I voted yes. If I’m not mistaken, this is one of the reasons Bernie is bringing up the issue in his campaign. So...a rapist should have a voice in laws regarding women and women’s bodies? No. No they should not. do you honestly think that's not already happening? Statistically, only 6 out of every 1000 rapes result in jail time. Most survivors don't even report their rapists, let alone see Justice in the form of incarceration.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 30, 2019 13:10:23 GMT
So...a rapist should have a voice in laws regarding women and women’s bodies? No. No they should not. do you honestly think that's not already happening? Statistically, only 6 out of every 1000 rapes result in jail time. Most survivors don't even report their rapists, let alone see Justice in the form of incarceration. Not to mention all the tax cheats and frauds who have a vote in our financial affairs and tax laws.
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Apr 30, 2019 13:28:31 GMT
I think it's an interesting question. I do not believe they should, but I think it's outrageous that when they have done their time they still don't get to vote. Outrageous.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 17:41:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2019 13:33:18 GMT
We are just going to look at this differently. It happens. You aren’t changing my mind and I’m not changing yours so we move on. Funny thing is I didn't really think I'd support Bernie on this idea until I started researching it. I was surprised to see Vermont and Maine have never didn't disenfranchised inmates. Given that Bernie is represents Vermont, it isn't a surprise or outrageous stance as you represented in your OP. Research is a good thing. Thanks to the peas who kept going on how bad Hillary was, I finally took the time to learn more about her and while I was always going to vote for her, I found I also came to admire her as well. Regardless of what Maine and Vermont are doing, I still think Sanders is pandering by trying to standout in a crowded, talented young field of candidates. Because if he really felt this was a good idea he would have been talking about it for years. I mean he is already branded as a socialist so this idea of allowing inmates to vote is minor blip compared to the socialist label.
|
|
|
Post by withapea on Apr 30, 2019 14:12:39 GMT
While we have a for profit prison system and there's money being made on those that are incarcerated I feel more apt to side with letting them vote. It's an issue where I definitely see validity in various takes but the more I find out about the way our justice system works, the less faith I have in it. At this point it's not something that I have enough strong feelings or education about to come down hard anywhere, It's an interesting question for sure.
|
|
|
Post by guzismom on Apr 30, 2019 14:41:33 GMT
While I consider myself to be 'liberal' in my politics, in my opinion this goes too far. As some have said, once you've paid your debt to society then you should be free to vote (including felons); however, while in prison you lose your liberty, including your liberty to vote. Only basic human rights exist while in prison: access to food, water, shelter, healthcare, education.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 30, 2019 15:45:06 GMT
do you honestly think that's not already happening? Statistically, only 6 out of every 1000 rapes result in jail time. Most survivors don't even report their rapists, let alone see Justice in the form of incarceration. Not to mention all the tax cheats and frauds who have a vote in our financial affairs and tax laws. You're right, I guess because it's happening already we should just go ahead and allow it for all incarcerated criminals. [/sarcasm]
|
|
|
Post by shevy on Apr 30, 2019 16:03:02 GMT
My guess is that if you offered voting for state sentenced prisoners, not many would vote. If they did vote, my guess is that more than half would be voting as the gang/protector told them to vote.
In MN, there are certain offenses that you lose your right to vote for the rest of your life. I don't think that's fair.
I have very few clients who express a regret that they cannot vote. The few that do express it, are a section of offenders who committed an offense that was a one of a kind thing and the remaining areas of life are really positive for them. But they come through very rarely.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 30, 2019 16:05:16 GMT
do you honestly think that's not already happening? Statistically, only 6 out of every 1000 rapes result in jail time. Most survivors don't even report their rapists, let alone see Justice in the form of incarceration. Not to mention all the tax cheats and frauds who have a vote in our financial affairs and tax laws. You're right, I guess because it's happening already we should just go ahead and allow it for all incarcerated criminals. [/sarcasm] I don't think either of us said that. Not all issues are black and white.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,790
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Apr 30, 2019 16:14:20 GMT
You're right, I guess because it's happening already we should just go ahead and allow it for all incarcerated criminals. [/sarcasm] I don't think either of us said that. Not all issues are black and white. And a lot is, so to speak. People of color and the poor are very much more likely to end up in prison for the same things that white and wealthy go free. And then lose their right to vote on things that could help correct the inequities.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Apr 30, 2019 17:59:06 GMT
I'm actually shocked by how few people answered either "yes" version. I voted yes because I believe the majority of prisoners shouldn't be in there in the first place and it is terribly racially biased. It is a way of suppressing the minority vote. The US has a ridiculous number of people in prison, so many for drug "offences." Our entire prison system is a disgrace. That's why I voted yes. Prison should be for violent offenders only, IMO. The truly dangerous. This
|
|
|
Post by Amelia Bedelia on Apr 30, 2019 18:17:05 GMT
My guess is that if you offered voting for state sentenced prisoners, not many would vote. If they did vote, my guess is that more than half would be voting as the gang/protector told them to vote. In MN, there are certain offenses that you lose your right to vote for the rest of your life. I don't think that's fair. I have very few clients who express a regret that they cannot vote. The few that do express it, are a section of offenders who committed an offense that was a one of a kind thing and the remaining areas of life are really positive for them. But they come through very rarely. For me it’s not even about if they will vote or not, although some groups want to make it as difficult as possible for others to vote. Voting should be easy, and all the steps to vote should be easy, to encourage participation. For me it’s about taking away the right. I’m a SAHM mom. It’s my choice not to work outside the home. It doesn’t mean I should have the choice taken away just because I didn’t become a doctor or engineer after a lot of brave women paved the way for me to do so. If some people want to vote, it’s worth ensuring that group’s right to vote even if not everyone in that group exercises that right.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Apr 30, 2019 18:24:08 GMT
My guess is that if you offered voting for state sentenced prisoners, not many would vote. If they did vote, my guess is that more than half would be voting as the gang/protector told them to vote.This is why i voted no. i fear it may be too easy to influence a vote from a (excuse the pun) captive audience. need money in your account? vote for this candidate. part of a gang? well the gang is voting this way. have family or friends on the outside who would benefit if you voted this way? sure, why not.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 1, 2019 3:30:29 GMT
I'm actually shocked by how few people answered either "yes" version. I voted yes because I believe the majority of prisoners shouldn't be in there in the first place and it is terribly racially biased. It is a way of suppressing the minority vote. The US has a ridiculous number of people in prison, so many for drug "offences." Our entire prison system is a disgrace. That's why I voted yes. Prison should be for violent offenders only, IMO. The truly dangerous.I do not think this position is well thought out. Violent offenders only? So you don’t think Bernie Madoff needs to be in prison? Con artists who scam elderly people out of their life savings? Extortionists? Embezzlers? Burglars? Non-violent drug dealers? Those who abuse the trust put in them and sell national secrets to foreign governments? These people aren’t dangerous enough to suit you? How about the guys deemed responsible for the Ghost Ship fire in Oakland in 2016? They were not violent, but their negligence caused dozens of deaths. They are currently awaiting trial and face possible life imprisonment. Do you have a problem with their receiving prison terms? Please be able to explain your opinion to my friend who lost her son in the fire. There are a whole bunch of non-violent offenders who are still huge dangers to society. I hope you will rethink your position.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on May 1, 2019 12:43:27 GMT
Ok, I’ll bite. How does letting people in jail vote constitute prison reform? What does one hope to accomplish by letting people in jail vote? I’m just not seeing it. So for example, California uses prisoners to fight forest fires. They pay the prisoners $2/day plus $1/hour that they are fighting active fires. They are trained the same way paid firefighters are trained, but when they get out of prison, there is little to no chance they will get a job as a firefighter because of their criminal record. If these prisoners could vote, I'd be willing to bet they'd put their vote behind a candidate that believes they should be paid at the very least the minimum wage for risking their lives for their state and their citizens, so that they will have money saved when they have completed their sentences. And maybe that candidate would also consider fixing the system that denies them a job they are legitimately trained for and have practiced when they get out, you know, so there's less of a chance that they end up back in prison. This is just one of a ton of examples of how allowing prisoners to vote could actually benefit the whole of society. I'll agree to paying them more if they pay for their room and board.
|
|
quiltedbrain
Full Member
Posts: 429
Jun 26, 2014 3:34:53 GMT
|
Post by quiltedbrain on May 1, 2019 15:15:40 GMT
I see our current prison system in the same light as our current educational system...we are asking those systems to solve too many problems while not addressing the core problems of racism and poverty that show up on their doorsteps.
Giving prisoners their right to vote back is a tiny step toward addressing some of the real problems.
Additionally, I'm not comfortable with the idea of taking away any adult person's right to vote.
|
|
zella
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,884
Jul 7, 2014 19:36:30 GMT
|
Post by zella on May 1, 2019 22:04:38 GMT
I'm actually shocked by how few people answered either "yes" version. I voted yes because I believe the majority of prisoners shouldn't be in there in the first place and it is terribly racially biased. It is a way of suppressing the minority vote. The US has a ridiculous number of people in prison, so many for drug "offences." Our entire prison system is a disgrace. That's why I voted yes. Prison should be for violent offenders only, IMO. The truly dangerous.I do not think this position is well thought out. Violent offenders only? So you don’t think Bernie Madoff needs to be in prison? Con artists who scam elderly people out of their life savings? Extortionists? Embezzlers? Burglars? Non-violent drug dealers? Those who abuse the trust put in them and sell national secrets to foreign governments? These people aren’t dangerous enough to suit you? How about the guys deemed responsible for the Ghost Ship fire in Oakland in 2016? They were not violent, but their negligence caused dozens of deaths. They are currently awaiting trial and face possible life imprisonment. Do you have a problem with their receiving prison terms? Please be able to explain your opinion to my friend who lost her son in the fire. There are a whole bunch of non-violent offenders who are still huge dangers to society. I hope you will rethink your position. I'm not sure prison is the answer for these people. I'd rather they were doing something worthwhile for society. Using their aiblities in some way. No, I don't think that they should be let off. But I don't see the point in people just sitting around in prison doing nothing, either. I'd like them to have to do something constructive. And yes, that might be in a prison; obviously many of these people shouldn't be allowed to be free. But not the way prisons work here in the US. Nothing good comes of that. I'd like to see Madoff have to serve the people he screwed over, as an example. There are other prison systems in the world that look nothing like the US one. And I think prisons for profit is fundamentally wrong. There shouldn't be more people in prison in the US per capita than any other nation. What a waste. So I should have clarified my comment. I certainly don't think the people you mentioned above should be "free." But can we not do better than just locking people up and treating them like animals in a zoo? I think we can and should. It's very easy to feel this way when you're not the victim, I know. But even thinking of the guy who broke into our house, then broke down the door into our bathroom where my daughter was hiding, and who stole some things of great sentimental value from us. . . he'll be out of prison soon, if he's not already, and he'll re-offend because that's the way it works here. I'm glad he was caught. I felt safer knowing he couldn't re-offend for a couple of years. But for so many prison is just a revolving door. And yes, I agree with you, there are non-violent offenders who are a huge threat to society. One of them's in the Oval Office. Hah!
|
|