Should felons be able to vote?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I am not entirely certain what the federal laws are on this subject, but I know that at least on the state levels in general you are not allowed to vote if you are a convicted felon. I have heard it said that “You dont want criminals writing the laws”, but is this really true? Isn’t it the case that those with a stake in the laws ought to be the ones with influence over them?

Or is this more a perception issue, of “felons are bad people and immoral” and therefore society has the duty to exclude these “degererates” from participating in the democratic process. . . . but wouldnt this imply that our rights are subject to a sort of relativistic authority? If the mere perception that “someone is bad” is sufficient to take away their rights, isnt this the antithesis of the concept of blind equal justice and habeas corpus? Or is there a direct connection between merely “being a felon” and the right to vote? If so, what is the nature of this connection? I personally see no such direct link.

Are the prohibitions on felon voting analogous to past laws prohibiting blacks, women or non-land owners from voting? Or is there a fundamental difference between these types of laws, which renders some significance or justification to the idea that a felon, being as they assumedly had some choice in their becoming a felon, have willfully given away their right to vote?

The argument that everyone should be able to vote does not hold water, because we do not let children vote, and we do not let the significantly mentally impaired or senile vote, nor do I think most rational people would disagree with these types of restrictions on voting. . . . it seems that there ought to be some system in place to allow for those individuals who can be reasonably deemed unable to understand the issues being voted on from voting. But do felons count among these number?

Should the mere fact that you were found guilty of a crime, say drug possession or theft, render you unfit to be a participating member in the democratic process? Should you have no representation? Being an adult and of sufficient mental capacity to even be found guilty of a felony seems to imply that you do have the mental free-will and capacity for rational judgment required to be a voter (even if you have past mistakes or instances where you did not exercise this capacity for rational judgment fully, this seems not to necessarily mean you ought not be able to vote - we all have made such mistakes, it is an issue of degree and of “getting caught” in many cases).

So felons by definition of being found guilty do possess the capacity for free and rational judgment, else they could not be found guilty in the first place. Therefore it seems more an issue of morality. Is there an instinctive repulsion to the idea that criminals are in a sense “writing the laws”, even if indirectly? We would not let a felon run for public office, so is there some merit to the idea that felons should not be involved in determining who is electedto public office? Or are the prohibitions against felon voting unreasonable and harmful to the democratic process and the freedom and individual rights that we all desire?

Should the fundamental right to vote be among those rights which is properly forfeited when you “choose” to commit a felony crime? If so, why?

2

I can’t really field too many of the questions because I agree with you. Naturally, I do not think that they should be able to vote while in prison, but once they have done their time or got parole, whichever the case, I think they should be permitted to vote again.

I also think that felons should be allowed to run for certain public offices, but should never be allowed to be police officers or anything of that nature. Whatever the case, I do think that it is patently unfair that they are not allowed to vote because they have the most first-hand knowledge of certain political issues, such as what kind of treatment do/should inmates receive when they are incarcerated. In addition to that, I’m sure that they can offer a unique and otherwise unattainable (or difficult to attain) viewpoint on many other issues as well.

3

What is the reason why they should not be able to vote while in prison, given that you think they should be able to vote once they have served their time?

4

I can’t see how the ability to vote would generally affect them while they are in prison, but I do know that many people in prison that still have financial influence on the outside could potentially finance the campaign of (and vote for) Governors and other people that could give them pardons. Of course, some States have voting on the State Supreme Court Justices (such as West Virginia) and others still vote on Appellate Court Judges, and it is often the case that criminals may have appeals and could use their vote (but mostly their money) to influence a Judge in that regard.

The same concept could be true when it comes to the election of local Judges, if an individual is incarcerated but had an appeal granted and remanded to the lower courts for a re-trial. That person is still a felon and remains incarcerated until the re-trial takes place, at least in most cases.

Aside from that, there are also local votes on levies and things of that nature, and to ensure a fair vote I would not want them voting because most levies are directed at property owners and not only do the majority of incarcerated felons not own any property, but they do not have the ability to attain ownership of any property, so they have no reason to not want the vote to pass. This is especially the case when it comes to prison levies if additional funding is needed to maintain adequate staffing, of course they would vote no on that because then they could be expected to have the opportunity to get away with more stuff.

Finally, one thing that has not been explicitly mentioned is that a felon may not participate in a grand jury, and for obvious reasons, I would think that should continue to be so.

5

Agreed, but I do not see any problem with this (except of course I object to the use of private moneys to influence the judicial process, whether by criminals or non-criminals).

And it does not seem to matter much to me whether or not we think they might be “generally affected” by any issues to be voted on - that seems a question that only the individual can answer. And certainly we can vote on issues that possibly do not impact us, and ought to be able to do so. . . the primary deciding factor for whether or not you may vote seems to be jurisdiction, whether or not you reside within the locale where such laws/persons to be voted on will be in effect. This proximity seems the most important thing, and not whether or not we think someone might be affected by the specific laws or persons to be voted upon.

But once again is this not a prime example of personal interest? If the idea of voting is to subject the rules of a system to those who are themselves subjected to that system, it seems logical that incarcerated individuals should vote for the judges who decide such matters of incarceration.

But owning property is not a requirement for voting on property tax laws, nor should it be. So why is this then used only against felons - are you saying that no one should be able to vote on property tax levies unless that person owns property? I see no reason to assume that incarcerated felons “do not have the ability to attain ownership of any property”. This seems unfairly prejudicial, even if in general it might be the case (perhaps certain minorities are less likely to own property than whites, does this mean they ought to be deemed " do not have the ability to attain ownership of any property"? Surely not.

Perhaps if a person is incarcerated for life without parole, but even so, once again, the non-ownership of property does not seem to be an excluding factor for being able to vote on property tax levies.

Once again, is this not a prime example of personal investment in the laws in question? If we are to exclude people from voting merely on the basis that they have a personal interest in what those laws are, doesnt this do away with the entire philosophical basis of all voting?

And on the flip side of your example, I can see incarcerated individuals voting for more prison funding as well, because it might afford them more luxuries or comforts (better medical, etc), and also because more staff might provide for a more secure and safe environment, which I am sure many prisoners would desire (those probably majority of prisoners who are not on the top of the power hierarchies, and are thus subject to abuse and harassment by other inmates).

Yes, this brings it back to the issue of morality. We deem criminals immoral, and hence do not want them participating in the administrative aspects of the legal system - but is this really a legitimate reason to exclude them? Does being found guilty of a crime make one immoral? Or does it make a person any less able to effectively and impartially evaluate a court case as a juror?

6

It is a great method for disenfranchising portions of the population whose lifestyles have been made illegal.

Theoretically, America doesn’t have political prisoners but we do have a larger prison population than China. Not per capita, mind you, total.

That should tell you something about how the system works.

Should felons be able to vote? Well, if we do that then much of our political order starts to crumble because a major mechanism of oppression has been removed.

What is the goal here?

7

Yes, the “school-to-prison pipeline” as one clear example of this. The “war on drugs” as another.

Yes, it does. I would refer to Foucault’s writings on the prison system and on “rehabilitation” in this respect.

If there are some 5 million or so incarcerated individuals in America, this would represent a significant voting block. But personally I see the reason against allowing felons to vote as more of a moral presumption on the part of society. Of course I am sure that both reasons are at work.

8

I think the moral presumption of society is being taken advantage of to further political ends. As you said, 5 million people is a significant voting population.

9

That’s the very reason that jurisdiction is even a question. For instance, if I live in Ohio, should I be able to vote on a local school levy for Sacramento, California? Unless, the median standard of living in a locale is horrible, I would vote yes on virtually every school levy, except for those which are for patently ridiculous reasons.

Anyway, it’s not because I live in Saint Clairsville, Ohio that I cannot vote on a Sacramento local issue, well, it is indirectly, but the real reason is because the Sacramento California city schools have absolutely no effect (at least, directly) on me so nobody there would want me to have a say as to whether or not businesses or property owners get hit with a levy!

That’s also why you have some Religious states where Religion seems to play a big factor in the laws that they pass or do not pass, the Religion affects their moral code (at least, outwardly) so the birds of a feather flock together to a common area where they can enact their wills’ on many matters.

Absolutely not, because a Judge must be recused in a case where the reasonable perception of bias, regardless of whether or not there is any actual personal bias, is too much to ensure that the Judge holds the balance fair, nice and true. There are many Supreme Court and Federal District Courts cases in which this standard has been shown, but it would take some research for me to list some of them. If you wish for me too, though, I will, I’ve read them.

There was a case against Massey coal company where the result was Brent Benjamin getting elected to the West Virginia State Supreme Court so that he could rule favorably on a decision that was appealed by Massey where the local courts awarded an adverse party a great sum of money. Massey bought that election. In any case, it ended up going to the U.S. Supreme Court who upheld the lower courts original ruling.

The donation of money obviously gives cause for bias, but can a vote give cause for bias? Maybe not, but what if the guy doing the voting who is going back to court is a higher up in the Aryan Brotherhood and can therefore sway many people to vote for the Judge in question? Would 100 votes be too much of a perception of bias to be ignored if those 100 were orchestrated? 1000 votes?

Either way, Judge’s would end up being recused or recusing themselves left and right.

Like I said, the felon has no short-term prospect or potential of owning property. I do not believe that (once a felon) an individual can even obtain new property, or have it willed to him. If it is willed to him, even then (in most states, maybe not all) it goes to a trustee of the State until the felon is released.

This is kind of like an unformalized version of the Judge example.

That’s a valid point, but of course, it comprises a significant minority of things that are actually on the ballot.

Here’s the thing, anybody can be eliminated from a jury pool by the Attorneys and this is the formalized process of jury selection which is seen in virtually every trial by jury. Therefore, if someone is being questioned about their potential to be a juror and they say, “I fucking hate the police, I will acquit this guy regardless of the facts of the case,” the prosecutor is going to have that person out of the courtroom before they so much as finish the sentence. By formally not allowing felons to participate in the jury, all you are doing is taking an action of efficiency insofar as the Judge or Prosecuting Attorney is going to take that action anyway.

That and regardless of morality or a lack thereof, some felons may simply believe that certain things should not be crimes and might acquit on that basis and not on the basis of whether or not the person actually committed the action in question. Of course, anyone else can do that as well, but jury selection would typically weed that person out as well.

10

Good points Pav. I tend to agree with you somewhat, although I have reservations about prohibiting incarcerated individuals from voting at all. I think perhaps in certain cases it makes sense, but overall it would seem that those jailed ought to still have access to the democratic system, if truly our society were a free and civilized one. In terms of felons, this might be slightly different, but would depend on the crime itself. There seems a fundamental difference in types of crimes committed, and likely this difference should be reflected in voter prohibitions for these felons. And as far as any criminal who has served his/her time and is now out of jail, they should in every and all cases be able to vote. If you served your time then you paid your “debt to society” and deserve a “clean start” as a normal citizen - that is my personal opinion.

Prohibiting past convicted felons who are now out of jail from voting is cruel and undemocratic, and I think reflects the fact that these sorts of prohibitions are seated in moralism rather than reason and fairness. Your arguments on prohibiting incarcerated individuals from voting make sense, although I see them as grounds for a selective and reasonable system of restriction rather than an overall sweeping prohibition on any and every incarcerated individual, but nonetheless once an individual is out of jail and back out in society he/she deserved the basic human right to participate in the democractic process. Anyone subjected to the laws of a society should have the basic right to have input into those laws, of course with exceptions for those mentally unable to understand such laws that they are subject to (but in many cases, these individuals are in fact not subject to laws in the same manner we are anyways).

Prohibiting inmates from voting in some cases makes sense, as long as we reasonably ground this prohibition rather than making broad moralistic statements that blindly cover everyone without examining specific cases or situations - but prohibiting any free individual, criminal past or otherwise, from voting in his/her respective districts and jurisdictions is a fraud, undemocratic and a crime against a free society. To remove someone’s ability to vote is perhaps the most fundamentally undemocratic, tyrannical thing that can be done to a person by their government (in theory of course, in practice there are probably many, many more harms that we are subject to), and so this prohibition ought to be used only when it can clearly be shown to be beneficial and necessary.

So in general, felons I think should be able to vote, assuming they have served their time and are back out living in society. And also, inmates probably should be able to vote on issues like Presidential elections or state Senator/Representative elections also, as they are still subject to the policies that these individuals stand for. Just because a criminal has a clear incentive to vote for more anarchist or progressive policies over conservative or authoritarian ones does not mean they ought to necessarily lose their right to vote - it is this personal investment in the laws which we are subject to that generates the imperative for a right to vote in the first place.

11

I am thinking of the cost to get voting safely into prisons, it would be prohibitive. Then allowing those exfelons vote the paper work alone would choke. The cost to figure who can and who can’t do this would be more than taxpayers would willingly cough up. At least IMO. I would have no problems with felons or exfelons voting or exfelons holding offices even. I just don’t want to go through the cost of changing everything for such a small percentage of people who made a decision to break the laws of the lands. Those that follow the laws would be the ones to shoulder the expense… somehow that does not sit right. Its like punishing a whole group of people for what one person did. No thanks, that works for the military but, that psychology won’t work outside that type of establishment.

12

I don’t know about that. It costing extra helps the prison-industrial complex and they have very strong lobbying powers.

13

Sure at our expense. As always ](*,)

14

Well, even the 14th Amendment doesn’t allow as how felons voting or not is anything more than a state’s rights issue. So all you “blue” states that want to try to legalize 'em, go ahead and build up even further the implosion coming in November.

15

Kris,

I see no reason why implementing a prison voting system would be prohibitively expensive, especially considering the outrageous costs of incarceration as it is - whats a bit more to get a system in place where any inmate who wishes to vote may do so? It could be set up any number of ways. Considering how absurdly expensive our political process and institutions already are, some additional cost ought not to in itself exclude people from getting access to their basic human rights, if indeed we determine that inmates do have such a right to vote (I believe, at the least, that there ought to be selective rights in this regard, if not necessarily sweeping ones which apply across all individuals and cases).

Do you have some evidence or have you read anything suggesting that the cost of inmate voting would be truly prohibitive? And considering there are over 5 million incarcerated individuals in the US, this is not just some small minority of individuals here and there, but a very large voting block, a large segment of individuals who have no participation in the democratic process. . . if your reasons for excluding them are as you say “they made a choice to break the law, etc etc” then this is moralising, and as I stated earlier, I think this is not a reasonable or just basis for violating a basic human right of a free and civilized society.

TPT,

That has nothing to do with my discussion here. Please keep your conservative political propaganda out of this topic, thank you. Of course if you have something to add to this topic, conversative perspective or otherwise, that is more than welcome.

16

Past history and government spending is all the proof I have. $500 hammers $800 toilet seats etcetc. Then the Government will have to of course hire several commisions to set about plans to do it, then commisions to figure out the costs, then commisions to begin implementations, then of course set about putting jobs out for bids and etcetcetc. Oh then of course you have to put it to a vote of which we will have no part of. So this will go back and forth and back and forth costing more money. By the time it gets done in all the prisons in the US we are talking billions of dollars. Serious just look at how they do things. Sure it should not cost that much but, when our Government signs a check for $500 for a $4 retail hammer how can you honestly think it would be cheap to set up voting in prisons across this country. You have male and female federal prisons, county prisons, state prisons, City jails, military prisons. If its done at one it would have to be done at all of them. Each with their own security issues.

Dude, we can’t even get our Government to agree on how to bring down the cost of healthcare or stop increasing the deficit, what should be simple and inexpensive is turned into a big puddle of cost overruns and debt due to partisianship or oneupsmanship or the left hand is stabbing the right hand in its back. The only solution is to take all politicians out behind the whitehouse whip them with a cat-o-nine tails then not pay them til they fix things. Don’t hold your breath we both know nothing like that will happen unfortunately. :unamused:

17

So we’ve got this black hole of countless waste and incompetence for a system of political institutions, I agree - yet how does this mean that the extra cost of a few tables with sheets of paper on them and several armed guards standing nearby in any way changes or makes the already bad situation fundamentally worse?

Adding a simple system for inmate voting, a couple folding tables with voter cards on them, a few guards, and a ‘prison election facilitator’ position to watch the process and, when inmates have all voted if they liked, collect the voter cards and drive them to the election office, is a completely marginal cost compared to the abject waste and fraud already in our system. There is no reason why a process for inmate voting ought to add any substantial or significant cost to our already wasteful and bloated political systems.

18

I agree, but, you know and I know its not going to go that way, really seriously you know this right? If they had to get out of a wet paper sack they would buy a five trillion dollar laser to cut that paper sack and then spend a couple million to hire a team to run it, then spend another billion storing it and protecting it till the time they may need it to get out of another wet paper sack. It will only be used for wet paper sacks, only, period, because thats what the money was allotted for. :unamused:

19

Expense isn’t the crucial factor here.

But being “tough on crime” is. What politician could arrange such a thing without the opposition accusing him of such a stance?

What does “tough on crime” really mean anyway.

Oh, wait . . .

20

:laughing: You got me. One would think stopping crime before it happens is being tough on crime.