Should felons be able to vote?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

It is a very good point that our society is intended to be free and civilized, but felons certainly are not free and many of them are not free because they are not civilized. It’s a matter of balancing freedom with civility, you can’t really have both because if you could, there would be no need to have any prohibitive laws in the first place. As with most political ideals, it is about first determining where you want the balance to be, and then taking the action necessary to strike that balance.

I agree with you completely that all felons who are incarcerated and have served their time should be allowed to vote again. I suppose a case could be made that felons who are out on probation should not be allowed to vote because they are still (technically) serving their sentences, but even then, that any felon who is completely free of the penal and legal system should have his/her rights reinstated to the fullest extent there is no question in my mind.

Agree on all points.

I don’t know that I necessarily agree with that. My opinion on this matter is based more in Crimes and Sanctions than anything moralistic. Simply put, I think that an incarcerated individual has been removed from society (for a time, or in some cases life) and is no longer a member of that society. Society itself has declared that anyone convicted of action x will be removed from society for a period of time not to exceed y months/years with a minimum of z months/years. In my reasoning, then, the incarcerated individual should not be allowed to vote not because of the crime he/she may have committed, but because he/she is no longer considered a part of society during the time in which he/she is incarcerated.

I guess that I don’t take so much issue with the ability of inmates to vote in State/Federal elections in the Legislative or Executive Branches of Government. Of course, while I don’t see any reason to restrict their rights in that regard (except for the fact that they theoretically are not members of society) I really don’t see any cause to grant them such rights either.

22

I think the difference here is that I do not see incarcerated individuals as “removed from society”. I see them as serving a sentence, being incarcerated away from ‘normal’ society for the good of non-criminals. Yes I do see how this is probably splitting hairs, and inmates are of course not in ordinary society, and for good reason (assuming they represent an active danger to others, which is not the case with all inmates [e.g. many drug users, those who do not pay their taxes, etc]) . . . but in the end, I still consider them part of society. I do not think you become a non-citizen when you are convicted of a crime - you are still a member of that nation-state, you are a member of sociey, just one deemed to “have been bad” and therefore need to be “punished” for awhile.

In all seriousness our punitive systems are more focused on punishment in a moral sense rather than a reasonable need to keep society-at-large safe, and I disagree with this moralism. If our societies were able to run a punitive system without such moralising, without “blame” and “vengeance” being the primary motivators of the justice system, I would probably agree with you. In that case, inmates would only be inmates to the extent that they actually represent an active danger rather than simply having violated some rule or been deemed bad/immoral. Thus, those dangerous individuals ought to be removed from society, and thus as you say, could be properly viewed as “removed” and apart from society and thus without the right to participate in voting. I am not sure if I 100% agree with that view, but I consider it more rational and making more sense than the current view, which is (to summarize in many cases): “You were bad, you did x bad thing, so how you are not a member of society, and you cannot vote.”

Playing the blame game of moral attribution, and serving out sentences based on motives of revenge and retribution is rediculous, in my opinion. Our government’s have no business making such judgments upon us and taking revenge against us in that manner - the justice system ought to be used to determine harm, risk and to mitigate threats and (where necessary) instill reasonable monetary compensation. Those motives need not be based on morals or the desire for vengeance and retribution, but rather a rational need to keep society-at-large safe as well as to, when necessaey, compensate victims. So I suppose I disagree with the entire premise of our modern punitive systems, in a manner similar that Foucault writes about in his book on discipline and punishment. Nietzsche also writes about the social need for revenge against preceived “immoral individuals”, but while I agree with his formulation of social punishment, I disagree that we ought to settle for such a system. Anyways, those are extraneous issues to this topic probably. So in general I suppose we would agree if we both had the same take on the nature of our justice systems, but apparently we see the system in differing ways.

23

I don’t know, I think that we agree to a greater extent than you might realize. The question on the table was first whether felons should be allowed to vote and then the question was segmented to while incarcerated vs. when set free. Both of us are in complete agreement that they should be unconditionally allowed to vote when they are set free, though I have something of a semantic question as to whether or not they are actually, “Free,” when they are out on parole. Either way, whether or not someone should be allowed to vote if they are set free on parole is not even useful as a theoretical point of discussion unless it actuall comes up, as all it relates to is the semantics when it comes to the use of the word, “Free.”

Anyway, one point of contention here seems to be whether or not incarcerated individuals continue to be considered members of society, where I state that they do not. Your counter-argument to this seems to be that there are many individuals who are incarcerated SOLELY on the bases of blame and revenge and not so much to protect society from said individuals. Further, you contend that such individuals should still be considered part of society given the non-violent nature of their offenses which is the very reason they should not be incarcerated to begin with.

In this sense, I am also fully in agreement that there are certain crimes for which people are incarcerated where it should not be so, and there are certain crimes that I do not think should be crimes in the first place. It is for this reason that, given my overall view of things, these people would not be incarcerated to begin with and therefore would have their right to vote.

In fact, if we were to go through and make lists of what offenders should or should not be incarcerated or should or should not receive the death penalty, I imagine our lists would be pretty similar. Unless, of course, you’re 100% opposed to the death penalty (which you are not, if I remember correctly). In any case, I think that we are actually in total agreement that many individuals are incarcerated where they should not be (and would automatically be allowed to vote) while the individuals who are incarcerated and that should be incarcerated for the benefit of society should not be allowed to vote until such a time that they are released.

Is that about right?

24

Felon/criminal; one who has willfully, and with intent, stepped out of sovereign boundaries of the social contract for the express purpose of gaining advantage to the detriment of others.

Penalty; loss of rights of an individual who adheres to the social contract. Voting rights are one such privilege of adhering to the set boundaries.

Summarily, no. Technically, there is no reason to maintain felons. It is high time to start swinging those nooses, and getting some space between the top of the shoulder blades, and the bottom of the skull.

Public execution would work wonders for this country.

25

Yea, uuuuummm I don’t think I want to be responsible for hanging a thief or another petty criminal. Murderers yes, rapists yes, politicians yes.

26

Mostly. I am not a big fan of capital punishment. In fact if pressed on the issue I would probably come down on the side against ever using the death penalty. But that is another topic, and one I would need to think through more to find more exactly what I think on the matter - as it stands, I don’t really care much one way or the other, I just really don’t like the idea in general.

As for individuals incarcerated who should be incarcerated for the benefit of society, I think they should still be able to vote with exceptions where such voting would present a very clear and demonstrable conflict of interest or public danger (say, local judges, perhaps allocation of levies for prison construction, staffing, or property taxes), things of that nature. In general however I think that even the most violent, dangerous inmates should be able to vote for president, state senators, representatives, etc. I think the burden of proof to withdraw an inmate’s right to vote ought to be on the government, to show how such a removal of that right is justified.

On all other things you mentioned, I believe we agree.

27

Sounds good, I think it’s about as close as we are going to get, and it’s pretty darn close!

28

Mas’ hit the nail on the head in terms of why felons should not be allowed to vote, so I won’t comment on that.

What I wanted to comment on is a point raised by Xunxian.

Is not the fact that China have a low-swinging death penalty, at least a contributary reason if not a primary one, that china’s prison population is so low?
I am not saying they kill all of the potential prisoners. I am saying that a crime of middling consequence in the americanised countries, is punishable by death in China.
This fact acting as a greater detterent.

29

Have no fear Kriswest, I would do it, without remorse or regret.

I think two areas that need further consideration: not all murder is unjustified, and there should never be any such thing as “white collar criminal”.

I would give individuals like Madoff, a “special” departure from physical life.

30

Yes, it is, directly.

In China, the judicial system hasn’t, (as of yet), fallen into the trap that “criminals are just misguided people who deserve the same treatment as everyone else”. There hasn’t been, unless something has changed in the last decade, a system of vacillating or equivocation; and the Chinese people are very aware that the penalties are real, and rather swift.

Not that they don’t have their own judicial problems; executing anyone who is “deemed” an Enemy of the State; whether that entails spoken or written defamation of the Regime, or some other arbitrary determination. It tends towards the extremist end of “zero tolerance” in most cases. Of course, that is the noble history of the Chinese, they are, unforgivingly at times, decisive; especially where anything may come across as their showing weakness. A nation that is a testament and a monument to “national identity”.

31

I did the calculation a while ago. I don’t recall what the particular answer was, but even if we accept the most extreme estimate of Chinese executions per year, China would still need a few hundred years to catch up with the American population.

Think about that.

A totalitarian state, even if it wasn’t busy killing its own prisoners, would need a few hundred years to catch up with the United States – a supposedly free country.

If your point is that executions serve as a deterrent, the stats on that are actually pretty inconclusive. At least in America.

In China, less so. That argument could be made.

But in China, criminality is less, “Hey, you are a minority we don’t like so we’ll create a trumped-up charge to oppress you” and more “We are the fucking Party – what are you gonna do about it punk? Oh, that is right, nothing. Maybe you shouldn’t have said “Gang of Four” and then held up all five fingers. But it is too late for that, because I’m gonna put a bullet in your head.”

Granted, the particulars of the dialogue have changed somewhat but the substance has remained the same.

That isn’t to say that the CCP doesn’t oppress minorities because, oh boy, the Party fucking loves oppressing minorities. Instead of “Casual Fridays” every member of every politburo gets to kill a minority in cold blood. Not once, but every week. You know, because they can’t wear a hawaiian shirt.

It is actually something of a sore-point. See, that policy started because America is better at executing minorities.

And you know what? Despite their best efforts, America is still #1.

USA! USA! USA!

32

The Han Chinese
The White Pan-European

The perfect example of history tripping on it’s own feet to repeat itself.

My point about the death-penalty in both countries was that in America it applies for the upper end of the spectrum crimes, practically exclusively so. Whereas in China it’s for mid-range and above.

When you say this, what time period are you citing? Considering the youth of the current Chinese State, the most relevant time period to draw from would be starting 1960’s to current day for both nations, alongside current trends, using a per capita ratio. I would be very surprised if that time period showed America ahead of China and astounded if current trends show that America is ahead of China.

33

What!!! You don’t respect the intelligence it takes to pull off a white collar crime? I mean come on these folks have real brains behind them. Just think if it could be harnessed for the good of people. Why waste such talent?

34

By what right does anyone, even swallowed up in a mass of ‘society’, play executioner with another human life? Killing is brutality, nothing is ever solved by killing. Brutality only leads to more of the same. War, murder and vengeance represent the baser, animal nature of man, the kill or be killed, of which toxins and tortures our consciousness is seeking to rid itself. It has nothing to do with a “morality” or a decree against killing, as if some rule or social norm can supercede upon human affairs in anything other than a contrived and artificial manner. No, it links into who we are in a deeper way, into the more essential human.

To take life is wrong (harmful, destructive), not because it is “evil” or immoral but because it burns and destroys the killer, it is a poison of the soul. To willfully take life in this manner, a manner not of absolute, immediate and regrettable necessity but out of gloating pride, vengeance, desire, hatred, lust, or justice is to kill not another person, but yourself. It is the reversal and betrayal of the very life-essence within each of us.

However, this topic is not meant to be about the death penalty, or about the metaphysical nature of murder and war. Those would be great topics for another thread, however, if anyone wishes to start one.

35

You’re starting from a very bad assumption; that the “white collar criminal” was intellectually skillful. As opposed to a more appropriate starting premise of “sheep are too often in the illogical habit of trusting another, without proper disclosure and/or evidence.”

It goes back to one of those sayings, “never confuse lack of ability with talent or creativity.”

The title “white collar” is an equivocation on the nature of criminality; as if a business shirt and tie changes the fact that insidiousness, is about the person, not the suit they wear. It is an attempt to lessen severity and accountability by socio-economic stratification; and Justice, is blind.

Madoff isn’t “special” because he duped hundreds of sheep out of billions of their dollars. He’s a pathetic pussy; he used individuals lack of knowledge and lack of access to direct information as his weapons of injury. No, he’s no different from a rapist or pedophile; the exact same kind of coward. He should suffer long before he dies.