Wanna stack the Census in your city's favor? Count the prisoners!

[Admiral Yi]

Why shouldn't they? I don't really understand how being convicted means you are no longer a member of your society.

Because a person who has demonstrated they are not willing to obey the law of the land should not have a voice in setting that law.

[garbon]

Because a person who has demonstrated they are not willing to obey the law of the land should not have a voice in setting that law.

Except that, that's how you get laws to change...

[garbon]

Why aren't 16 year olds allowed to vote then? If all mentally competent people are allowed to vote (according to you), then why are they not allowed? How aren't they mentally competent like the rest of us?

Because they aren't competent. It has only been less than a decade since I was 16 and I'm glad I wasn't able to vote then.

Yeah, and we all know how Californians are renowned for making smart decisions when it comes to such votes (how bankrupt is your state now, btw?)!

When in doubt find something irrelevant to attack.
Unless that is that you have some good argument for why we should put more people (/keep people in longer) in the prisons that we can't already afford and are having to downsize.

[Admiral Yi]

Except that, that's how you get laws to change...

Holy shit!! Really?

[garbon]

Holy shit!! Really?

So if you are engaged in illegal activities (say selling pot) then it is rather unfortunate to have your ability to make that legal, taken away.

[DontSayBanana]

Eh? I didn't say that. I said when they got convicted (i.e. proven to be guilty of whatever crime). I do agree that there are a lot of pointless sentences (particularly the ones which are less than a year - even prisoner governors have spoken out about that), but that is irrelvant to the point we are discussing here.

Prisoners lose all sorts of rights when they are convictedand handed a disproportionate sentence, and I am of the opinion that the right to vote should be one of these (as indeed are the majority of people here in the UK). Regardless of their apparent human rights, why do they even need a right to vote when they are institutionalised in a prison? Their treatment and conditions are regularly subject to review, so other things like the economy, law and order, constitutional status, etc... are completely irrelevant to them (well... other than law and order I suppose).

Basically you've just flown off the handle for no reason here. "Dick".

Bolded for emphasis, synthesis in red.

You agree that there are disproportionate sentences handed out, yet you set the benchmark at conviction without qualification.  As long as we've got problems with 1) sham convictions and 2) disproportionate sentences, then conviction as the standard isn't enough.

[Admiral Yi]

So if you are engaged in illegal activities (say selling pot) then it is rather unfortunate to have your ability to make that legal, taken away.

I think that is unfortunate.

I think it's less unfortunate that someone who robs, kills, maims, or rapes has the ability to make those legal taken away.

[garbon]

I think it's less unfortunate that someone who robs, kills, maims, or rapes has the ability to make those legal taken away.

Very likely!

[Palisadoes]

Because they aren't competent. It has only been less than a decade since I was 16 and I'm glad I wasn't able to vote then.

Then why question it in the first place if you agree with me? You have just repeated my own assertions.

I just think you're making a poor effort at trolling me here. I mean... you can't even come up with believable alternatives to make me bite!

When in doubt find something irrelevant to attack.
Unless that is that you have some good argument for why we should put more people (/keep people in longer) in the prisons that we can't already afford and are having to downsize.

At what point have I said anything about putting more people in prison!? In fact, on the last page I argued against the short sentences.

The discussion here is about whether criminals should be allowed to vote or not. According to you, Americans don't want stricter sentencing. Great! However, do Americans really want to allow those who have violated their rules to be able to have a say in making those rules? I doubt it.

Eh? I didn't say that. I said when they got convicted (i.e. proven to be guilty of whatever crime). I do agree that there are a lot of pointless sentences (particularly the ones which are less than a year - even prisoner governors have spoken out about that), but that is irrelvant to the point we are discussing here.

Prisoners lose all sorts of rights when they are convictedand handed a disproportionate sentence, and I am of the opinion that the right to vote should be one of these (as indeed are the majority of people here in the UK). Regardless of their apparent human rights, why do they even need a right to vote when they are institutionalised in a prison? Their treatment and conditions are regularly subject to review, so other things like the economy, law and order, constitutional status, etc... are completely irrelevant to them (well... other than law and order I suppose).

Basically you've just flown off the handle for no reason here. "Dick".

Bolded for emphasis, synthesis in red.

You agree that there are disproportionate sentences handed out, yet you set the benchmark at conviction without qualification.  As long as we've got problems with 1) sham convictions and 2) disproportionate sentences, then conviction as the standard isn't enough.

Of course there are disproportionate sentences handed out. I suggested getting rid of them. Thereby this would mean that only the non-sham convicted prisoners would be disenfranchised. What's the issue with that? It sets bounds for qualification of being legally disenfranchied - petty criminals still keep their right to vote since they don't go to prison.

[garbon]

Then why question it in the first place if you agree with me? You have just repeated my own assertions.

I just think you're making a poor effort at trolling me here. I mean... you can't even come up with believable alternatives to make me bite!

Are you feeling okay? I made a statement that the young aren't competent. No questions there.

At what point have I said anything about putting more people in prison!? In fact, on the last page I argued against the short sentences.

I mentioned that in my blurb about California not voting in more powers to police/putting new crimes in the books.  Of course, I see that you felt free to ignore the bit about stricter sentences.

The discussion here is about whether criminals should be allowed to vote or not. According to you, Americans don't want stricter sentencing. Great! However, do Americans really want to allow those who have violated their rules to be able to have a say in making those rules? I doubt it.

Actually I never spoke for all Americans and quickly turned to speaking about California.
Btw, I would never spoken about stricter sentencing if you hadn't mentioned it with regards to Britain.

[Agelastus]

Palisadoes, I think the UK and USA situation is not really the same.

As I understand it, in the USA a felony conviction can lead to the permanent loss of the right to vote, even after they have served their sentence. In the UK, the right to vote is restored when the prisoner is released having served his sentence. Prisoner's rights and felon's rights are not the same thing. I agree, prisoners should not be allowed to vote. I do not agree that once a prisoner has served his sentence he should still be denied the right to vote.

However, this is the USA under discussion, not the UK, so my opinion of the latter does not really matter. Nor should it matter.

[Barrister]

Palisadoes, I think the UK and USA situation is not really the same.

As I understand it, in the USA a felony conviction can lead to the permanent loss of the right to vote, even after they have served their sentence. In the UK, the right to vote is restored when the prisoner is released having served his sentence. Prisoner's rights and felon's rights are not the same thing. I agree, prisoners should not be allowed to vote. I do not agree that once a prisoner has served his sentence he should still be denied the right to vote.

If true, the UK approach sounds most sensible.

I have no problem with the concept that once someone has 'paid their debt' they should be allowed to fully re-enter socieety, including the right to vote.  I do however oppose serving prisoners having the right to vote.

And guess what - in Canada they do.   

[Palisadoes]

Are you feeling okay? I made a statement that the young aren't competent. No questions there.

Well it seemed to me (by the smiley used) that you were questioning when I stated the same opinion:

The young aren't competent.

My apologies if not, but it's just how it seemed to me (and your responses since have seemed to validate that to me).

I mentioned that in my blurb about California not voting in more powers to police/putting new crimes in the books.  Of course, I see that you felt free to ignore the bit about stricter sentences.

I didn't ignore the stricter sentencing point: I mentioned that I agreed with you (and had stated this before you had on the previous page).

Actually I never spoke for all Americans and quickly turned to speaking about California.
Btw, I would never spoken about stricter sentencing if you hadn't mentioned it with regards to Britain.

Fair enough.

Palisadoes, I think the UK and USA situation is not really the same.

As I understand it, in the USA a felony conviction can lead to the permanent loss of the right to vote, even after they have served their sentence. In the UK, the right to vote is restored when the prisoner is released having served his sentence. Prisoner's rights and felon's rights are not the same thing. I agree, prisoners should not be allowed to vote. I do not agree that once a prisoner has served his sentence he should still be denied the right to vote.

However, this is the USA under discussion, not the UK, so my opinion of the latter does not really matter. Nor should it matter.

I never knew it was permanent in the USA. Sorry if there has been any confusion to anyone regarding this, though when I stated my opinion on the subject I did reference it in relation to my own situation here in the UK (mentioning European Human Rights and that...).

Oh, and yeah, the permanent thing seems silly to me too.

[Agelastus]

And guess what - in Canada they do.   

Yes, I just discovered that (I've been checking further to see if I had interpreted correctly what I had read regarding the situation in the USA.) In fact, Canada's case looks like a prime example of what will happen if our government allows those sentenced for lesser crimes to vote. I smell a court case in the making.

Not to mention, of course, that parole complicates things. I don't think that parole affects voting rights in the UK (the key to the right being whether you are in prison or not) but I am not certain...never having been a convicted criminal myself.

[Admiral Yi]

Very likely!

In there entirety, probably not.  But how about sentencing, policing, and other aspects of the law related to crime.