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

[alfred russel]

Nice idea, but I have a hard time swallowing the concept that a Baltimore individual in year 23 of a 25-year sentence in Southern California should be counted with the Baltimore census.  Though, I can understand the one-or-two-year inmates affecting the census as being a problem.

Personally, I think it should be a grace period.  Incarcerated five years or less?  Use the previous address.  Incarcerated over 5?  Forget it.  The municipality's claiming paper people.

I don't think the idea of allocating funds based on the census is to determine where people are living to send them money. (ie, Steve was in jail in 2010 but should be out and living in Baltimore by now, so in 2019 lets send a check to Baltimore for his allocated share of federal funds). I thought the idea was to get a snapshot view of the population which is a baseline for the next 10 years. If 5% of Baltimore is in jail right now, that is 5% less people that need medical care, transportation, and food stamps--even if the people making up that 5% churn.

[Palisadoes]

Actually that's next on the agenda:

NAACP LDF Report Highlights Impact of Felon Disfranchisement Laws


NEW YORK, April 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) released Free the Vote: Unlocking Democracy in the Cells and on the Streets, a report detailing the impact felon disfranchisement laws have on communities of color nationwide. 

"Securing the right to vote for the disfranchised - persons who have lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction - is the next phase of the voting rights movement," said Ryan P. Haygood, Co-Director of LDF's Political Participation Group. 

LDF's report details that more than 5.3 million Americans who have been convicted of a felony are denied access to the one fundamental right that is the foundation of all other rights.  Nearly 2 million, or 38%, of the disfranchised are African Americans.  Moreover,

    * A staggering 1.5 million Black males, or 13% of all African-American men in this country - and in some states up to one-third of the entire African-American male population - are denied the right to vote. 
    * Given current rates of incarceration, an astonishing one in three of the next generation of Black men will be disfranchised at some point during their lifetime.
    * In Alabama, one in three Black men have been disqualified from voting as a result of a felony conviction.
    * In Washington State, 24% of Black men, and 15% of the entire Black population, are denied their voting rights.
    * In New York, though Blacks and Latinos collectively comprise only 30% of the State's overall population, they represent an astonishing 87% of those denied the right to vote because of a felony conviction.


"Regrettably, more than a century after emancipation, and in the 45th anniversary year of the Voting Rights Act, increasing numbers of Blacks and Latinos nationwide are actually losing their right to vote each day, rather than experiencing greater access to political participation," continued Haygood.

I don't know why people claim that allowing prisoners the right to vote is "just". As far as I'm concerned they forfeit that right when they get convicted.

IIRC the Europeans want to get us to allow prisoners the vote, in accordance with the charter of Human Rights, or some such nonsense. I'm not for it, myself.

[DontSayBanana]

I don't know why people claim that allowing prisoners the right to vote is "just". As far as I'm concerned they forfeit that right when they get convicted.

IIRC the Europeans want to get us to allow prisoners the vote, in accordance with the charter of Human Rights, or some such nonsense. I'm not for it, myself.

How about a little judicial reform so we stop tossing people in the clink for stupid shit, then?  You'd come across as a little less of an asshole if you weren't saying that anybody in on a bench warrant for forgetting a court date or something trivial like that should lose their representation in government.

Dick.

[Palisadoes]

How about a little judicial reform so we stop tossing people in the clink for stupid shit, then?  You'd come across as a little less of an asshole if you weren't saying that anybody in on a bench warrant for forgetting a court date or something trivial like that should lose their representation in government.

Dick.

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 convicted, 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".

[garbon]

Yeah because votes today have no impact on the future.

[Palisadoes]

Yeah because votes today have no impact on the future.

Well of course they do. But why should they have that entitlement when they have been convicted?

I guess the broader question is whether the right to vote is an inherent human right, or whether it is a privilege. I'd say the latter, since I recognise that I am fortunate enough to be eligible for such an entitlement (I don't take it for granted, as I think some might if they thought it was an inherent right).

[garbon]

Yeah because votes today have no impact on the future.

Well of course they do. But why should they have that entitlement when they have been convicted?

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

[Palisadoes]

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

It's nothing to do with them remaining part of your society or not - there are plenty of people in society who are not eligible to vote anyway! It's about disenfranchising them for the period of their sentence as an additional means of punishment in order to achieve justice for the crime which they have been convicted for.

[garbon]

It's nothing to do with them remaining part of your society or not - there are plenty of people in society who are not eligible to vote anyway!

That are citizens and mentally competent?

It's about disenfranchising them for the period of their sentence as an additional means of punishment in order to achieve justice for the crime which they have been convicted for.

Why is the sentence they are handed down, not enough?

[Palisadoes]

That are citizens and mentally competent?

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-general-election

That, plus the young are deemed as not being mentally competent, which is debateable (some such as Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP want to lower the voting age to 16, however, which indicates that they deem 16 year olds as being mentally competent).

Why is the sentence they are handed down, not enough?

The sentence they are given is the punishment which society has deemed fitting for the crime which they have been found guilty for. Our society accepts that losing the right to vote is part of this punishment.

To answer your question: ask British society why we collectively want harsher punishments (that's the trend observed in most polls).

[garbon]

That, plus the young are deemed as not being mentally competent, which is debateable (some such as Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP want to lower the voting age to 16, however, which indicates that they deem 16 year olds as being mentally competent).

The young aren't competent.

The sentence they are given is the punishment which society has deemed fitting for the crime which they have been found guilty for. Our society accepts that losing the right to vote is part of this punishment.

To answer your question: ask British society why we collectively want harsher punishments (that's the trend observed in most polls).

Umm, I live in California and the OP is about Maryland. That Brits want harsher punishments is irrelevant.

[Barrister]

That are citizens and mentally competent?

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-general-election

That, plus the young are deemed as not being mentally competent, which is debateable (some such as Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP want to lower the voting age to 16, however, which indicates that they deem 16 year olds as being mentally competent).

No, that means they think that 16 year olds will vote for them.   

[Palisadoes]

The young aren't competent.

They are not deemed as being "mature enough" to be able to make an informed adult decision, or act responsibly like an adult instantly does on the morning of turning 18!

Umm, I live in California and the OP is about Maryland. That Brits want harsher punishments is irrelevant.

Okay then: ask American society.

No, that means they think that 16 year olds will vote for them.   

Haha! True!

[garbon]

They are not deemed as being "mature enough" to be able to make an informed adult decision, or act responsibly like an adult instantly does on the morning of turning 18!

Don't be an idiot.

Okay then: ask American society.

I don't think we want stricter punishments. Or at least not here, often Californians vote against new police powers/crime law additions.

[Palisadoes]

Don't be an idiot.

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?

I don't think we want stricter punishments. Or at least not here, often Californians vote against new police powers/crime law additions.

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?)!