QuoteBaltimore will gain residents in prison count shift
New Maryland law, first of its kind, tallies inmates as residents of last permanent address, not location of prison
For more than two decades, Rico Marzano called prison cells in Jessup and Cumberland his home.
But this year, the convicted murderer serving four consecutive life sentences will be recorded as a Baltimore resident, even though he won't step foot in his Frankford neighborhood any time soon.
Marzano and thousands of other Maryland inmates are being reclassified under a contentious law approved this month by Gov. Martin O'Malley that alters how prison populations are counted during the once-a-decade census.
Maryland became the first state to decide that inmates should be considered residents of the jurisdiction of their last permanent address, and not of the prisons where they are housed. The change came after the Census Bureau announced it would be providing states with detailed data about institutionalized groups such as the military and college students in time for redistricting efforts.
The decision has significant implications for Baltimore, which has been losing population for decades, and which produces as many as 6 in 10 of the state's 21,000 inmates.
Baltimore's official population could grow by 12,000 because of the new law, an increase that could help preserve the city's political clout when congressional and state legislative district lines are redrawn to reflect the 2010 census.
Urban-area lawmakers and civil rights activists lauded the move, calling it a proper solution to a history of inflated population in prison towns.
"There's enough people moved around to break how democracy works," said Peter Wagner, executive director of the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit organization based in Massachusetts, who testified in favor of the Maryland law.
State Sen. Catherine Pugh, a Baltimore Democrat and lead sponsor of her chamber's version of the legislation, emphasized that the plan does not affect how much money the city and other jurisdictions will receive based on census counts. It only applies to the drawing of election district lines.
But the new program is being lambasted by officials in rural parts of the state that contain large prisons. They see a bald effort by Baltimore City and Prince George's County in particular to maintain and build power, at the expense of their communities.
"Baltimore City is trying to pad their numbers in the census, because they're scared they're going to lose representation," said Del. Kevin Kelly, a Democrat who represents Allegany County. "I don't see where the fairness is."
Kelly said the 4,500 state and federal inmates kept in Cumberland will cost the county money for years. The prisoners in his county are doing enough time to make them more a part of his communities than their hometowns, he said.
"When they have to be hospitalized, they're going to be treated in our hospitals," Kelly said. "My phones ring when the correctional officers are injured or worse, and I deal with the community concerns."
With Allegany losing residents, Kelly anticipates that the lines of his legislative district will shift when prisoners are excluded.
No apologies
Many Baltimore leaders make no apologies for the gains they'll see in population count and argue that many areas of the city are unfairly losing leverage.
"I don't think fairness and political power are mutually exclusive," said Sen. Verna L. Jones, a Baltimore Democrat, adding that the neighborhoods she represents in the city's central and southwest areas have lost enough population to jeopardize the interests of those remaining.
"It is about fairness, because you have these individuals who have families living in these communities, and because the lines are going to be redrawn, Baltimore might have been in danger of losing representation that we could not afford to lose," she said.
Opponents scoffed at the argument that prisoners' displacement from Baltimore is often temporary.
"To close your eyes and tap your shoes three times and pretend that they're going to be returning and that they are not in our jurisdiction is just disingenuous," said Del. Christopher Shank, a Republican who represents Washington County. The county is home to three correctional facilities in Hagerstown, with 6,000 inmates.
"It is a blatant power grab...and Baltimore City is looking at losing seats in the General Assembly because of its declining population," Shank added.
Losing representation
Baltimore's leaders have long sought ways to preserve the city's influence in Annapolis and Washington as its population declined.
The number of city residents peaked at nearly 950,000 in 1950 and has dropped every decade since, even as the population of the state has grown.
Recent figures show that the city lost about 14,000 residents between 2000 and 2008 and had a population of about 637,000.
Since 1974, each statewide reapportionment has cost the city at least one Senate district.
As recently as 2002, 10 of Maryland's 47 state senators represented all or part of Baltimore. In that year, Maryland's highest court threw out a plan that included Senate districts that crossed the city-county line, a redistricting plan created by then-Gov. Parris N. Glendening to preserve Baltimore's influence. That costs the city four of its senators.
Currently, six state senators represent Baltimore, and the inclusion of inmates could provide a buffer against a further loss. A state Senate district will contain about 120,000 residents after the next redistricting, up from about 112,000 now.
Other states are considering population rules similar to the one approved in Maryland.
In New York, some local lawmakers are pushing a plan to exclude prisoners from reapportionment drawings entirely.
"They play no part in our community," said Edward P. Welsh, a Republican county legislator from Utica. "They can't vote, they can't take part in the community, and I'm assuming they don't want to be here — so why are they being counted here?"
Some states are using the new census information differently. Kansas officials want to remove college students and military personnel from redistricting calculations.
Diversity on the Shore
In Somerset County on Maryland's Eastern Shore, officials hope the new rule leads to the election of the county's first-ever black county commissioner.
A prison built in the 1980s, they said, disrupted a settlement of a Voting Rights Act lawsuit intended to create a majority-minority county legislative district.
Though the county is 40 percent black, no black representative has ever been elected to office.
"It's been a long time coming. I believe that people in the county, both black and white, are ready for change," said Clarence Bell, who was the county's first black police chief.
Lawmakers said they were pleased that the new law could bring diversity to places like Somerset.
"I am so proud that Maryland did this, I think that it speaks highly of us," said Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk, a Prince George's County Democrat who was a lead sponsor of the House legislation.
"It's really a civil rights issue, a fairness issue and an equality issue — plain and simple."
What is the reasoning for this? As in... what is the perceived greater benefit of registering them at their last address? Is Obama's next idea to grant prisoners the right to vote?
Great. First Mount Cody and Sergio Kindle and now extra gub'mint money.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 25, 2010, 06:07:52 PM
Is Obama's next idea to grant prisoners the right to vote?
Sorry if you didn't catch the fine print, but it had nothing to do with Obama.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 25, 2010, 06:07:52 PM
What is the reasoning for this? As in... what is the perceived greater benefit of registering them at their last address? Is Obama's next idea to grant prisoners the right to vote?
This is all explained in the article.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2010, 06:17:47 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 25, 2010, 06:07:52 PM
Is Obama's next idea to grant prisoners the right to vote?
Sorry if you didn't catch the fine print, but it had nothing to do with Obama.
Of course it had to do with Obama; if not for the influence of the Antichrist, none of these men would have committed crimes, and so there would be no prisons to create this controversy. :contract:
I filled out my census but forgot to send it in. :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2010, 06:17:47 PMSorry if you didn't catch the fine print, but it had nothing to do with Obama.
I was just unsure if it's the beginning of some proposal not yet outlined. It'd sure make such a reform easier.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2010, 06:35:16 PMThis is all explained in the article.
I was too lazy to bother reading it all... :Embarrass:
Quote from: garbon on April 25, 2010, 07:12:09 PM
I filled out my census but forgot to send it in. :blush:
This is a crime.
They sent me another form -_-
How is this a bad thing? Most of these prisoners would be coming from impoverished neighborhoods that probably need the funds more than the rural prison towns.
Lot more paperwork.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 25, 2010, 07:23:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2010, 06:17:47 PMSorry if you didn't catch the fine print, but it had nothing to do with Obama.
I was just unsure if it's the beginning of some proposal not yet outlined. It'd sure make such a reform easier.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2010, 06:35:16 PMThis is all explained in the article.
I was too lazy to bother reading it all... :Embarrass:
Actually that's next on the agenda:
QuoteNAACP 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.
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.
It would seem to me a better use of the NAACP's time to work on reducing the number of black and Latinos committing felonies than trying to make sure felons can vote.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 26, 2010, 07:49:39 AM
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.
Quote from: citizen k on April 26, 2010, 03:53:17 AM
Actually that's next on the agenda:
QuoteNAACP 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.
:hmm:
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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 11:46:26 AM
:hmm:
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 26, 2010, 01:04:00 PM
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".
Yeah because votes today have no impact on the future.
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 02:35:59 PM
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).
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 02:51:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 02:35:59 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 03:00:12 PMWhy 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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 03:08:37 PM
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?
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 03:08:37 PM
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?
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 03:13:06 PMThat 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).
QuoteWhy 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).
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 03:26:17 PM
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. :huh:
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 03:26:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 03:13:06 PMThat 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. ;)
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 03:38:20 PMThe young aren't competent. :huh:
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! :)
QuoteUmm, I live in California and the OP is about Maryland. That Brits want harsher punishments is irrelevant.
Okay then: ask American society.
Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 03:45:19 PMNo, that means they think that 16 year olds will vote for them. ;)
Haha! True!
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 03:47:27 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 03:47:27 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 03:51:09 PMDon'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?
QuoteI 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?)! :wacko:
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 03:00:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2010, 05:27:37 PM
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...
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 03:56:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 03:56:43 PM
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?)! :wacko:
When in doubt find something irrelevant to attack. :thumbsup:
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 05:50:19 PM
Except that, that's how you get laws to change...
Holy shit!! Really?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2010, 05:59:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 02:30:14 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 06:01:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2010, 06:10:21 PM
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!
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 05:51:46 PMBecause 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!
QuoteWhen in doubt find something irrelevant to attack. :thumbsup:
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!? :wacko: 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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 26, 2010, 06:07:16 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 02:30:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 06:14:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 06:14:13 PM
At what point have I said anything about putting more people in prison!? :wacko: 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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on April 26, 2010, 06:14:13 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 26, 2010, 06:18:07 PM
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. :mad:
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 06:18:04 PMAre 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:
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 03:38:20 PMThe young aren't competent. :huh:
My apologies if not, but it's just how it seemed to me (and your responses since have seemed to validate that to me).
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 06:18:04 PMI 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).
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 06:18:04 PMActually 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.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 26, 2010, 06:18:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2010, 06:27:39 PM
And guess what - in Canada they do. :mad:
:console:
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 06:12:46 PM
Very likely!
In there entirety, probably not. But how about sentencing, policing, and other aspects of the law related to crime.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2010, 06:44:39 PM
In there entirety, probably not. But how about sentencing, policing, and other aspects of the law related to crime.
Is your concern that they will be able to vote in a host of lawmakers and judges that are for lenient terms?
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 06:52:11 PM
Is your concern that they will be able to vote in a host of lawmakers and judges that are for lenient terms?
Is your expectation that they will help decriminalize marijuana laws and have no other effect on the legislature?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2010, 08:34:11 PM
Is your expectation that they will help decriminalize marijuana laws and have no other effect on the legislature?
Is your expectation that the legislature will some how be compromised, such that it turns against the wishes of the majority non-criminal populace?
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 08:40:04 PM
Is your expectation that the legislature will some how be compromised, such that it turns against the wishes of the majority non-criminal populace?
My expectation is that the legislature would have to adjust their positions on crime to account for a significant new voting group.