Article

2005-03-03 Britain

Britain's Lib Dems would give prisoners the vote (but, shh, it's supposed to be a secret)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-03 4:31:05 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Looks like a "Liberal" Kennedy is pretty stupid no matter which side of the pond you find him on.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-03 4:52:05 AM|| 2005-03-03 4:52:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Heh, Hillary, and all of the other Dhimmidonks, are open about it here and want rights resored to all felons, regardless of their crime.

They speculate that they will get 90% of the votes of all the black felons who regain the vote. It's all couched in touchy-feely bullshit, of course, but it's starkly clear where their motives lie.

The vote is a privilege, IMHO, not a right. In the US, 33 states block felons from regaining voting rights - or so I heard today on a news program.

I guess this would confirm we are vicious barbarians, huh?

Posted by .com 2005-03-03 4:52:58 AM|| 2005-03-03 4:52:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 On neither side of the pond to the pols who advocate such policies seem to have realised that every vote 'won' may not necessarily represent a net increase in votes for them. Pandering to every minority group, be it through the social poison of multiculturalism, racism ('affirmative action') or pacts with incarcerated devils, does not mean that you aren't alienating yourself from corresponding-or-greater numbers of voters within the silent majority.

If the Dems and the Lib Dems want to be the felons' choice, so be it. It's highly unlikely to change their electoral fortunes, and exposes fundamental truths about their politics: divisiveness and amorality.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-03 5:30:03 AM|| 2005-03-03 5:30:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Mmmm! I think a citizen has an absolute right to a vote irrespective of their current circumstances. I realize the Left hopes to and probably will benefit from this, but in this case principle over-rides partisan disadvantage (to the Right).

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-03 5:59:58 AM|| 2005-03-03 5:59:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Prisoners are placed out of the society loop for a reason - their contempt for society. If they are considered undeserving of a right as fundamental as their freedom, they have certainly abrogated their right to vote.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-03 6:37:03 AM|| 2005-03-03 6:37:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 amen BD

Posted by Frank G 2005-03-03 8:21:58 AM|| 2005-03-03 8:21:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 At the end of a period of my life that I am ashamed of(20 years of alcoholisiam)I was guilty of and convicted of Felony DUI(11/94).That started my road to revovery,I haven't had a drop of alcohol since 1996(if you stop drinking immediatly then you probably weren't an alcoholic).As a result I lost one of America's most presious freedoms,the Right to Vote.I believe that after 10 plus years of recovery and 8 plus years of Sobriety I have earned the Right to Vote agin.All that being said there is no way in Hell I would vote for the Hildebeast.Phil is correct voting is a right(a right that can be lost)not a privilege.Driving is a privilege not a right.

Posted by Raptor 2005-03-03 8:29:15 AM|| 2005-03-03 8:29:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Raptor -- depending on which state you're in, you may be able to petition for the restoration of your vote.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-03-03 8:50:55 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-03-03 8:50:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Raptor, congratulations on a decade clean and sober. Keep it up. Every day is a new victory.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-03 8:57:21 AM|| 2005-03-03 8:57:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Rights cannot be "taken" - but their free exercise can justifiably be restricted. If you violate the rules, your ability to use your rights is restricted, not only as punishment but as a protection for society against people who would destroy it if left unchecked. After all a felons has screwed society over in the worst way.

Society needs the felon to prove him/her-self worthy of exercising the rights in the society in which they abrogated them.

So routine voting by felons should NOT be the rule, given the recidivism rate, etc. And thats what these loonies are trying to pass as a rotuine thing - that anyone can vote regardless of how badly they screwed over the society they live in. Thats flat out wrong.

I say no voting at all for felons. And a felon is a felon, for life.

That being said, there should always be room for redemption and forgiveness. If we do not provide such a thing as a society then we will be unnecessarily cruel. However, redemption and full forgiveness in society must be earned, not thrown away freely, to prevent abuse and preserve its value.

If the felon has proven himself, over time, to be a responsible and productive citizen, then there should be an application process, similar to the one for citizenship, to allow him to regain the full exercise of his rights as a citizen.

I would make it a voluntary but formal 5 year process, beginning 5 years after the end of parole. The first 5 years are showing the soon-to-be former felon can stay clean and be a good citizen on his own. The second part would show that he is willing to work to get back the free exercise of his full rights.

Call the second 5 years "Citizenship Rehabilitation". The felon must have zero arrests and convictions (i.e. parking tickets dont count against you), pass a citizenship test in terms of history and structure of the US government, participate in citizenship activities and classes, and be proficient in English.

If a felon does that, then he will have shown not only that he is a "responsible citizen" again, but that he is committed enough to being a good citizen that he put forth a sustained effort to demonstrate it. Faith without works is empty - a felon at the end of this program will have shown not only faith, but works as well.

At that point, the felon deserves to get back all his rights. And possibly even have the record expunged except in the case of subsequent convictions for the purposes of sentencing, say after an additional 5 years.

The only exception in my mind would be no firearms for someone guilty of crimes of violence.

Net effect: 10 years after the felon is released, he is completely and fully a citizen again, and after 15 years, he is no longer a felon or even a former felon.

Raptor - it sounds like you would be already voting again if this type of thing was in place. And owning firearms legally as well.

And there are others - I know one of whom now has a book out: Brother Townsend, formerly a murderer, now a capuchin monk.

http://www.capuchin.com/News/Townsend/ThePrisoner.htm

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-03 10:38:44 AM|| 2005-03-03 10:38:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 note well - whats being discussed above is NOT teh same as whats under discussion in the US. The brits are discussing votes for PRISONERS - the US we're discussing votes for folks whove "paid their debt" are no longer in prison, or even on parole. Free people. Having a class of free people who cant vote is troubling. Particularly when many of them were convicted of non-violent crimes, related to drugs, and are disproportionately from certain race or class backgrounds.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-03 10:44:26 AM|| 2005-03-03 10:44:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 every vote 'won' may not necessarily represent a net increase in votes well said bulldog.

Raptor - I hope you can find a way to legally restore your voting rights. So...this not about you...I was going to say this before I read your post. Perhaps we should re-examine the idea of making a DUI a felony crime...but that's for another discussion.

BUT ..I'm really tired of this uncontested belief in our society that we should always look to the exception to make the rule. We believe that we are being more humane by attempting to give each and every individual the opportunity for a do-over in life. We say, if there is a chance - we should embrace it. But the truth is we aren't being humane - because we know that there is a greater chance that these same people will shatter far more lives than we could ever hope to redeem, in our attempts to be "humane".

By having a rule that criminals can't vote - some good people, like raptor, may fall through the cracks..but that doesn't mean that society as a whole doesn't benefit by demanding higher standards of citizens allowed the right to vote.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-03 10:45:32 AM|| 2005-03-03 10:45:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 liberalhawk

Excuse me but this is BS. Here in France, a country who is far more liberal than Massachusets or Vermont judges routinely sentence to five years in jail and ten years of "suspension of civic rights" ie no right to vote. Sorry but I don't want to have a tight election being decided by the vote of thieves, convicted crooks, rapers or assassins (and politicians being tempted to go after their votes). About "having paid their debt to society" this is double BS: the suspension of civic rights IS part of the penalty so a person who has been released from jail but still hasn't recovered his right to vote has NOT paid his debt. Get over it.

Posted by JFM 2005-03-03 11:10:51 AM|| 2005-03-03 11:10:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm with JFM on this. Make suspension of civic rights for a given number of years an explicit part of the sentence passed.

Then there's no need to ask whether former prisoners have paid their debt or not -- it'd be clear they haven't. We may still argue ofcourse whether felons should get their civic rights revoked for life or just for a number of years.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-03 11:22:50 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-03 11:22:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Hell, here in Washington State, Felons are allowed to vote (as long as its Democrat) even when it is against state law.

So are 'imaginary friends' of King County's executive Ron [tax-to-the-max] Sims (D).

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-03-03 11:36:30 AM|| 2005-03-03 11:36:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Crazyfool: You forgot the tenants in the local cemetaries. They're the base for any Democratic reelection.

Posted by Charles 2005-03-03 12:40:23 PM|| 2005-03-03 12:40:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Raptor, I'm having trouble posting the link and making it work, so here it goes so you can copy & paste it yourself:
http://www.lawyerscomm.org/ep04/50states/arizona.pdf

Adobe Acrobat required, but the short & pretty of it is that if you are here in Arizona (I think you are, right?) you can have your civil rights restored under most circumstances if you apply for them.

When you get them back, you have to let us know here on RB. Best of luck, and congratulations on your continued sobriety!

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-03-03 1:44:39 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com] 2005-03-03 1:44:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 You forgot the tenants in the local cemetaries.

Give the Dem's credit where credit is due; these are bonafide landowners.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-03 3:08:43 PM|| 2005-03-03 3:08:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 note well - whats being discussed above is NOT teh same as whats under discussion in the US.

Sorry, LH, but that's just not the case. There were a number of stories recently whining about the "unfairness" of suburbs, exurbs and rural areas that have prisons counting the prison population during the census, but not allowing those people to vote. Supposedly this unfairly shifts representative power to the areas with the prisons.

There *ARE* groups trying to get the vote for prisoners. Their first step is to talk only about ex-cons.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-03-03 3:22:08 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-03-03 3:22:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I like Old Spook's process. Just "paying your debt" often only means you have not been caught again, yet. My wif... my lovely wife spent ten years as a probation officer. Judges giving wrist-slap after wrist-slap really fried her. She said most (probationers, not judges)were just playing the system, but a few (10%?)recognized their mistake and wanted to completely and correctly serve their probation - and move on. Her favorite was a judge who was tough on repeat offenders (I can't spell recidivism) but also spent a lot on treatment (of drug addiction, alcohol, other problems). "Ya gotta problem, I can help ya. Ya don't gotta problem, then you must be a criminal, and then you're going to the slammer."

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-03 4:13:40 PM|| 2005-03-03 4:13:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 RC -well it does seem silly that they should get so many votes - i presume thats more of a local balance issue - ive never seen anything about it but ah the dreaded slippery slope - first you let the exfelons votes, then the prisoners, next thing you know it will be those whove been executed, right :)

Cmon, folks, we dont keep people other than murderers on parole all their life - why focus on VOTING, as opposed to all other rights? Could it be cause of what groups they belong to and how they tend to vote? - nah, of course it couldnt.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-03 4:25:31 PM|| 2005-03-03 4:25:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Then there's no need to ask whether former prisoners have paid their debt or not -- it'd be clear they haven't.

How long does it take to pay your debt for possesion of crack? 20 years? 30? 50? Cmon AK, as info - the largest number of felons in the states is in on drugs, is poor, and is black. This aint about keeping murderers from voting, its about - well, I think you can figure it out.

Feh.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-03 4:28:45 PM|| 2005-03-03 4:28:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 How long does it take to pay your debt for possesion of crack? 20 years? 30? 50?

Point.

One easy way to keep the whole thing proportional is to make the suspension of civic rights be automatically an X amount of times the prison time.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-03 4:54:38 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-03 4:54:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Thank you,DB.On my way to thier web site even as I type.
Wow,I could have gotten my rights back years ago.DB you are wonderfull,thank you agin.

Posted by Raptor 2005-03-03 5:04:11 PM|| 2005-03-03 5:04:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Interesting thing: In Germany, active voting rights can only be suspended for a very small range of crimes, usually high treason and other comparable political felonies. Even "regular" murderers can vote in prison.

The right to be elected to political office is automatically suspended if you are sentenced to one year or more in prison. It has to be restored after a maximum delay of 5 years after serving time.

I can't remember anyone having a problem with that.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-03 5:39:29 PM|| 2005-03-03 5:39:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 how about we compromise - life without voting for all VIOLENT crimes, one year beyond parole for all non-violent crimes?

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-03 5:48:03 PM|| 2005-03-03 5:48:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I propose the "3 strikes and you're out" thing...for voting.

Posted by Rafael 2005-03-03 5:51:20 PM|| 2005-03-03 5:51:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Looks like a "Liberal" Kennedy is pretty stupid no matter which side of the pond you find him on.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-03 4:52:05 AM|| 2005-03-03 4:52:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Rights cannot be "taken" - but their free exercise can justifiably be restricted. If you violate the rules, your ability to use your rights is restricted, not only as punishment but as a protection for society against people who would destroy it if left unchecked. After all a felons has screwed society over in the worst way.

Society needs the felon to prove him/her-self worthy of exercising the rights in the society in which they abrogated them.

So routine voting by felons should NOT be the rule, given the recidivism rate, etc. And thats what these loonies are trying to pass as a rotuine thing - that anyone can vote regardless of how badly they screwed over the society they live in. Thats flat out wrong.

I say no voting at all for felons. And a felon is a felon, for life.

That being said, there should always be room for redemption and forgiveness. If we do not provide such a thing as a society then we will be unnecessarily cruel. However, redemption and full forgiveness in society must be earned, not thrown away freely, to prevent abuse and preserve its value.

If the felon has proven himself, over time, to be a responsible and productive citizen, then there should be an application process, similar to the one for citizenship, to allow him to regain the full exercise of his rights as a citizen.

I would make it a voluntary but formal 5 year process, beginning 5 years after the end of parole. The first 5 years are showing the soon-to-be former felon can stay clean and be a good citizen on his own. The second part would show that he is willing to work to get back the free exercise of his full rights.

Call the second 5 years "Citizenship Rehabilitation". The felon must have zero arrests and convictions (i.e. parking tickets dont count against you), pass a citizenship test in terms of history and structure of the US government, participate in citizenship activities and classes, and be proficient in English.

If a felon does that, then he will have shown not only that he is a "responsible citizen" again, but that he is committed enough to being a good citizen that he put forth a sustained effort to demonstrate it. Faith without works is empty - a felon at the end of this program will have shown not only faith, but works as well.

At that point, the felon deserves to get back all his rights. And possibly even have the record expunged except in the case of subsequent convictions for the purposes of sentencing, say after an additional 5 years.

The only exception in my mind would be no firearms for someone guilty of crimes of violence.

Net effect: 10 years after the felon is released, he is completely and fully a citizen again, and after 15 years, he is no longer a felon or even a former felon.

Raptor - it sounds like you would be already voting again if this type of thing was in place. And owning firearms legally as well.

And there are others - I know one of whom now has a book out: Brother Townsend, formerly a murderer, now a capuchin monk.

http://www.capuchin.com/News/Townsend/ThePrisoner.htm

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-03 10:38:44 AM|| 2005-03-03 10:38:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-03 4:52:05 AM|| 2005-03-03 4:52:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-03 10:38:44 AM|| 2005-03-03 10:38:44 AM|| Front Page Top

23:17 trailing wife
23:10 Alaska Paul
23:05 Alaska Paul
23:02 mmurray821
22:59 jackal
22:58 Alaska Paul
22:54 trailing wife
22:41 trailing wife
22:36 Aris Katsaris
22:34 trailing wife
22:28 trailing wife
22:28 jackal
22:18 Silentbrick
22:14 jackal
22:10 trailing wife
21:59 Sock Puppet of Doom
21:55 RWV
21:54 jackal
21:53 Charles
21:53 Frank G
21:50 jackal
21:49 Charles
21:45 jackal
21:43 jackal