Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the rational for not letting them vote?

Not being ruled by criminals? Ok, that is a little provocative. But when someone has demonstrated that they cannot he trusted to follow society’s most serious rules, how can they be trusted with a role in selecting its leaders?

Like possession of marijuana?

Come on. You all know the right to vote was taken away from criminals as a Jim Crow measure. It’s all about racism.

Anonymous wrote:What is the rational for not letting them vote?

Exactly. They vote in Maryland.

Should felons serve on juries?

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the reasoning against it. Sure, they shouldn’t serve on city council from behind bars, but who cares about voting? You think someone is going to start pandering to the rapist vote?

x100.

Prisoners are still citizens, the Constitution still applies to them, etc. They should be allowed to participate in the selection of those who run the country just like anyone else. Disenfranchising them is one reason we have such atrocious prison abuses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the rational for not letting them vote?

Not being ruled by criminals? Ok, that is a little provocative. But when someone has demonstrated that they cannot he trusted to follow society’s most serious rules, how can they be trusted with a role in selecting its leaders?

That's one theory. But in practice, many felon disenfranchisement laws were enacted during Reconstruction. Lawmakers were often explicit about their intent, which was to prevent newly freed and enfranchised black men from voting. For example, not all felonies would disqualify a voter, and those that would were considered to be crimes committed more often by black people. These laws were passed in conjunction with poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses that were directed at suppressing the black vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/24/the-race-infused-history-of-why-felons-arent-allowed-to-vote-in-a-dozen-states/?utm_term=.14bbf04a2036

Personally, I think that those convicted of nonviolent or nonserious offenses (not to include voting-related offenses) should be able to vote. And felons should have their voting rights restored automatically once they have served their sentence.

Why do democrats want rapists murderers and those who commit hate crimes to vote?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the rational for not letting them vote?

Not being ruled by criminals? Ok, that is a little provocative. But when someone has demonstrated that they cannot he trusted to follow society’s most serious rules, how can they be trusted with a role in selecting its leaders?

Unfortunately, this is most of the American C-suite. They just have better lawyers than those behind bars.

Anonymous wrote:What is the rational for not letting them vote?

Not being ruled by criminals? Ok, that is a little provocative. But when someone has demonstrated that they cannot he trusted to follow society’s most serious rules, how can they be trusted with a role in selecting its leaders?

I don’t get the reasoning against it. Sure, they shouldn’t serve on city council from behind bars, but who cares about voting? You think someone is going to start pandering to the rapist vote?

What is the rational for not letting them vote?

As someone who worked in a prison, HELL NO.

I'm fine with non-violent offenders getting the right to vote behind bars. Or maybe only in the last year of imprisonment, or when they begin availability to apply for parole.

I think its important that prisoners be pro-actively reintegrated into society prior to leaving prison. Voting and researching candidates/issues is one meaningful way for prisoners to be connected to life beyond the prison walls.

From behind bars. Bad idea?

https://twitter.com/fenitn/status/1135526003021963265?s=21