They give up their rights when they commit crimes that land them in prison. That’s the point of prison. To prevent them doing more harm to society (and in close races, the prison population vote may very well have some impact) AND to serve as a deterrent. Prison is not supposed to be the same as being housebound. It’s a serious punishment, the most serious punishment our society gives out. Also, it costs money to facilitate their voting, and I think the country has far better and more sensible things to spend time and money on.

I do think it’s clear that they’d vote Democrat. But personally, I’m already totally over the leniency towards law and order that is sweeping the country. So I don’t need more reason for politicians to go soft(er) on crime and I don’t need criminals having a say in the policies that decide their punishments. But since I’m pretty sure Trump will get in again unless the democrats wise up and stop being so liberal that it annoys and even offends people who would otherwise prefer to support them, maybe they need all the help they can get.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This, unfortunately. But I also thing the voting age should be higher and maybe also that there should be a cap on age for voters. And I'd favor education requirements, too, really. I think plenty of people have shown they're too stupid to vote with any discretion.

I get that such restrictions have been used against otherwise responsible people historically. But the alternative has features idiots contributing to catastrophic decisions.

What about all the educated people who lie, cheat, steal and get away with it, only to have the government they lobbied bail them out?

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?

I'd rather a Jean Valjean get a vote, than a Trump.

Anonymous wrote:Eh. I think we have more pressing concerns.

Well, to be fair, we have more pressing concerns precisely because of the way irresponsible people voted.

Eh. I think we have more pressing concerns.

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?

This, unfortunately. But I also thing the voting age should be higher and maybe also that there should be a cap on age for voters. And I'd favor education requirements, too, really. I think plenty of people have shown they're too stupid to vote with any discretion.

I get that such restrictions have been used against otherwise responsible people historically. But the alternative has features idiots contributing to catastrophic decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly! In addition to restoring their voting rights, their right to firearm ownership/possession should also be restored once their debt to society is paid. After all, the Constitution guarantees it!

What about their rights of free association and travel? Let's eliminate this whole medieval notion of locking people in cages and focus on giving them the resources they need to live fulfilling lives. If they weren't poor, they wouldn't have been forced to commit so-called crimes.

Being poor makes these people commit crimes? B.S. There are plenty of poor people who respect the law, and do not commit crimes to get by in life. Way to insult an entire strata of society with blanket statements like the one bolded above

Folks like you want to give criminals a free pass and “resources” instead of the punishment they deserve. What about the victims of crime? Someone who has been attacked physically, a person whose home has been violated by a burglar, someone whose health and ability to earn a living have been ruined by a driver under the influence of alcohol, or drugs? Justice for victims of crime does not amount to giving excuses and handouts to those who freely and willingly committed offenses toward fellow citizens.

This attitude that it is wrong to incarcerate people who have committed bad (and illegal) deeds is simply going to drive people into the arms of Trump. Our candidates backtracking on support of criminal reforms from the ‘90s is a dangerous move that will only increase support for The Orange One.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly! In addition to restoring their voting rights, their right to firearm ownership/possession should also be restored once their debt to society is paid. After all, the Constitution guarantees it!

What about their rights of free association and travel? Let's eliminate this whole medieval notion of locking people in cages and focus on giving them the resources they need to live fulfilling lives. If they weren't poor, they wouldn't have been forced to commit so-called crimes.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly! In addition to restoring their voting rights, their right to firearm ownership/possession should also be restored once their debt to society is paid. After all, the Constitution guarantees it!

Anonymous wrote: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.

What is the principled distinction between violent and non-violent offenders?

Didn't know they couldn't vote.

How about putting a tax on go-go music ?

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?

In the case of murder it's even worse.

The victim loses her vote for ever, but the murderer can vote even while in prison?

It's obscene.

Unless you’re not an American Citizen, you should be allowed your vote. They may not be worthy of individual freedom outside a prison, but they’re worthiness to vote hasn’t changed if they’re still American citizens.

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

Because they are Dems, who will vote Dem.