This could change the outcome of the election...

[AKIron]

Let felons vote but not troops serving overseas. 

http://www.sodahead.com/question/121649/

[Anaxogoras]

I'm in favor of letting felons vote once they have served their sentence.  Who they will vote for is beside the point.  Any crime that deserves a lifetime of punishment deserves a lifetime of incarceration.  Allowing the justice system to permanently disenfranchise otherwise participating members of society gives the government too much power.

[lazs2]

people who have nothing because they are lazy and criminal and shortsighted are absolutely democrat voters..  democrats know that they can get these peoples vote every time...

The trick is.. you have to get em to have enough responsibility to get up.. make it to the polls.. and get into the booth and then..   not screw up on who they put their mark for.

Democrats have so much contempt for humans that they feel this is a valid way to gain power.

after all..  "the end justifies the means"

lazs

[lazs2]

anax..  I am for giving convicts all their rights back once they have served their sentence..  No parole.

If they committed a robbery then they should be handed back their gun as they leave the prison.    They used to do this.   It was not a problem.   

lazs

[FLOTSOM]

I'm in favor of letting felons vote once they have served their sentence.  Who they will vote for is beside the point.  Any crime that deserves a lifetime of punishment deserves a lifetime of incarceration.  Allowing the justice system to permanently disenfranchise otherwise participating members of society gives the government too much power.

do you have any clue about which you babble?????
do you really understand anything about the human creature????
your one of those "meat house mentality" people who would allow YOU, yes YOU the honest working tax payer dish out billions upon billions in additional taxes to pay to maintain the ever rising prison population? because that is what it would come to in very short order if you lock them up forever. i have been home for 7ish years now, that 7 years at approximately a quarter million a year you have not had to pay in taxes because i have been home instaed of in prison. but does that mean i wont ever go back???? hell no it means that you have saved 3.5 million roughly in not having to pay to incarcerate me. will i stay out of trouble is a matter of what events transpire or what opportunities do or don't present themselves as my life proceeds.
but make no mistake, i am one of the exception not the rule in lasting as long as i have.
have you ever heard the word recidivism? let me explain it to you, better yet i will quote you the definition out of just one of the three legal dictionaries i have (no not because i am a lawyer, but because in my prior profession it is good to maintain a working knowledge of the law)

BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY SEVENTH ADDITION pages 1275 and 1276

recidivate (being the root word) To return to a "Habit" of criminal behavior; to relapse into crime.  (emphasis added)
recidivation See recidivism
recidivism a tendency to relapse into a of criminal activity or behavior
recidivist one who has been convicted of "multiple" (emphasis added) criminal offences, usu. similar in nature; a repeat offender<proponents of prison reform argue that prisons dont cure the recidivist>


my point to stating these words and the definitions for you is so that you will understand the following statement, i wish i could quote it but i cant remember who it was that said it. it was something on the news a few months back in which they were discussing crime in America and the official stated:

"recidivism in the United States are at an all time high, the percentage of convicted felons returning to a criminal life style and subsequent re incarceration within the first 3 years after their initial release is approximately 89 to 93%"

so the point to my tirade is that just because you have paid for a prior capture and incarceration does not mean that you have learned anything from it, that you are now magically relieved of your criminal nature or that you are a person worth trusting with the future safety and well being of the rest of society.

take a look at these sights to get a little understanding of our criminal rates and stats.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/crime.html

i mean no disrespect or any harsh feeling, but you are naive in this matter. you are wonderfully simple in your belief of how and what a felon would be upon his reentry into society. i envy you your naivety in this matter, but unfortunately i know what i know and that is that although the fox may have been released from the snare he is still not to be allowed to rule the roost!

FLOTSOM

[lasersailor184]

I believe the recidivism rate unfortunately disqualifies nearly all violent felons from gaining their rights back.  If they can figure out a way to EFFECTIVELY punish criminals for their crimes, then I would have no problem giving back 100% american rights the moment they stop out the prison door.

[RedTop]

Allowing the justice system to permanently disenfranchise otherwise participating members of society gives the government too much power.

Justice system didn't disenfranchise them......they did that to themselves. Not being able to vote is just a very small part of a sentence. I would think most felons would have much more to worry about than voting.

[FLOTSOM]

Justice system didn't disenfranchise them......they did that to themselves. Not being able to vote is just a very small part of a sentence. I would think most felons would have much more to worry about than voting.

i agree, the government didn't do it. the actions of the individual is the direct cause of their lack of rights.
but keep this in mind, the right to vote for the almost 4 to 5 million felons in America (currently serving and those released and now under no supervision) would bring a huge turning point in any presidential election, it constitutes over 2% of our population.
now that may not sound like allot, but if you consider that on average less than 60% of people eligible to, actually vote in any given election. that 2% now jumps to almost 4% (this does not encompass the current criminals that are not incarcerated or released after a felony conviction, i.e. gangs tend to have dozens or even hundreds of members but only a part of them have been convicted of a felony conspired with the masses but committed by only a few. when i was arrested for sales and conspiracy to distribute pot it was only me and 1 other arrested out of the 200 or more people that i was involved with) and when you look at how close some of the resent election have been you may turn the tides by that small seemingly inconsequential amount.

now if you get a candidate who promises to radically restore the rights of felons after release and adopt a forgive and forget policy, you will have millions of family members and friends who all believe they will be helping their convicted felon family member or friend by voting for this candidate. thus adding 25 maybe 30 million or more votes to that candidate. now you could be looking at lopsided landslide in any election. soon after you would be looking at radical changes in the laws that protect the average citizen. whenever we have tried to pamper and "there there" criminals it is the innocence of the average people that pays the price.

how do we fix them???? no idea. but i know that to hand any control of civilization to them is sure path to the destruction of all society.


FLOTSOM

[Anaxogoras]

Flotsom, read what I wrote a second time, even lazs got it on the first try.

In a legal system the punishment expiates the crime.  That's the point of punishment.  If punishment doesn't expiate then there's no point in punishing.  We must not confuse law and civil rights with morality.

Add disenfranchisement to the inability to find employment, if you do want to go straight, and the recidivism rates we have ought to surprise no one.

[FLOTSOM]

reread....... but i still disagree. those who have intentionally and with aforethought commits any action which the penalty is in at least in part a surrender of their rights, have also shown that they are not the people you want to give a vote to.

"Allowing the justice system to permanently disenfranchise otherwise participating members of society gives the government too much power."

the percentage of those who would become "participating members of society" upon their release is so small that the harms risked by the return of these rights to the masses is over powering. the risk to the populace is too great.

the legal system attempts to balance the punishment against the crime commited without putting an unduly burdensome load upon the tax paying society at large.
if your 12 year old child shows a fascination with playing with matches you ground him, when he gets off grounding do you give him a fuel can and a lighter? you cannot remove the propensity to commit an act by warehousing an individual. they are the same person after release as they were before you locked them away.

i agree with you that morality is far removed from law, i have watched men who have commited multiple crimes against children do months in jail and then be released, while people who have commited trivial crimes such as shop lifting do years on top of years for their transgressions. not very moral but it is what it is unfortunately.

most criminals (who are intentional criminals) chose to disenfranchise themselves from society long before they were convicted of any crime. it is the only way they can commit their acts without guilt. in their minds they turn the other (society at large) into the aggressor against them (the criminal) and he/she can do anything they want to anyone else without regret, because he/she were the victims of society first. I'm sure you've heard them all......my daddy was mean to me...my mother was a drunk...society didn't GIVE ME whatever.......i couldn't have this or that...they are holding me down..blah blah blah. these are all just excuses to justify ones actions.

My mother is the reason i argrue this point with you, my fear is that she would ever become the victim of someone with my lack of empathy towards the plight of the common  man. her rights to live in safety and peace out way the civil rights of anyone who has already shown themselves to be a danger to her. including by the voting into office of anyone who would slacken the penalties for those who intentionally brake the laws by the very people who intend to break these laws.

this disenfranchisement is in the end the safest way of protecting those who would live their life in an honest fashion. the purpose of having a government is to protect the rights and safety of the public at large. to hinder the government that was established for this purpose by allowing those who would prey upon society to aid in the election of those who will lead that government is self defeating at best, societal suicide is the inevitable outcome.

I <SALUTE> your opinion, and if i was less the arrogant me than i am, maybe i would agree with you. but i would rather remove the rights of a few than to risk the safety of the masses (or my MOM).

<SALUTE>

FLOTSOM

[Anaxogoras]

Whether or not to sacrifice the individual for the sake of society: therein lies the difference of opinion.

[FLOTSOM]

Whether or not to sacrifice the individual for the sake of society: therein lies the difference of opinion.

I agree and <SALUTE> our diference in this matter. somewhere between the two opinions must lay the logical path.

<SALUTE> and best of wishes to you and yours!!

FLOTSOM

[Hangtime]

freakin star trek liberals..

[Yeager]

You guys still dont get it.  The world where "dont tread on me" meant something died back about the time the atomic bomb was created.

Get with the program already and have your electronic chip implanted.  I recommend just south of the apple.

[FLOTSOM]

Get with the program already and have your electronic chip implanted.  I recommend just south of the apple.

But if i did wouldnt that be abrasive on your tongue???