Yes , they should be able to vote .

Really , if somebody was running for President/Prime Minister that was going to release all of these felons and let them commit more crimes shouldn't be allowed to run at all .

I think it depends on the crime. I would not want people who commit violent or sexual crimes to be allowed to vote.

Yes, but with some restrictions. Just because you've committed a crime doesn't mean you should suddenly lose the right to vote.

actually a felon is a rather specific one, it means someone who is currently serving time in jail for a crime

if you are in jail because you commited crimes you should not be able to vote, you waived that right

Yes they should be allowed to vote. Voting is a basic right in any democracy and should never be striped away.

I don't think felons should be allowed to vote. However, I do feel that laws need to be changed, many minor laws are classified as felonies. Make it rougher to obtain a felony, but still cause felons to loses rights.

cleverlymadeup:
actually a felon is a rather specific one, it means someone who is currently serving time in jail for a crime

if you are in jail because you commited crimes you should not be able to vote, you waived that right

What if the crime was something pointless?

The person involved is going to prision for a year or more and if they live in the US they might be killed depending on the crime.

I really don't want most people like that to vote, however I think they should have the right to do so. They live in my /your country they get a say in how it works, it doesn't matter I don't like it because it's wrong to just lock them up and forget they exist.

If we do that then we're not much better than them.

EDIT: Ultrajoe's post made me notice I didn't point something out: I'm talking about life in prision types for the most part.

Not while incarcerated, no.

But once released, and supposedly reformed, it is your right, duty and privilege. So yes, they should be.

Your.Name.Here:

Phantom2595:

Really , if somebody was running for President/Prime Minister that was going to release all of these felons and let them commit more crimes shouldn't be allowed to run at all .

I don't understand what you mean.

I'm pretty sure what he is saying is that he's jumping to the conclusion that voting rights are stripped away so that felons can't vote for people who would get them out of trouble; or to put it more bluntly potential felons. I don't think that is why felons can't vote.

I personally think the loss of the right to vote should be an extra punishment on top of a felony. Only felons can receive such punishment. But really, there are a lot of felonies out there, and not all of them warrant that kind of punishment. Isn't Martha Stewart a felon now? Does she really deserve to lose her right to vote because she knew too much when she traded stocks? Sure, it's criminal activity, but I don't see how that makes her opinion at the ballot any less valid.

Ultrajoe:
Not while incarcerated, no.

But once released, and supposedly reformed, it is your right, duty and privilege. So yes, they should be.

It's nice when someone else summarizes your opinion so you don't have to try and form a coherent description of your own.

oh no, I voted yes when I should've voted no.

I didn't read the thread properly.
I thought you said felions, as in cats and I though, "cats are people too, they should be able to vote!"

Yes, but some felonies should become misdemeanors. In other words, only for the major crimes. However,

Clairaudient:

Ultrajoe:
Not while incarcerated, no.

But once released, and supposedly reformed, it is your right, duty and privilege. So yes, they should be.

It's nice when someone else summarizes your opinion so you don't have to try and form a coherent description of your own.

I can understand this point of view.

They should be allowed to voice their opinions, just like everyone else. The actions of their past don't make their interests any less valid.

They can run for office, look at Alaska Senator, (Ted Stevens I think) he has felony charges and can still run for office.

You forfiet your rights when you break the law.
Hear that, illegal torrenters? >=(

Erana:
You forfiet your rights when you break the law.
Hear that, illegal torrenters? >=(

Oh god, time to destroy the evidence!

[Deleting.. "Abba's Greatest Hits Vol 4."]

Yes, If only to stop all the attempts at taking black people off the voting lists.

Its mixed.

I think wilst in jail or on probation one should not be able to.

And if one has commited more than three or so felonies they should not have the right to vote because not only did they not respect other's rights, but they did so three times (or whatever teh number)

If one is out of jail and off parol he should serve some kind of duty (other than jail time because really it is more of a personal punishment) to the community, via community service or somthing like that to earn the right back.

asinann:

Vivaldi:
Its mixed.

I think wilst in jail or on probation one should not be able to.

And if one has commited more than three or so felonies they should not have the right to vote because not only did they not respect other's rights, but they did so three times (or whatever teh number)

If one is out of jail and off parol he should serve some kind of duty (other than jail time because really it is more of a personal punishment) to the community, via community service or somthing like that to earn the right back.

It all depends on what crime they commited (they can get the right to vote back in most cases.)
In most states in the U.S. now there is a three strikes and your out law: three felonies, mandatory life without parole.

Note to everyone: The United States is NOT a Democracy. It is a Republic (they are very similar, but there are subtle differences.) In a Democracy all the citizens, not elected officials would vote for EVERY LAW AND RULE CHANGE (as was the case in Rome before the times of the Emperors) and it is very difficult to get the right to vote (in Rome women, children, slaves, the poor etc. were not allowed to vote.) The United States is just too large to be a Democracy.

asinann:

Vivaldi:
Its mixed.

I think wilst in jail or on probation one should not be able to.

And if one has commited more than three or so felonies they should not have the right to vote because not only did they not respect other's rights, but they did so three times (or whatever teh number)

If one is out of jail and off parol he should serve some kind of duty (other than jail time because really it is more of a personal punishment) to the community, via community service or somthing like that to earn the right back.

It all depends on what crime they commited (they can get the right to vote back in most cases.)
In most states in the U.S. now there is a three strikes and your out law: three felonies, mandatory life without parole.

Note to everyone: The United States is NOT a Democracy. It is a Republic (they are very similar, but there are subtle differences.) In a Democracy all the citizens, not elected officials would vote for EVERY LAW AND RULE CHANGE (as was the case in Rome before the times of the Emperors) and it is very difficult to get the right to vote (in Rome women, children, slaves, the poor etc. were not allowed to vote.) The United States is just too large to be a Democracy.

Right, that is good too. I mean if they see it fit to commit 3 crimes, they do not deserve the freedom given to them if they abuse it.

No they should not. Granted, I have pretty strict rules for what should be regarded as a "felony", which doesn't include acts of petty vandalism such as destroying a mailbox. However, felons are people who have demonstrated, by their own actions, that they are willing to resort to the use of force in their relationships with other people. Allowing them access to ANY of the machinery of government is like giving an AK-47 to a three-year-old.

They should not be allowed to vote, join the military or the police, or hold any sort of government office under any circumstances.

Frankly, I think that stripping felons of the right to vote is completely wrong and a reprehensible suggestion. I could vaguely understand the idea that people who break laws should not be allowed to vote if it weren't for the fact that the criminal justice system in the democratic societies are fundamentally broken - especially in the United States, where the justice system's goal is seen as getting convictions and more than 10% of black men between 25 and 29 are in jail.

Especially in a country where carrying pot around can make you a felon, the rights of the people who have been sufficiently marginalized as to necessitate criminal activity need to be defended, and if we take away their ability to speak for themselves it's not going to help.

JMeganSnow:
Allowing them access to ANY of the machinery of government is like giving an AK-47 to a three-year-old.

Wow that's a pretty inflammatory image you've gone and painted there. As much as I understand your viewpoint, I'm with blues on this one.

When you take away a convicted criminal's right to vote, you only exacerbate the problem by dividing a population into voting citizens on one side and criminals on the other. If you were to take my vote away, I'd be frustrated and angry. I might be forced to express my voice, my dissatisfaction with society and the government with just violent and destructive behaviour.

Instead of branding them by depriving them of their vote, effort should be made to re-integrate felons back into society. The reason why many go back in is because they are unwelcome 'on the outside'.

I remember reading somewhere a list of crimes committed by members of the U.S government including presidents that stretched back to the times of Abraham Lincoln who was convicted of something. At present something like 70% of members of the senate and congress have prior convictions and they are the leaders of the country.

I think that people in prison should always have the right to vote otherwise you Americans are losing a considerable percentage of your voting population which is unfair. I understand what someone said before that allowing people in prison to vote may impact the vote negatively but i dont believe this would be the case as being in prison wouldnt change their opinion of a candidate.

they should be able to vote. everyone should

What if the guy was framed, or got caught doing something as a kid, for something petty?

I agree that they should not be given the right to vote, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

DeathSnipa1992:
they should be able to vote. everyone should

Off-topic, I know but: should minors be able to? At what age should we be given the vote? It has often been said that young people's votes would be too easy to manipulate. The same issue applies to seriously mentally impaired people.

IMO, it's pretty hard to say that EVERYONE should be able to.

latenightapplepie:

DeathSnipa1992:
they should be able to vote. everyone should

Off-topic, I know but: should minors be able to? At what age should we be given the vote? It has often been said that young people's votes would be too easy to manipulate. The same issue applies to seriously mentally impaired people.

IMO, it's pretty hard to say that EVERYONE should be able to.

0k good point. Any mentally competent adult should be able to.

To me it depends on the crime, for crimes like theft, yes they should be able, but for crimes like murder, then no.

A theft could be one poor choice, a murder means there's something wrong with you.

As far as the US is concerned, I think the most efficient quick-fix solution is to strip felons of voting rights while they are serving out their sentences but restore them once they are released.

-- Alex

Ultrajoe:
Not while incarcerated, no.

But once released, and supposedly reformed, it is your right, duty and privilege. So yes, they should be.

This.

Totally agree with this statement.

Joe