In Prison?, no, outside and reformed?, of course

Ultrajoe:
Not while incarcerated, no.

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

How can something be a "right" and a "privilege" at the same time?

Look, this is really simple. If democratic countries claim that voting is a basic human right then it should be available to everyone. Would you deny medical treatment to felonious inmates? What about adequate food or heat?

If voting is not a right, but some kind of boon society gives only to citizens of good standing, you are on standing on one of those slippery slopes. Should people with mental illness be allowed to vote? What about single mothers? Unemployed people or those earning elss than $X per year?

EVERYONE who has reached adulthood should be allowed to vote, otherwise your democracy is a sham.

Humm...is treason still treason if your actions aid to the -betterment- of your country?

I don't see how you could mix democracy and second-class citizens without it combusting. I think anyone who's received their punishment should be allowed to vote. Not sure if they should retain while incarcerated, but I don't see any particular amount of harm in it.

Answer the question, why is a 'fundamental right' being denied due to an age, when under your administration it would be given to either brain-damaged or convicted felons?

There are several reasons why people under 18 are not allowed to vote:

1. Because they could, supposedly, be manipulated by trifling political promises (this occurs with every subset of society to some degree; the argument is that it would moreso with children)
2. Because it is a widely accepted notion in traditional society that you don't begin develop sturdly 'vales' and 'views' until you're a young adult
3. Because the historic allotment of rights is largely related to concepts of property ownership
4. Because there has to a cut-off for voting, insofar as you'd be hard-pressed to explain politics to a two year-old

That said, I would advocate giving the vote to people at the youngest age when they're apt to potentially mull over political issues - say, 14, when students often begin to study politics in courses in high school. Prisoners should receive the vote, too - not giving 2 year-olds the 'right' to vote has nothing to do with them being "unworthful", per se (and is thusly not a value judgement of the kind those who believe prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote are proposing), but has to do with the fact that there is really no way they could successful absorb and comprehend the issues neccessary to make an educated judgement, whereas prisoners could.

Sure they should. Where I live anyway.

According to the BBC and CIA World Fact Book there are nearly 53,000,000 people living in England and Wales and only 80,000 in Jail for the same area. That's a tiny proportion so they are unlikely to have the voting power to influence the vote too much even if they all voted the same way (even more unlikely). The only practical reason to take away their votes is the crudely retributive idea that anyone who commits a crime has forfeited their vote because they don't deserve it.

On the treason note any government that hands out treason accusations for speaking out agains said govenrment, probably will not take voting too seriously. So it is irrelivent if fellons get to vote or not. In my previos post the treason I was reffering to was the big stuff like selling governmet secrets, or engaging in military action against the government on behalf of another government.

For example durring the American Civil War the Soutern states were not permitted to vote in the election of 1864. In fact some states were not permitted to vote in the 1868 election either, and I think this was perfectly reasonable.

[quote="Cheeze_Pavilion" post="18.77510.953180
I never said, I don't think, that it should be denied on the basis of age: it's denied due to lack of capacity. I'm sure there are brain damaged folks with the capacity to understand what voting is and how they can participate in democracy by doing so.[/quote]

So you admit that Miley Cyrus shouldn't be allowed to vote whilst freed felons and mentally infirm would be allowed to vote?

The_root_of_all_evil:
[quote="Cheeze_Pavilion" post="18.77510.953180
I never said, I don't think, that it should be denied on the basis of age: it's denied due to lack of capacity. I'm sure there are brain damaged folks with the capacity to understand what voting is and how they can participate in democracy by doing so.[/quote]

So you admit that Miley Cyrus shouldn't be allowed to vote whilst freed felons and mentally infirm would be allowed to vote?

No--if 16 year olds got the right to vote, I certainly wouldn't complain.

Your.Name.Here:

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

That is a fairly common argument, that they forfeited that right by infringing on the rights of others.

Felons have lost their rights when they became felons and that includes the right to vote.

I do L.D. debate so I have debated both sides.But, at the end of the day I don't think they should retain the right to vote. They are untrustworthy and have obviously shown poor judgement in the decisions they have made. We don't let kids and the mentally incompetent vote for a reasons we don't see them having good judgement. Those who break laws shouldn't be able to take place in an election intended to make new laws. Most of them are career criminals and don't have society's best interest in mind. Some argue that maybe they broke the law because they didn't like it, maybe they're like a child they only break it because it is there; this arguement in my opinion is ridicously stupid. They would vote in a way to undermine criminal justice system. They would vote for candidate most likely to weaken law enforcement, which would cause crime rates to rise.Also criminals will see, hey other than prison theres no punishment for serious crimes because they know they are going to go to prison either way, they aren't going to think twice about doing crime. Alot of people argue its not fair to the felons but they should have known there are consequences for their actions, and how is it fair to society to let someone that went against society help choose who governs the law-abiding citizens. Alot of people also argue that we don't take away felons freedom of speech and other rights why should we take away their right to vote; personally I don't think its a right in the constitution, because all though their are ammendments saying that you shouldn't deny people their right to vote because of there ethnicity or gender but it never clearly states that everyone has the right to vote. Even if it is a right in the constitution it is also a priveledge and they shouls have known that it would be taken away. People say " oh why should we take away their right to vote they have paid their debt to society and why should they be reminded everyday about the bad decisions they made in the past?" first of all just because they have done time in prison doesn't mean the have paid their debt to society, what debt to society are they even talking about? the oonly thing they gain by serving time in jail is movement and freedom from supervision, not the right to vote or bear arms. Also we "remind them everyday" not just to remind other criminals but society that all you have to do in America to have all of your rights is serve on a jury every now and then, pay taxes, and abid by the laws and follow them, and if you cant follow those things especially following the laws and go against society you are going to lose and your priveleges will be taken away. but everyone is intitled to their own opinion