LogFAQs > #942252823

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Prisoners should be allowed to vote
Zeus 07/17/20 9:52:36 PM #31:	Revelation34 posted... For no reason. There's a pretty fucking good reason. If somebody is deemed unable to function in a society (thus needing to be locked up), why would you allow them to determine how that society is run? That's absolutely insane. And that's not even getting into other issues. kangolcone posted... Ive yet to hear one good reason for why they shouldnt be able to vote. Have you heard one good reason why they're locked up? Because if you can justify taking their freedom, you've already justified taking their vote. HornedLion posted... I remember being a kid and learning that felons, though citizens, couldnt vote. Even back then I was shocked and perplexed. If somebody is in prison, obviously they shouldn't be allowed to vote. If somebody is paroled from prison, maybe they should be allowed to vote. If somebody's parole has ended, then sure, allow them to vote. Otherwise I'm sure you're equally shocked that we imprison citizens for crimes. Shark8637 posted... Mmm, okay, fine, if that's how you think the social contract should be. But just because we've done something before, doesn't mean we should do it again, or keep doing it. Precedent isn't really an argument, in itself. Precedent is an all-important legal concept. It's what keeps the law from being wholly arbitrary and capricious. As for the social contract, inmates generally chose to violate their side of it wolfy42 posted... We just plain should not have so many prisoners period. And we wouldn't, if we had an actual reformation system and reasonable sentencing limits. The fact that we give out life sentences at all is a matter of controversy, let alone giving them like candy. Even most of the board's so-called liberals and progressives are often caught advocating for life sentences. And you hear people spout nonsense like, "20 years isn't enough!", often from posters who are barely more than 20 years old themselves. The fact we have so many prisoners is largely the result of overlapping sentencing, as well imprisoning people who belong in psych wards or rehab centers. wolfy42 posted... The war on drugs should have ended (actually never started) along time ago, especially since it's so racist. lolwut? wolfy42 posted... 10% are in there for sexual offenses, and while I consider this a good enough reason to imprison someone, a very large % of them are minorities (which probably means the number is way inflated and many shouldn't be there). Triple lolwut? --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:942252823] in Prisoners ... [t:78852230]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>For no reason.</quote> There's a pretty fucking good reason. If somebody is deemed unable to function in a society (thus needing to be locked up), why would you allow them to determine how that society is run? That's absolutely insane. And that's not even getting into other issues. kangolcone posted... </cite> <quote>Ive yet to hear one good reason for why they shouldnt be able to vote.</quote> Have you heard one good reason why they're locked up? Because if you can justify taking their freedom, you've already justified taking their vote. HornedLion posted... </cite> <quote>I remember being a kid and learning that felons, though citizens, couldnt vote. Even back then I was shocked and perplexed.</quote> If somebody is in prison, obviously they shouldn't be allowed to vote. If somebody is paroled from prison, maybe they should be allowed to vote. If somebody's parole has ended, then sure, allow them to vote. Otherwise I'm sure you're equally shocked that we imprison citizens for crimes. Shark8637 posted... </cite> <quote>Mmm, okay, fine, if that's how you think the social contract should be. But just because we've done something before, doesn't mean we should do it again, or keep doing it. Precedent isn't really an argument, in itself.</quote> Precedent is an all-important legal concept. It's what keeps the law from being wholly arbitrary and capricious. As for the social contract, inmates generally chose to violate their side of it wolfy42 posted... </cite> <quote>We just plain should not have so many prisoners period.</quote> And we wouldn't, if we had an actual reformation system and reasonable sentencing limits. The fact that we give out life sentences at all is a matter of controversy, let alone giving them like candy. Even most of the board's so-called liberals and progressives are often caught advocating for life sentences. And you hear people spout nonsense like, "20 years isn't enough!", often from posters who are barely more than 20 years old themselves. The fact we have so many prisoners is largely the result of overlapping sentencing, as well imprisoning people who belong in psych wards or rehab centers. wolfy42 posted... </cite> <quote>The war on drugs should have ended (actually never started) along time ago, especially since it's so racist.</quote> lolwut? wolfy42 posted... </cite> <quote>10% are in there for sexual offenses, and while I consider this a good enough reason to imprison someone, a very large % of them are minorities (which probably means the number is way inflated and many shouldn't be there).</quote> Triple lolwut? --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1