LogFAQs > #932993312

Kinglicious posted...

I go hard in the opposite direction, hell it doesn't even make logistical sense for the vast majority of instances - what district, the prison's even though they've nothing to do with the community and may not even be residents of that state? Though I also just do not see a reason to allow it: if government is a representation of the people's will and you've actively gone against it in such a way that it's been proven that you've harmed others in a way that violated their rights, you've proven your inability to work in it. Bear in mind, we're talking felonies, not misdemeanours, and I'm in the camp that favors decriminalization of drug offenses that don't hurt anyone else.

I thought about mentioning the district thing, since prisons have a tendency to relocate people out of neighborhood, district, or even state, but I think this problem is solvable by simply having people vote as per their last home address. There are logistical consequences to this, since it could lead to people voting for someone in an area that they haven't lived in a very long time, if they're in prison for life or whatnot. But at the VERY least they should be allowed to vote in federal and probably state elections, in my opinion. And they should be able to vote on positions that directly affect them, such as judges.

As for whether or not people have proven that they can or cannot work within the community, I think that's awfully questionable. We vote on who gets to say what the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor even is in the first place. We have situations in this country where horrible criminals go free every day while others get locked up for crimes that weren't that serious or they may not have committed at all. Restricting their rights to vote is just arbitrary - it takes away the right only from the people who we caught, who committed crimes that we determined to be worth stripping your vote from.