Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?

An estimated 5.85 million people (as of 2010) with a felony conviction are barred from voting in elections - a condition known as disenfranchisement. Each state has its own laws on disenfranchisement. While Vermont and Maine allow felons to vote while in prison, nine other states permanently restrict certain felons from voting.

Proponents of felon re-enfranchisement say that felons who have paid their debt to society by completing their sentences should have all of their rights and privileges restored. They argue that efforts to block ex-felons from voting are unfair, undemocratic, and politically or racially motivated.

Opponents say felon voting restrictions are consistent with other voting limitations such as age, residency, sanity, etc., and other felon restrictions such as no guns for violent offenders and no sex offenders near schools. They say that convicted felons have demonstrated poor judgment and should not be trusted with a vote.

yes 9
no 10
dont care 0
other 0
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 9 )
  • thegypsysailor

    If you want to take your chances and commit a crime, then you'd better be prepared to pay, when you get caught.
    I believe someone who commits a felony, in most cases, is a person of weak character. Looking for a short cut in life, unwilling to play by certain rules.
    Therefore, when caught they should lose the rights that those who do play by the rules have. Perhaps a felon would be willing to sell his vote, having already shown himself to be a person of low character.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • ArmusWasTheFirstTroll

      so a person who decides to smoke a joint in Oklahoma is of low character and deserves to lose their civil rights?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • thegypsysailor

        I doubt one joint is now a felony.
        But basically, yes. If you decide to break any law, that is your choice, isn't it? Nobody put a gun ti the guy's head and forced him to smoke that joint.
        It has always been the criminal's choice.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • ArmusWasTheFirstTroll

          Oklahoma, like many other states, has mandatory minimum sentences for the possession of marijuana.

          So, it your assumption that every law created by a governing body and every punishment devised is just? If that is not the case, do you believe a person deserves to lose their rights because they were foolish enough to get caught?

          Either way, you are a tool.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • thegypsysailor

            Oh, well thank you for that. I have an opinion you don't agree with so I am a tool? Wonderful.
            As for crime vs punishment, it really doesn't matter what is fair or not, does it? The law is the law, right?
            Well, maybe so, but one can be responsible for changing laws, if one chooses, just as one understands the risk one takes when breaking the law.
            Also, there are ways to have a conviction overturned or a record expunged, should one actually care. But I did a survey sometime back on here and most didn't even care about their right (duty) to vote, so I doubt many felons are losing sleep over this, anyway.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • ArmusWasTheFirstTroll

              No, you are a tool because you are complacent, if not content, with an unjust justice system. You agree with the law simply because it exists. A law can be changed and you'd still agree with it because "the law is the law, right?"

              Your inability, or perhaps unwillingness, to question the law makes you the ideal instrument with which to preserve the status quo. What do you call an instrument used to carry out a particular function? A tool.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Unimportant

    If they are mentally apt, sure.

    Comment Hidden ( show )