soulcyon wrote:
I think we should first agree on this: USA is not a democracy. It's easier to call it a democracy, but in reality its a Democratic Republic. A real Democracy ensures the majority wins - and technically, everybody must have a vote. This is not how the US government operates, it's just easier for the media and politicians to say "democracy" than "representative democracy".
Sounds complicated. I was probably going more on the UK - is that a democracy, or a fake one?
Putting that aside, prisoners do not deserve "unusual or cruel punishment", but they also do not deserve the same rights as the law-abiding citizens. Realistically, what good can come from a prisoner's vote? They are criminals, and society benefits from criminals being behind bars. Allowing prisoners to vote will only poison the system with some form of corruption.
You might equally say 'what good can come from a Christian's vote?' Just because you might disagree with them on certain grounds, that doesn't mean they have less of a right to vote than you. Their opinion, in a government decided by its people, is just as valid as yours or mine.
@ninja, Moral philosophies are only created through unwritten consensus within a society. Sometimes we reflect on our opinions and the philosophies come to light (such as what Aristotle did). What is "morally good" and "morally bad" is different from person to person, there is no absolute truth when dealing with societal norms.
If people don't agree with that consensus, why should they abide by it? Since there is no absolute truth in terms of morals, you can't claim that what someone has done is morally wrong (and therefore they have to be punished), only that you think it is morally wrong. They shouldn't have to endure the consequences of your moral pondering.
Revenge wrote:
Prison is just negative reinforcement, much like a teacher punishing their students. Why would a teacher punish her students if they're going to just get more freedom anyways? They are in jail because they broke the law in someway, which often means they took someone's rights away. Why can the government not do the same?
Because then the government is just as bad. If they're punished for 'taking away someone's rights', and the government takes away their rights, then the government needs to be imprisoned too. Otherwise, it's double standards.
ninja wrote:
It's not a democracy if some people are excluded from voting. They might disagree with the current government, and more specifically the reason for which they are locked up. They should be able to vote for a government that agrees with their philosophy on life, just like everybody else.
So, you are ok with a government that allows genocide? Or even the holocaust? Based upon the things you saying it sounds like these type of atrocities are "ok", by your standards, because the people put them in power by their votes.
"Luceo Non Uro" means I Shine, not Burn
ninja wrote:
It's not a democracy if some people are excluded from voting. They might disagree with the current government, and more specifically the reason for which they are locked up. They should be able to vote for a government that agrees with their philosophy on life, just like everybody else.
So, you are ok with a government that allows genocide? Or even the holocaust? Based upon the things you saying it sounds like these type of atrocities are "ok", by your standards, because the people put them in power by their votes.
That's rather a jump to make, Macca, even if it made sense.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
BloodBrother wrote:
So, you are ok with a government that allows genocide? Or even the holocaust? Based upon the things you saying it sounds like these type of atrocities are "ok", by your standards, because the people put them in power by their votes.
No, I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about my standard, I'm talking about the standards that other people may have. I don't believe that murder is acceptable, but others might feel that it is in some cases - I'm not sure that I should enforce my moral philosophy on them. People should have a choice, and that shouldn't be affected by their choice itself! Like I said, we don't distinguish who can vote based on their religious affinity, so why do you want to with regards to morals?
BloodBrother wrote:
So, you are ok with a government that allows genocide? Or even the holocaust? Based upon the things you saying it sounds like these type of atrocities are "ok", by your standards, because the people put them in power by their votes.
No, I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about my standard, I'm talking about the standards that other people may have. I don't believe that murder is acceptable, but others might feel that it is in some cases - I'm not sure that I should enforce my moral philosophy on them. People should have a choice, and that shouldn't be affected by their choice itself! Like I said, we don't distinguish who can vote based on their religious affinity, so why do you want to with regards to morals?
Poor wording on my last statement, my apologies, didn't mean to make sound like that. I know you aren't talking your own morals.
I don't think that we should force our own moral philosophy upon somebody. I, personally, hold myself to a very high standard that I wouldn't expect of others. If you are doing the best that you possibly can do, then that is all you can do and that is ok. I don't think we should allow individuals vote who are in prison because of murder, rape, arson. Once they get out of prison, serve there time, fine, they've paid their debt to society they can vote, but while in prison they should not be allowed to vote. Religious affinity and the choice to kill someone or not are to vastly different things. I find it hard personally, that someone who can commit murder and all those things could make a choice that would benefit our world. I feel that there is general consensus throughout the world that murder is not acceptable. Even in the prison world those that rape and/ or beat women and children are on the bottom of the totem pole.
On a side note, this has been fun! Been a while since I've had a good debate with someone "Luceo Non Uro" means I Shine, not Burn
You might equally say 'what good can come from a Christian's vote?' Just because you might disagree with them on certain grounds, that doesn't mean they have less of a right to vote than you. Their opinion, in a government decided by its people, is just as valid as yours or mine.
That is an irrelevant and incorrect example, because I don't say anything about disagreeing with a prisoner. I'm not even judging the opinion of a prisoner. All I'm saying is that a prisoner should have certain rights revoked due to his criminal actions. One of those rights, I believe, is voting.
If people don't agree with that consensus, why should they abide by it? Since there is no absolute truth in terms of morals, you can't claim that what someone has done is morally wrong (and therefore they have to be punished), only that you think it is morally wrong. They shouldn't have to endure the consequences of your moral pondering.
Read about the Theory of Social Contract. You don't seem to understand my position.
We must agree that any government has the monopoly of initiating violence. Even if the laws are moral or immoral, they must be followed, otherwise there will be violent consequences. We can debate about the existence of government, but that would derail this thread. I'm assuming that government does exist, and laws will put prisoners in jail. Consequences of actions only occur due to LEGAL reasons, not MORAL reasons.
But who are we to judge who can vote or not, just because they are in prison. What if someone was falsely convicted of something. I'd rather have 10 murderers vote than try to take away the rights of one person. And tht is whyI think people in prisons should be able to vote.
I do see where you guys are coming from though. But the thing is they pretty much have to elect one of the parties' candidates, because someone like a mob boss wouldn't get enough votes in a prelim.
I wanna be like RAZ!!! [ZÅ]Paradox
Need a shotgun to protect you while you snipe? Call 1-800-SHOTGUN today!
Need a nuke? Call 1-800-NUKE-ALL
Take advantage of this limited offer now!
Offer expires in 3..2..1...
Hm, I'm still not completely convinced but I think prisoners should be able to vote. They are still citizens and the government still affects them so they should have a say. And who's to say that they have damaged society any more than, say, bankers screwing up the economy? If prisoners can't vote, I imagine you could think of a range of other people who don't deserve votes either.
That said, though, I still think there is a line; I wouldn't want a serial killer, who we can assume is possibly not right in the head somehow, helping make decisions about the country. Perhaps those with a certain length of sentence could have their vote taken away.
And to those who say we are taking away their right to vote - consider that we have already taken away their right to freedom, which we have done for the protection of society. If they are repeat or serious offenders you could say that it is for the protection of society that we make sure they take no part in the democratic system.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
The Hat of Love wrote:
Hm, I'm still not completely convinced but I think prisoners should be able to vote. They are still citizens and the government still affects them so they should have a say. And who's to say that they have damaged society any more than, say, bankers screwing up the economy? If prisoners can't vote, I imagine you could think of a range of other people who don't deserve votes either.
That said, though, I still think there is a line; I wouldn't want a serial killer, who we can assume is possibly not right in the head somehow, helping make decisions about the country. Perhaps those with a certain length of sentence could have their vote taken away.
And to those who say we are taking away their right to vote - consider that we have already taken away their right to freedom, which we have done for the protection of society. If they are repeat or serious offenders you could say that it is for the protection of society that we make sure they take no part in the democratic system.
Realistically, bankers dont screw up the economy - the Federal Reserve does. And if there was solid proof that a banker did screw over his customers, then he would be a prisoner as well. So why should he get a right to vote, by the same logic?
Why discriminate the prisoners in their voting rights? Why not let them all vote or not vote? Middle ground tactics and lack of principles make us weak. We need to stand by conviction and either say "no prisoners" or "all prisoners" are allowed to vote. There is no "right to freedom".... when you have the right to expression, you are free to express your thoughts (etc). Prisoners dont lose their right to life, and many other rights for that matter. And please stop calling it a democratic system for crying out loud.
It's not the national government that decides whether or not prisoners can vote, it is up to the state governments to decide whether or not to allow prisoners to vote.
From the wonderful world of Wikipedia
Prisoner voting rights is a state issue, so the laws are different from state to state. Some states allow only individuals on probation and felons to vote. Others allow individuals on parole, probation and felons to vote. As of 2011, only two states, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent a restoration of rights granted by the Governor or state legislature.[28] However, in Kentucky, a felon's rights can now be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights.[28] In 2007, Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[29] In July 2005, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision.[28] On October 31, 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld mass re-enfranchisement of ex-convicts. Nine other states disenfranchise felons for various lengths of time following the completion of their probation or parole. Except Maine and Vermont, every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison.[28] Only two states, Maine and Vermont, allow incarcerated felons to vote.[30]
According to the Sentencing Project, 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of a felony conviction ("felony disenfranchisement".[31] The number of people disenfranchised amounts to approximately 2.42% of the otherwise-eligible voting population.[citation needed] This is in sharp contrast to European nations, like Norway, which allow felons to vote after serving sentences and in some cases[32] allow prisoners to vote. Prisoners have been allowed to vote in Canada since 2002.[33]
The United States has a higher proportion of its population in prison than any other Western nation,[34] and more than Russia or China.[35] The dramatic rise in the rate of incarceration in the United States, a 500% increase from the 1970s to the 1990s due to criminalization of certain behaviors, strict sentencing guidelines and changes in philosophy, has vastly increased the number of people disfranchised because of the felon provisions. Given the prison populations, the effects have been most disadvantageous for minority and poor communities.[36] In Puerto Rico, felons in prison are allowed to vote in elections.
"Luceo Non Uro" means I Shine, not Burn
i say they gave up their rights making the choices that they did. if you cant do the time dont do the crime.
Edited by AT Zero on 02/02/2013 14:18:14
If nothing can be something, then Zero is always inevitable.
BloodBrother wrote:
The United States has a higher proportion of its population in prison than any other Western nation,[34] and more than Russia or China.[35] The dramatic rise in the rate of incarceration in the United States, a 500% increase from the 1970s to the 1990s due to criminalization of certain behaviors, strict sentencing guidelines and changes in philosophy, has vastly increased the number of people disfranchised because of the felon provisions. Given the prison populations, the effects have been most disadvantageous for minority and poor communities.
Very nice quote, I like =)
AT Zero wrote:
i say they gave up their rights making the choices that they did. if you cant do the time dont do the crime.
But what if what the person got arrested for a "crime" the government thinks is bad, but many/or most people think it's wrong/a stupid law?
Edited by ZA BrickSquad on 02/02/2013 14:42:47
soulcyon wrote:
Realistically, bankers dont screw up the economy - the Federal Reserve does. And if there was solid proof that a banker did screw over his customers, then he would be a prisoner as well. So why should he get a right to vote, by the same logic?
Why discriminate the prisoners in their voting rights? Why not let them all vote or not vote? Middle ground tactics and lack of principles make us weak. We need to stand by conviction and either say "no prisoners" or "all prisoners" are allowed to vote. There is no "right to freedom".... when you have the right to expression, you are free to express your thoughts (etc). Prisoners dont lose their right to life, and many other rights for that matter. And please stop calling it a democratic system for crying out loud.
What I meant to suggest is that you can't just say that all prisoners are bad and don't deserve to vote and then say that everyone out of prison does deserve to vote. There are many worse people out of jail than there are in so it's a far from perfect system. There are lots of grey areas in between.
Not every subject is black and white. I disagree with things like 'no tolerance policies' and 'either you do or do not, there is no try' cos there is a try, damnit. There are always grey areas. At the moment, prisoners can't vote but people who have committed crimes not serious enough to be sent to prison can. Explain why we can't move the line further along so that prisoners who are in for certain crimes or lengths of time can't vote but people who have committed crimes not serious enough to be given such a high sentence can. We are already using middle ground tactics. What would you say to 'we need to stand by conviction and either say "no criminals" or "all criminals" are allowed to vote'?
Moving the bar doesn't mean I lack principals. And if a compromise or the middle ground is the best solution, choosing it makes you sensible, not weak.
And the USA uses a democratic system, whatever you'd like to call it. Though I was not talking about the US specifically.
de·moc·ra·cy
/dig2;mäkrəsē/
Noun
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
A state governed in such a way.
soulcyon wrote:
Realistically, bankers dont screw up the economy - the Federal Reserve does. And if there was solid proof that a banker did screw over his customers, then he would be a prisoner as well. So why should he get a right to vote, by the same logic?
Why discriminate the prisoners in their voting rights? Why not let them all vote or not vote? Middle ground tactics and lack of principles make us weak. We need to stand by conviction and either say "no prisoners" or "all prisoners" are allowed to vote. There is no "right to freedom".... when you have the right to expression, you are free to express your thoughts (etc). Prisoners dont lose their right to life, and many other rights for that matter. And please stop calling it a democratic system for crying out loud.
What I meant to suggest is that you can't just say that all prisoners are bad and don't deserve to vote and then say that everyone out of prison does deserve to vote. There are many worse people out of jail than there are in so it's a far from perfect system. There are lots of grey areas in between.
Not every subject is black and white. I disagree with things like 'no tolerance policies' and 'either you do or do not, there is no try' cos there is a try, damnit. There are always grey areas. At the moment, prisoners can't vote but people who have committed crimes not serious enough to be sent to prison can. Explain why we can't move the line further along so that prisoners who are in for certain crimes or lengths of time can't vote but people who have committed crimes not serious enough to be given such a high sentence can. We are already using middle ground tactics. What would you say to 'we need to stand by conviction and either say "no criminals" or "all criminals" are allowed to vote'?
Moving the bar doesn't mean I lack principals. And if a compromise or the middle ground is the best solution, choosing it makes you sensible, not weak.
If you want to say everybody is a bad person or criminal, then so be it - I don't see the world in such a pessimistically view. The significant majority of the people are not criminals. Furthermore, most of the prisoners (TODAY) are not "criminals" either - but thats for another debate. So rather than mixing grey areas of two different issues, why not stick to principle? If you are a convicted felon (in prison), then you've lost certain rights [period]. What do you gain by discriminating against certain prisoners?
If you want to work towards a true "DEMOCRACY", then your goal is to reach as many voters as possible: But yet again, we are not a democracy. There have been many proposals such as e-voting, which will allow citizens to vote over the internet, and even proposals to allow prisoners to vote. But all of these have been shut down, simply because of this fact: we are a Republic, increasing voter turnout will not help anybody. It is more cost to implement systems, more campaigning from political parties and at the end of the day, they don't want to waste tax dollars on such policies.
And the USA uses a democratic system, whatever you'd like to call it. Though I was not talking about the US specifically.
de·moc·ra·cy
/dig2;mäkrəsē/
Noun
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
A state governed in such a way.
And no, USA is a democratic republic:
re·pub·lic
/rig2;pəblik/
Noun
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
Notice in your definition it says "typically" - which is not a normative definition, just an exemplary one. The actual definition of democracy means everybody must caste a vote on every policy! That is NOT how USA operates, nor any modern government in today's world. We have "democratic systems", where registered voters go to polls and vote for representatives (in USA at least). Many times, the people do not vote on policy or actual laws.
soulcyon wrote:
If you want to say everybody is a bad person or criminal, then so be it - I don't see the world in such a pessimistically view. The significant majority of the people are not criminals. Furthermore, most of the prisoners (TODAY) are not "criminals" either - but thats for another debate. So rather than mixing grey areas of two different issues, why not stick to principle? If you are a convicted felon (in prison), then you've lost certain rights [period]. What do you gain by discriminating against certain prisoners?
That's not what I said. What I said was that there are bad people who aren't in prison. And if most of the prisoners in prison aren't criminals then does this mean you don't think many of them are bad? Cos that's sort of what I'm getting at.
If you're a prisoner then all that means is that you have by definition lost the right to freedom. It does not mean anything else, nor does it have to. What do we gain by discriminating against certain criminals? If a crime is bad enough you lose a right, the right to freedom. What I suggested is that, in addition to that, if you do a crime serious enough you lose both your right to freedom and to vote. The rights are not linked so I don't see why you have to lose both at once.
If you want to work towards a true "DEMOCRACY", then your goal is to reach as many voters as possible: But yet again, we are not a democracy. There have been many proposals such as e-voting, which will allow citizens to vote over the internet, and even proposals to allow prisoners to vote. But all of these have been shut down, simply because of this fact: we are a Republic, increasing voter turnout will not help anybody. It is more cost to implement systems, more campaigning from political parties and at the end of the day, they don't want to waste tax dollars on such policies.
And the USA uses a democratic system, whatever you'd like to call it. Though I was not talking about the US specifically.
[quote]de·moc·ra·cy
/dig2;mäkrəsē/
Noun
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
A state governed in such a way.
And no, USA is a democratic republic:
re·pub·lic
/rig2;pəblik/
Noun
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
Notice in your definition it says "typically" - which is not a normative definition, just an exemplary one. The actual definition of democracy means everybody must caste a vote on every policy! That is NOT how USA operates, nor any modern government in today's world. We have "democratic systems", where registered voters go to polls and vote for representatives (in USA at least). Many times, the people do not vote on policy or actual laws.
Not everyone has to be able to vote for the country to be called a democracy. And again, I wasn't talking about the US. I'm talking about the principals involved in general. And who said I'm trying to work towards what you call a 'true democracy' either? Again, I don't think that 'all or nothing' philosophies are necessarily the right ones and I don't really think that everyone should be able to vote. Whatever you want to call the current political and voting systems in the world, it doesn't change this debate.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
To call the United States a republic is not entirely true. It is more of a Democratic Republic. The country's citizens are allowed to vote for individuals that they would like to have represent them in House of Reps, Senate, President, etc.
Something simple could be made, such as saying, if you are in prison, regardless of the time you are serving, whether it be 1 day or 10yrs, if you are in prison on voting day then you don't get to vote.
I also see the point Hat is making. There is no reason for it to necessarily be all or nothing. Some crimes are more harsh than others and every country has their own way of handling different situations. I recently read an article about a women being sentenced to death by firing squad for trying to smuggle cocaine into Bali http://www.voanew...88382.html. In the US this women wouldn't have gotten he death penalty, but she would have been sentenced to many years in prison. If this was in the United States I don't think she should have the right to vote, but she should also be grateful that she would at least have a life to live.
"Luceo Non Uro" means I Shine, not Burn
how much would it cost to transport/set up the voting machines, have the people run them, etc, for prisoners to vote in every prison in America. I would imagine its 1 more tax dollar that I don't want to spend on prisoners. With all the health care and other benefits prisoners receive.
Voting in a community is usually set up at a certain place where everyone from the community has to travel to to vote. Prisoners wouldnt be able to go so a separate voting machine would have to be taken to each prison in America, i did a quick google search and their are almost 5000 prisons in America. This is a variable to consider.
BloodBrother wrote:
The United States has a higher proportion of its population in prison than any other Western nation,[34] and more than Russia or China.[35] The dramatic rise in the rate of incarceration in the United States, a 500% increase from the 1970s to the 1990s due to criminalization of certain behaviors, strict sentencing guidelines and changes in philosophy, has vastly increased the number of people disfranchised because of the felon provisions. Given the prison populations, the effects have been most disadvantageous for minority and poor communities.
Very nice quote, I like =)
AT Zero wrote:
i say they gave up their rights making the choices that they did. if you cant do the time dont do the crime.
But what if what the person got arrested for a "crime" the government thinks is bad, but many/or most people think it's wrong/a stupid law?
regardless Brick. there are voting processes to establish laws as such, take the vote map in halo for example. the majority voted for the map (law) so it passes or is played. the minority that think the map is stupid rage and QQ BUT also have the power to RTV (petition) the server/government to change the map or law. albeit far quicker a process in halo but law is law no matter how stupid, trust me i think quite a few are and wrote to my congressman and voted in local hearings to pass/repeal certain laws. i do not want to get into specifics bc i want to make the point of the concept of law. if you want to talk ethics of laws, what is right and wrong and to whom please xfire me when i am on. if you want to know where i stand i am a John Locke Ayn Rand fan
If nothing can be something, then Zero is always inevitable.
.[31] The number of people disenfranchised amounts to approximately 2.42% of the otherwise-eligible voting population.[citation needed] This is in sharp contrast to European nations, like Norway, which allow felons to vote after serving sentences and in some cases[32] allow prisoners to vote. Prisoners have been allowed to vote in Canada since 2002.[33]
