Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Prison Vote

The Prison Vote
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2016, 12:39 PM
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory

Good.

I'm sure Jim Webb had a hand in it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2016, 01:08 PM
 
Good action, suspect timing.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2016, 01:22 PM
 
There really never isn't suspect timing with these sorts of things.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2016, 01:32 PM
 
Sure there is, like right after an election. This initiative has been simmering for >3 years but they drag their heels and finalize it now? These people could have voted in the last midterms, but it wouldn't have had as much "impact". Sad.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2016, 01:49 PM
 
I'm in total agreement on that part.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2016, 02:44 PM
 
I don't think felons should ever be allowed to vote. What kind of decision makers are they anyway? So instead of dead people getting to vote its now felons.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2016, 02:48 PM
 
While you're in jail, that right is lost. Once your time is served, to participate in society and give back to society, it makes sense to give back the right to vote.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2016, 02:52 PM
 
As long as they're free and clear; not in prison and not on parole or probation, they should have the restrictions on their rights lifted.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2016, 05:49 PM
 
^^^

I'm in total agreement with the previous two posts.

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2016, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I don't think felons should ever be allowed to vote. What kind of decision makers are they anyway? So instead of dead people getting to vote its now felons.
If we consider someone's decision making process good enough to demand they behave as fully functioning members of society, then they have the decision making ability to choose who they wish to represent them in government.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2016, 12:12 AM
 
I am in 100% agreement with this.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2016, 06:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If we consider someone's decision making process good enough to demand they behave as fully functioning members of society, then they have the decision making ability to choose who they wish to represent them in government.
Demand all you want. It really won't change the attitudes and emotional stability of someone.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2016, 08:50 AM
 
Unless you're willing to pay for a free ride for ex-cons for the rest of their life, you're the one making the demand.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 08:24 AM
 
The current procedure is a one at a time look at the record of the felon, not a blanket deal like McAwful is doing for his pal Hillary.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 09:21 AM
 
We have that. It's parole. If you pass that look, you passed the looks.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
While you're in jail, that right is lost. Once your time is served, to participate in society and give back to society, it makes sense to give back the right to vote.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
As long as they're free and clear; not in prison and not on parole or probation, they should have the restrictions on their rights lifted.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^

I'm in total agreement with the previous two posts.

OAW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hamm
The State Vs. James Hamm - CBS News
James Hamm was convicted for the drug-related murder of Willard Morley in 1974. His co-defendant, Garland Wells, was convicted of killing another man (Zane Staples) in the same incident. Morley and Staples were in Arizona for the purpose of purchasing drugs to sell to college students in Kansas.[1] Staples was AWOL from the U.S. Army at the time of the 1974 offense. Both defendants (Hamm/Wells) were sentenced to prison for 25 years to life.[2]

While in prison, Hamm earned a summa cum laude degree from Northern Arizona University in applied sociology[3] with an extended major in corrections. In 1981, he met Donna Leone[4] while she was touring the prison;[5] Leone was a lower court judge. They married in 1987.[6]

Hamm applied for and was granted a commutation of sentence by then-governor Rose Mofford,[7] which reduced his prison sentence to 16 years to life (1989). She later rescinded the commutation due to negative publicity against her, but the commutation was judicially restored. A finding was made by the court that Mofford's decision to rescind was "politically motivated."[8]

In 1992, Hamm was paroled.[9] He had taken the LSAT exam for law school while in prison, scoring in the 96 percentile. Once released, he attended Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, where he graduated with honors in 1997.[10][11] Hamm passed the bar exam, but his application seeking admission to the Arizona bar was rejected by the Arizona Supreme Court in In the Matter of Hamm, 123 P.3d 652 [12] Hamm works as a private criminal justice consultant for several attorneys in the Phoenix, Arizona area. He also is qualified in the courts as an expert on prison policy and procedure, time computations and performs volunteer work for Middle Ground Prison Reform, a non-profit agency formed by Donna Leone in 1983.[13]
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
While you're in jail, that right is lost. Once your time is served, to participate in society and give back to society, it makes sense to give back the right to vote.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
As long as they're free and clear; not in prison and not on parole or probation, they should have the restrictions on their rights lifted.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^

I'm in total agreement with the previous two posts.

OAW
OK, How about someone like James Hamm? He was sentenced to 25 to life. I don't know if his civil rights were restored, or if he is still on parole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hamm
The State Vs. James Hamm - CBS News
James Hamm was convicted for the drug-related murder of Willard Morley in 1974. His co-defendant, Garland Wells, was convicted of killing another man (Zane Staples) in the same incident. Morley and Staples were in Arizona for the purpose of purchasing drugs to sell to college students in Kansas.[1] Staples was AWOL from the U.S. Army at the time of the 1974 offense. Both defendants (Hamm/Wells) were sentenced to prison for 25 years to life.[2]

While in prison, Hamm earned a summa cum laude degree from Northern Arizona University in applied sociology[3] with an extended major in corrections. In 1981, he met Donna Leone[4] while she was touring the prison;[5] Leone was a lower court judge. They married in 1987.[6]

Hamm applied for and was granted a commutation of sentence by then-governor Rose Mofford,[7] which reduced his prison sentence to 16 years to life (1989). She later rescinded the commutation due to negative publicity against her, but the commutation was judicially restored. A finding was made by the court that Mofford's decision to rescind was "politically motivated."[8]

In 1992, Hamm was paroled.[9] He had taken the LSAT exam for law school while in prison, scoring in the 96 percentile. Once released, he attended Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, where he graduated with honors in 1997.[10][11] Hamm passed the bar exam, but his application seeking admission to the Arizona bar was rejected by the Arizona Supreme Court in In the Matter of Hamm, 123 P.3d 652 [12] Hamm works as a private criminal justice consultant for several attorneys in the Phoenix, Arizona area. He also is qualified in the courts as an expert on prison policy and procedure, time computations and performs volunteer work for Middle Ground Prison Reform, a non-profit agency formed by Donna Leone in 1983.[13]
45/47
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 10:24 AM
 
It's easy to find anecdotes. I have a friend who went down on homicide for what was obviously self-defense. He's a fully functioning member of society (despite the hardships getting a job as an ex-con), and his record has been clear for 40 years. Like the man above, both should obviously get to vote.

However, I don't think it's fair to pick examples which support my side.

My argument isn't ex-cons should get to vote because they're swell people, and even if it was, I'd be required to address the ones who are not.

For those people, the system has declared they have to participate in society regardless. If this is the case, they get to choose who they want representing them in the system regardless.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's easy to find anecdotes. I have a friend who went down on homicide for what was obviously self-defense. He's a fully functioning member of society (despite the hardships getting a job as an ex-con), and his record has been clear for 40 years. Like the man above, both should obviously get to vote.

However, I don't think it's fair to pick examples which support my side.

My argument isn't ex-cons should get to vote because they're swell people, and even if it was, I'd be required to address the ones who are not.

For those people, the system has declared they have to participate in society regardless. If this is the case, they get to choose who they want representing them in the system regardless.
Sorry, I should have been more specific to what I was referring to.

If Hamm's civil rights were restored, even though he still my be on parole for the rest of his life, in addition to being allowed to vote, should he be admitted to the Bar having met all the requirements and passed the Bar exam? I say he should.
45/47
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 01:37 PM
 
Gotcha. Sorry for not reading as closely as I should.

Lifetime parole seems like such an outlier scenario I'd need to know more about those people as a group.

I would have no problem with this guy doing either.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 03:50 PM
 
A lot of ex-cons stay on probation the rest of their lives, especially for capital and sexual offenses.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 04:01 PM
 
Hmm... interesting.

I honestly need to consider how I think about that first. I'd never really heard of it.

My knee-jerk response isn't favorable. When the length of your parole starts to exceed the amount of time served, the bullshit alarm goes off.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 04:09 PM
 
And for the record, how our prisons work in the first place is so unbelievably ****ed... it's to my shame I'm not trying to do more about it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2016, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
While you're in jail, that right is lost. Once your time is served, to participate in society and give back to society, it makes sense to give back the right to vote.
Exactly, once you've done the time, all rights should be restored.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 12:30 AM
 
Honestly, I could see it either way, but finding out we're pretty much the only country that does this makes me think we're in the wrong.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 01:19 AM
 
What is "this"?

Letting ex-cons vote?
Not letting ex-cons vote?
Letting some vote and others not on a state by state basis?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 02:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Honestly, I could see it either way, but finding out we're pretty much the only country that does this makes me think we're in the wrong.
I couldn't even fathom that this was a thing until I went to the US the first time. I have a hard time seeing how you could be on the fence about this one. Voting (together with freedom and free speech) is a core right in any democracy, and the possibility of losing it permanently makes no sense to me.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 03:13 AM
 
Is it really that unfathomable?

I mean, I don't agree with the idea, but it's not hard to make arguments for it.

Shit... I can make arguments for the Starship Troopers model.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 03:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is it really that unfathomable?
To me, yes.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I mean, I don't agree with the idea, but it's not hard to make arguments for it.
Like what? Taking away someone's right to vote is akin to taking away someone's right to free speech or personal freedom to move after that person has served his or her time. These three are the basics of any democracy.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 03:37 AM
 
"Serving time" is a construct. Within that construct, the world over, it is considered acceptable to revoke people's rights. All our system does is in certain cases make that amount of time equal to someone's natural life.

It's the old joke... "we've already determined what you are, this is negotiating price". Our system doesn't make us any more "undemocratic" than anyone else.


As for why you'd want such a system, the most obvious is as a deterrent. Second is you have a group of people who in general, aren't respecting the contract our society is based on.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 04:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"Serving time" is a construct. Within that construct, the world over, it is considered acceptable to revoke people's rights.
You temporarily revoke a person's right by imprisoning them, but after they are released they are free to move. Only under certain circumstances is that right removed permanently (life without parole), although even that is much, much more rare in other jurisdictions than it is in the US.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
All our system does is in certain cases make that amount of time equal to someone's natural life.
Yes, and it does so irrespectively of the crime. This is a big difference to the deprivation of personal liberty: you are sentenced according to the crime you've committed, be it 3 or 30 years. Revoking someone's voting rights forever irrespective of the nature of the crime is cruel.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's the old joke... "we've already determined what you are, this is negotiating price". Our system doesn't make us any more "undemocratic" than anyone else.
I beg to differ: in this particular respect it does.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Second is you have a group of people who in general, aren't respecting the contract our society is based on.
That doesn't make sense to me: during their time in prison you can make this argument, but after they are released, it doesn't hold: former inmates will show by their behavior whether they are able to “respect the societal contract” by their future behavior. For as long as they don't break any (significant) laws, they are upholding their end of the bargain.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 07:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Sorry, I should have been more specific to what I was referring to.

If Hamm's civil rights were restored, even though he still my be on parole for the rest of his life, in addition to being allowed to vote, should he be admitted to the Bar having met all the requirements and passed the Bar exam? I say he should.

f(*k no.

He is a convicted murderer. There's no way that offense should pass the character and fitness criteria.
He may have been rehabilitated and he may be a functioning member of society but no the state bar should not allow him to practice law as an attorney as what he has done in his past in not something that was benign or reversible.

The taking of a life in the process of a knowingly criminal act is irrevocable and should have lasting consequences on the perpetrator. Not being admitted to the bar is a pretty paltry permanent cost to pay IMO.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You temporarily revoke a person's right by imprisoning them, but after they are released they are free to move. Only under certain circumstances is that right removed permanently (life without parole), although even that is much, much more rare in other jurisdictions than it is in the US.

Yes, and it does so irrespectively of the crime. This is a big difference to the deprivation of personal liberty: you are sentenced according to the crime you've committed, be it 3 or 30 years. Revoking someone's voting rights forever irrespective of the nature of the crime is cruel.

I beg to differ: in this particular respect it does.

That doesn't make sense to me: during their time in prison you can make this argument, but after they are released, it doesn't hold: former inmates will show by their behavior whether they are able to “respect the societal contract” by their future behavior. For as long as they don't break any (significant) laws, they are upholding their end of the bargain.
Cruel?

Maybe "obnoxious", or "pig-headed". It's hard to call that cruel in the face of forcing ex-cons to put said status on a job application. I think voting is important, but let's call a spade a spade here. A single individual's vote is pretty meaningless, while being compelled by law to declare yourself as a member of the underclass actually wrecks lives.

Is the notion a legitimately revoked right must be reinstated at some point in the "Democracy Rulebook"? Again, I don't support the policy, but it's not a bait-and-switch. Everybody pretty much knows action X will have consequence Y, and the vast, vast majority of our society takes great pains to avoid action X (smoking a doob notwithstanding).

This might make us shitheels, but undemocratic? I'm not buying it yet.


Likewise, I agree current behavior is a better determinant of whether someone should be allowed to vote, but if one posits it's okay to remove a given right, then the framework has already been set up. You and I (with my devil's advocate position) are using the same reasoning to justify our respective positions, we only differ on duration.

I consider your position and my (real) position to be more just, but hey... that's like, our opinion, man.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Shit... I can make arguments for the Starship Troopers model.
or the Israeli or Swiss models.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2016, 11:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
or the Israeli or Swiss models.
Heh...
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2016, 05:31 PM
 
I think I saw somewhere the legislature is suing him. I don't care if they don't get to vote in this election (though that's indicative of a lack of empathy on my part), but unless there's proof they vote as a bloc, and are also highly motivated voters, I find accusations of demographic vote aiding a bit dramatic.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2016, 12:16 PM
 
Because this primary season hasn't been weird enough, rumors red would restart his campaign if he wins Nebraska.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,