Bernie wants murderers, rapists, and thieves to vote for him. Among others.....

[Revoltingest]

With what job? Convicts aren't exactly the most employed group out there.

They could have passive income.

 

[Audie]

It means to treat people with much more decency than you advocate, for instance.

Oh,I dont know about that.
A start for you would be not to assume the
worst of someone you dont know.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They could have passive income.

Some do. Some it's more active. A lot of it would fall into a bit of a tricky area because to admit it and name a source would be self incriminating.

 

[Audie]

No. However there are no grounds for stripping them their right to vote, such as is reasonable to strip the right to own a gun from those found guilty of a violent crime. Since America's sovereignty the trend has definitely been a shift towards becoming more democratic.
Ultimately, inmates have done nothing to be stripped of their right to vote. They are still citizens, they still pay taxes, and they should still have a voice.

I actually dont see much connection between
having committed a crime, and the right to vote.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some do. Some it's more active. A lot of it would fall into a bit of a tricky area because to admit it and name a source would be self incriminating.

Their finances can be audited.
So if they have income from stocks, bonds, etc, it's taxable.

 

[Audie]

Some do. Some it's more active. A lot of it would fall into a bit of a tricky area because to admit it and name a source would be self incriminating.

I kinda think those who do have money should pay
their own expenses in the pen.

 

[Jumi]

Why should they lose their right to vote? What risks are posed to society by allowing them to vote?

They've used their vote in taking that away from others. If they were to become standing citizens again, then of course those rights could be granted back. As people who don't have rights (even if they're symbolic) won't consider themselves a part of society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I actually dont see much connection between
having committed a crime, and the right to vote.

That's why they shouldn't loose that right. There is no connection, and no one is put at risk by them being allowed to continue to vote.

 

[Lyndon]

Oh,I dont know about that.
A start for you would be not to assume the
worst of someone you dont know.

Your words speak for themselves, a profound lack of compassion for large segments of society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I kinda think those who do have money should pay
their own expenses in the pen.

That's why I'm not against prison labor. America relies on prisons way too much, but even when ideally used they are still expensive and there is work to be done. The work in involuntary, but their victims were just as unwilling (if not more unwilling).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They've used their vote in taking that away from others. If they were to become standing citizens again, then of course those rights could be granted back. As people who don't have rights (even if they're symbolic) won't consider themselves a part of society.

That would apply specifically to murderers. And they didn't use a vote to take a life (though that I suppose would apply to those who vote for a candidate who wants needless war).

 

[Revoltingest]

That's why they shouldn't loose that right. There is no connection, and no one is put at risk by them being allowed to continue to vote.

Consider 2 groups of voters....
1) Innocent.
2) In prison for conviction of a crime.

Denying the right to vote to the 2nd won't adversely affect democracy or the country.
It's part of punishment for them crime.
Money is saved by not accommodating their voting.

 

[David1967]

Why should they lose their right to vote? What risks are posed to society by allowing them to vote?

The risk that they may vote in others like themselves?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Money is saved by not accommodating their voting.

I kind of doubt that because the way we treat inmates cost more in the long run because we are very good at dehumanizing inmates and getting them trapped in a vicious cycle of recidivism (that's how the American public as a whole votes). If it were to save money, we'd have to first make sure we are actually saving money by doing what we can to rehabilitate inmates to reduce the chances they end up back in jail/prison.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The risk that they may vote in others like themselves?

Voting in a convicted murderer?

 

[David1967]

Voting in a convicted murderer?

Possibly?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Convicted prisoners lose many rights of citizenship while in prison, eg, gun ownership,
travel, no warrantless searches. You wouldn't be advocating restoring those rights too?
If not, then denying the right to vote is just a reasonable part of punishment.

In Canada, the Supreme Court determined that all Canadians, even those who have committed felonies and are incarcerated, retain the right to vote. (With one exception, conviction for corrupt electoral practices can result in loss of vote for a certain period, because this punishment takes aim directly at the offense.)

And when I think about it, really, it makes sense. If part of what you are trying to do is to rehabilitate, then permitting prisoners to take an active part in this important civic duty would seem to be more helpful than harmful.

 

[Audie]

Your words speak for themselves, a profound lack of compassion for large segments of society.

Really. Would you care to give me an example?

 

[Revoltingest]

I kind of doubt that because the way we treat inmates cost more in the long run because we are very good at dehumanizing inmates and getting them trapped in a vicious cycle of recidivism (that's how the American public as a whole votes).

I don't think letting'm vote will humanize them.
That once every two years activity won't even begin to
undo what's done to them the other the other 729 days.

 

[Revoltingest]

Really. Would you care to give me an example?

I detect more compassion in you than in your critic.