Skip to main content

View Diary: Holder: Felons should not lose their voting rights permanently (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sex offenders are usually punished for life. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Norm in Chicago, gerrilea

    Here in California, as in many states, those convicted of certain sex crimes are subject to lifetime sex offender registration requirements.  They are also subject to residency restrictions that can make it very hard for them to find a place to live.

    Do they really need to be disenfranchised as well?  

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:22:13 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  If you need to punish someone for life (7+ / 0-)

      Then put them in jail for life. Simple as that.

       But that would require justifying why a sex offender must be jailed for life. Something most people can't do.
      The current law allows us to keep punishing someone without actually "fixing the problem" or justifying the punishment.
         It undermines the whole system of justice and creates 2nd class citizens.

      None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

      by gjohnsit on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree completely. (0+ / 0-)

        Except for the part about putting people in jail for life.  I think that should be reserved for only the most exceptional cases.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:29:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

      If you are a child molester you obviously do not have the character or judgment to be voting.  

      •  Not all sex offenders are (0+ / 0-)

        child molesters.  

        "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Sen Carl Schurz 1872

        by Calamity Jean on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:17:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So? (0+ / 0-)

          Using an example I feel is silly.  People Ie drunk college students who take a piss in  semi public areas would be considered sex offenders in Massachusetts.  This is stupid.

          They should not be considered sex offenders.

          The problem is not that sex offenders can not vote, be near children etc. Its that some people are incorrectly labeled sex offenders.

          But that does not speak to the fact that child molesters do not have character or the judgment to be voting or near children.

          You want to create separate categories? Fine thats superficial to the point that child molesters fairly deserve extra restrictions their whole lives.

          •  I'm sorry, that doesn't follow. (0+ / 0-)
            ...child molesters do not have character or the judgment to be voting....
            Even a person who is really a child molester may have legitimate opinions about foreign relations, climate change, budgets, etc.  I don't see how being a child molester should make a person unable to vote.  I understand that you don't like sex offenders (neither do I), but if other convicted felons are allowed to vote, they should be also.  

            "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Sen Carl Schurz 1872

            by Calamity Jean on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:03:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes it does follow (0+ / 0-)

              If a person is a child molester they have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they do not cognitive or moral strength to be a respectable member of society

              Voting is not a right. It is a privilege given to those a state deems worthy .

              Their disregard for any kind of decency and their acts against children is a universally recognized despicable act. It is entirely reasonable to believe that their misbehavior has so tainted their persona that they will never be worthy of the privilege to vote.  

              The same can not be said of the drunk freshmen who peed on a fire hydrant.

              It is rather obvious that those two acts deserve wildly different punishments.  

              For some reason you think voting is "omg special." Its not.

              You drink and drive, you cant drive.

              You are negligent in firearms usage, you cant own a firearm

              You fail to have human decency, you can not vote.

              Actually if anything the right to own a firearm is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more protected constitutionally than the privilege to vote.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site