Should prisoners be allowed to vote? Why or why not? I would love to hear your views on this as I have mixed feelings about it.
In a 2000 ruling (Alexander v. Mineta), the Supreme Court affirmed a district court's interpretation that our Constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote and it is State legislatures that wield he power to decide who is 'qualified'. My opinion is that everyone over the age of 18 should be allowed to vote, regardless of whether or not they're in prison or an ex-felon (if they're American citizens, of course).
Thanks much for your opinion. Part of me says yes everyone should have the right to vote, but then I think if you kill someone you should not have any rights. But where do you draw the line?
According to the Declaration of Independence (and I paraphrase), our rights are endowed to us by the Creator and governments are instituted to secure those rights. If someone commits a crime (even murder) do all his rights suddenly disappear? No, of course not. Should the government take away his rights? Certainly not considering the fact that the government is instituted to secure those rights! The 26th Amendment to the Constitution states, "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." Therefore, my opinion is that anyone 18 years of age or older has the right to vote even if they're a murderer, in prison, an ex-felon, on death row, etc (notwithstanding Alexander v. Mineta).
I understand where you are coming from. I just do not know though. I guess I feel that if you took a life then you should not have much of a life. I feel it is a priveledge to get to vote not a right. A murderers rights should be taken away.
That's exactly how I feel too Angie - voting is a privilege conferred to law-abiding citizens. It's a kind of a contract, in my opinion, that you enjoy the benefits of citizenship as long as you obey the law. When you commit a crime you breach that contract, and you waive those benefits.
Glad that someone shares my thought. I understand where CoinOKC is coming from, but yet there are consequences to pay if you break the law and this should be one of them.
I never really thought about it much before. If prisoners are still to be considered citizens, then I can certainly see an argument for letting them vote.
I suppose they should as even in prison their lives are affected by laws passed by elected officials. Also, we sometimes see where an innocent person has been incarcerated for murder, for example, for 30 years and then it is found they were innocent. Should that person have lost voting privileges for that time? I know it's a stretch but it DOES happen.
Wouldnt that be considered cruel and unusual, angie? If you serve your sentence for a crime. Should you not be allowed a fresh start? Didnt one pay for the crime. And It seems you and PK are talking about all crimes? Really? To go to the extreme should you lose all your rights for Jay walking? Or disorderly conduct?
Frankly, I think if an innocent person is sentenced with prison time, losing the right to vote would be the least of their concerns.
No, not all crimes... felonies and violent crimes at least. And I don't think it should be a permanent thing. Once they have served their sentence and hopefully made a change for the better, their citizens rights could be restored.
I won't disagree with that but does that somehow make it right for a prisoner to lose voting privileges?
No, not at all. The point I was trying to make that the possibility of incarcerating innocent people is not relevant to the discussion of whether those guilty of crimes should be able to vote. Wrongful convictions are a separate issue.
If a person is in prison even an INNOCENT person they are seen as a prisoner. That person is conceived to be guilty of a crime so I don't see it as a separate issue. I see it as an occasional happening but relavent to the question posed.
It absolutely is a seperate issue. You wouldn't argue that we shouldn't put violent criminals in high-security prisons just because you might be putting an innocent person in that environment. It's a moot point and shouldn't even enter the discussion. If wrongful convictions are your concern, you should be doing what you can to prevent innocent convictions, not trying to save them their right to vote.
So a person innocent of his crime, does his sentence and now loses the right to vote even though he is innocent. To you thats just tough luck for him?
No, I'm saying that it is a different issue - we should be doing everything in our powers to try to prevent him from GOING TO JAIL. Do we take into account the possibility that a person MIGHT be innocent when we decide what the punishment should be for violent crimes? Of course not. Why should this be any different? BTW, I'm not sure if this came up in discussion, or what happens in the real world - but I think that the convicted should only lose the vote for the duration of their sentence, and then have it restored - exactly the same way that the person loses their right to live their life freely during the time they are incarcerated, but then gets their freedom back once they have served their time.
