Your observation - it hurts minoritieswho are over-represented in prisons. That's the idea. Since minorities very frequently vote Democratic, and the politicians in power are very frequently Republican -well...

There is a "logical" problem in not permitting the people who are effected by the laws... of the society to vote on these laws.

I realize the arguments that voting is a privledge, but I both disagree, and think it is a right and should be permitted to ALL our citizens, even extending it to the people in jail...

In addition, the more groups that are excluded from voting, and by extension, from having or feeling that they can effect their government, the more that are "driven" to extra leagal protests and revolutionary actions...

Once you get busted for a crime, our society likes to sweep you under the carpet and forget about you.

I wholeheartedly agree with the poster. Once you've paid your debt to society, you've paid it.

If we really believed that ex felons have completely paid their debt to society, and should be re-instated to full privileges, then we would also permit them to become police officers after their sentence, obtain security clearances within security organizations, and able to buy weapons and even carry concealed weapons legally (as opposed to illegally carrying weapons).

Do you want people convicted of bribery and violent crimes to be the guards on airlines, "preventing" highjacking? Since their debt was paid in full (as suggested above), they would be immune to bribes, right?

The "logical" problem mentioned above does not exist. With a highly organized prison population, with 100% voter turnout, perhaps even rape, murder, theft, and treason could be legalized, or the sentence reduced to a minor offense. Is this the society that you wish to live in?

Sorry, the risk is too great as a society for that to happen. The recidivism rate is high. In other words, there is a strong basis of fact for the various "three strikes and you're out" laws...

Pilgrim brings up an interesting point. He/she assumes that the majority of the public will eventually approve the activity of heinous crimes so former prisoners should lose their vote. Since the USA has the largest percentage of its population of industrial countries in prison and repeat crimes are the norm, can we assume that the majority of citizens will soon be in prison? A disturbing idea. Also an obvious criticism of the efficacy of the punishment system.

Pilgrim is a "he".

Pilgrim is making the comment that prisoners / felons could comprise a large "block vote" that would be something that politicians would potentially court to win their office.

I can easily see a less than ethical politician (if there are any of these) crossing the line and offering to soften up on crime in return for a vote. As Sand indicated, the USA has a high percentage of prison population, and repeat customers (those who enjoy the lifestyle). As politicians try to go after previously disaffected voting blocks, I am confident that some will go after the prison block as a specific target.

The "majority" doesn't have to approve the crimes. Votes are what turns the election crank, and people with time on their hands would be inclined to vote for those who are most favorable to their situation.

Will keep my passport valid in case this occurs.

If you're on the "outside", you should be able to vote, regardless of past convictions. The entire point of prison is to take away your rights for a span of time defined by the crimes you committed. By no means should an ex-felon (especially one convicted of violent crimes) get every right back, but the right to vote is not a concealed weapons permit.

On the subject of "repeat customers"... there should definately be more focus on reform, less on punishment. What do you think 30 years in a cage will do to a murderer's existing mental condition? "He'll sure think twice before doing that again!" Yeah... he'll try not to get caught next time.

The "right" to vote is actually a privilege. If a "right", then I would agree. As a "privilege", I do not.

Prisoners have "rights", even within prisons. They have to pay the price for their actions, including the revocation of "privileges".

"Yeah... he'll try not to get caught next time."Not the type of person I prefer to have voting, thank you.

Actually, getting back to topic, I would prefer an intelligence test prior to voting, to escape the mindless masses who are easily swayed by rock concerts promoting a candidate, or commercial sound bytes that lack substance. That could cut down the voting pool tremendously.

By the way, I vote Independent.

Since voting is a privilege, not a right, constitutional amendments XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI are clearly wrong.

Amendment XV, Section 1: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."

Amendment XIX: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."

Amendment XXIV, Section 1: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."

Amendment XXVI, Section 1: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote..."

These mistakes must be corrected at once, before anyone else gets the crazy notion that they have the right to vote.

:-)

I stand corrected (in a sense) of my use of the word "privilege" vs "right".

Although, if a "right" that is irrevocable, then voting by felons is acceptable. I do not like the potential outcome of voting of those with warped criminalistic viewpoints and values, as well as those who are easily swayed by sound bytes.

By the way, Amendment XV was to recognize voting rights to former slaves, Amendment XIX was to recognize voting rights for women, Amendment XXIV was with respect to polling taxes, and XXVI was with an 18 year old threshold.

By deduction, if the amendments were written to protect voting rights to the above situations, or to extend it to a particular age group, the use of the word "right" is apparently a "privilege".

The definition of "right" aside, how do you propose we filter out those who are so easily swayed by the media? Run an advertisement the day before an election that tells them voting causes cancer? Wait, that's actually not a bad idea. I, too, find it sickening that certain people can vote, but what standards should voters be held to? Those who create the standards will only include themselves. Like those amendments I half-quoted... designed to fix what the white men, who developed the Constitution, had written only for other white men.

Give me a fair method of determining competent voters and I'll, uh... vote for it.

hi, the concern that ex-felons will be able to turn election outcomes doesn't seem likely to me.first, other democracies allow ex-felons to vote andwe don't see a rise in crime on them. But you may argue,those other countries don't have such a huge prison population... But again, the agenda on whatis or not to vote will be limited by the majority( which is not ex-felons) and limited by constituitionand rights of individuals. for instance,allowin ex-child molester to vote will not mean thatsuddenly we will see a law being proposed allowingchild molestation....

but maybe you think that at least the punishment would be reduced...I doubt it and I even would claim that child molesterunderstand that what they have doneis wrong and deserves punishment...

but ,maybe child molestation is a bad example...consider other types of crime...maybemurders related to drug traffickingor even murders for hire...

And Try to imagine an ex-felon, now a politican, trying to sell the following idea:"let's abolish the death penalty!" would it be morelikely to pass under ex-felons voting policy?well, consider this, are most of murderers behind bars?I would guess most likely not.By allowing ex-felons to vote we wouldadd some people who were in prison that changed behaviorand some people who did not. Maybe the last group is(much)bigger...Maybe prison only makesthings worse... would the outcome be differentunder allowing ex-felons to vote? Would the death penaltybe abolished because we allowed in my exampleex-felons to vote? Not necessarily!maybe ex-felons who are still murderers are not thefolks who are most likely to go and vote...

and notice even in the end the death penalty were abolishedwe would be only treating ex-felons who are still commitingcrimes and we haven't caught them yet again as criminalswho are also voting and we never were able to caught them.

I guess my point is it seems a bad idea to base citizenship on averages and most likely.we would not like to have a rule stating that becausea minority commits more crime that another thatthe first minority should have a lower weight on any decision... it doesn't seem right....

To me the most obvious problem occurs as soon as you think about this in terms of tangible practicalities instead of abstract pricinciples: what you are talking about is allowing your government to be chosen by people who have been proven to be venal, cruel, dishonest. You worry that government is corrupt, so you ask that it be more influenced by people who definitely known to be corrupt.

You are talking about felons here, people. Not some kid busted for smoking pot. Murderers. Rapists. And G. Gordon Liddy.

I also question the claim that most democracies allow this. It isn't the case here in Australia. (Actually, we don't have a formal distinction between felonies and misdemeanours in Australia, but a sentence over 3 years wipes out right to vote.) It isn't the case in the "mother of parliaments", UK -- which goes further, and disenfranchises for any custodial sentence. And a policy paper by "Liberty", a civil liberties organisation, listed just 16 examples of countries which provide no restriction on enfranchisment after conviction.

Aren't juries picked from the pool of elibible voters? I can about imagine the result should a whole jury of felons ever was to be picked. (Hey! Maybe that's what happened with OJ...)