Should felons be allowed to vote?
So I've been thinking about this a little bit. A little bit being about 5 minutes. I'd like some input to help me think about it more. The link that I hope shows up is from Time Magazine, and it's about American felons, but I think we can apply the same argument here.
Do you think felons should be allowed to vote? Why or why not?
Part of me thinks they shouldn't. Like the article says, if they exercise enough bad judgement to commit a crime, they shouldn't be putting our leaders in office. Part of me thinks that they definitely should be voting. Voting isn't a privilege you take away like dessert, or watching tv when someone's bad. It's a responsibility that should be taken seriously by all. And despite what some some dictators say, freedom and democracy can't ever be taken away. You're free no matter what anyone says. The only true prison is the one you build yourself. Wow, that's beautiful. I even amaze myself once in awhile.
The whole responsibility thing relates to a lot of my personal philosophy about criminals. When they go to prison, they have all sense of responsibility taken away. The State does everything for them, provides everything for them, schedules their whole day. How is that supposed to fix someone who decided he'd rather profit from someone else's hard work, rather than work for himself? It almost seems deliberately counter-productive.
Anyways, that's all I've got for now. Leave comments, argue with me, whatever. Just be nice, and try and put at least as much thought into what you say as I did.
4 Comments:
First off, people are only free whem someone else protects their freedom. No one has a right to anything that they themselves cannot defend. Too often people assume that their rights are inherent to their condition rather than just priviledges that those in power protect.
Secondly, criminals chose to give up their when they began commiting crimes. Therefore, they should not be allowed to vote. They owe a debt to society, and until they've paid it in full, they are not worthy of the rights granted citizens.
Alright dude, I put in a lot of thought as to what you said. And I've posted my response here:
http://www.peskylittlepagan.com/blog/2006/11/in-response-to-jeffypoo.php
I've got to respond to the comments here. I'm always impressed by how different people look at a question like that, and attack it from different sides.
In response to what Angry Duck says:
I think there are a couple problems with your argument. You're saying that if someone is unable to protect their rights, then they don't have their rights. Is that right? And if you're able to defend your right, then you have that right. But does that mean that if you're poverty-stricken, living in a third-world country with no education, and self-appointed dictators threaten you every day, you have no rights? And I don't mean to be presumptuous, but does it also mean that if I'm able, I'm allowed to take away your rights? I believe you can lose your ability to exercise your rights, but your basic human rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, democracy, etc are inalienable, and exist no matter what anyone says.
I believe you're making a faulty assumption when you say that criminals give up their right to vote. All you know for sure, is that as long as someone actually did commit a crime, that they chose to commit that crime. And I'm not even trying to address what Kasper said, about whether they actually committed a crime or not. But your second statement depends on the fact that one's right to vote can be taken away when they commit a crime, which is not yet proven, in my opinion.
I still it's a responsibility that everyone should take seriously, part of why criminals should vote: because they need to learn or re-learn responsibility.
One thing I'm concerned about is that Angry Duck, and a lot of other people in this country view the criminal justice system as a means to exact revenge on criminals. As a victim of violent crime myself, I know that revenge is pointless, for my own well-being, and for the purpose of "curing" the criminal.
Ducky,
Rights are inherent. That's the point of calling them rights. If they were privileges, they would be called that.
Driving is a privilege. Freedom of thought is a right.
Rights aren't granted. They're recognized as being inherent.
In the case of voting, it is a right that is inherent in a democracy, so within the concept of global political structures, it's a privilege to live in a democracy (comparatively), but within the context of a democracy, it's a right. Citizens have the right, not the responsibility or privilege, but the right, to vote, if they so choose.
I have to admit, I'm surprised that you responded like that. It seems very narrow minded (They're second point) and counter-intuitive for someone that often professes a distrust for law enforcement.
Additionally, I think Jeff is right, the justice system isn't about revenge, that's the point of it being setup the way that it was. Crimes aren't committed against the individual, they are committed against the state. An assault on your person is an affront on society, so the state takes the charge to prosecute the offender.
The ideology is such that by removing the victim from the law enforcement process, there would be no motive for revenge, but justice, in the form of rehabilitation and punishment, as is just for the crime. This was done because society does not benefit from revenge, so it's up to society to make sure the justice system doesn't become a forum for it.
Post a Comment
<< Home