May 25, 2005
THE LIFE OF A CONVICTED FELON
There was an interesting article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about the challenges convicted felons face upon release from prison (and being able to vote is the least of their worries). From finding work and housing to receiving a state issued identification card or financial aid to pay for college, convicted felons are faced with one hurdle after another in their attempt to reinsert themselves back into society. While I have never been arrested or spent even one second behind bars, I have a friend who is soon going to be faced with many of these issues himself, and I worry for him in deep and meaningful ways.
What is the justification for denying people who have paid their debt to society the right to vote? After all, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are equal, inseparable and take precedence over any subsequent enactments. Would anyone assert that a felon, once released from prison and having successfully completed parole or probation, has no right to attend a church--to exercise his or her freedom of religion--until those specific rights are restored in writing by some executive order? Of course not.
Likewise, no one would consider barring former prisoners from writing books or letters-to-the-editor after their release pending issuance of some document formally "restoring" this First Amendment right.
This notion that you can become a second class citizens--with some of your constitutional rights selectively and permanently impaired--even after you have "done your time," is anathema in a free country, because it accustoms us to a dangerous precedent under which bureaucrats are empowered to decide which rights shall be "restored," and when.
Click on the link below for the full Wall Street Journal article. It's a fascinating read, to say the least.
After Prison Boom, A Focus on Hurdles Faced by Ex-Cons
Housing, Work -- Even an ID -- Can Be Hard to Attain
By GARY FIELDS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May†24,†2005;†Page†A1
In the kitchen of an Applebee's restaurant in Queens, N.Y., Jacqueline Smith has been a model hire. In less than two years working as a cook, she got a promotion to supervisor, doubled her salary and won the award for employee of the year.
Her success hasn't come easily. The dark-haired 38-year-old is an ex-convict who served more than nine years for transporting more than half a pound of crack cocaine from New York to Washington. Since being released in July 2003, she has struggled with basic necessities such as finding affordable housing and getting a valid state ID card.
A single parent with a steady but low-paying job, Ms. Smith would normally be considered a prime candidate for public-housing assistance, but she knows the odds are against her. Local housing rules bar ex-felons from living in public housing for six years after completing their sentence. So every night around midnight, Ms. Smith takes a few buses and switches subway lines for an hour-long trek to a Manhattan shelter for female ex-convicts where she and her daughter have been living for more than a year.
"It's one battle after the next -- trying to obtain housing, trying to obtain employment," Ms. Smith says. "I want a second chance. I want people to see I made mistakes, but I am making it right."
Ms. Smith is one of more than 630,000 people released each year from corrections institutions in the U.S. Not surprisingly, people who have been locked up for many years, often poorly educated and lacking in financial support, face a range of obstacles to re-entering society. Yet some of the biggest are put there by federal, state and local governments, including hurdles to getting student loans, public housing and other forms of government assistance.
For years, the thinking among law-enforcement officials and politicians was that this was the price people should pay for breaking the law. Now there is an emerging belief that the larger price is being borne by society, since the practical barriers facing ex-prisoners make it more likely that they will slip back into a life of crime.
Two-thirds of ex-felons return to police custody within three years of their release for new crimes or for probation or parole violations, according to Justice Department studies. U.S. taxpayers spent $60 billion on corrections in 2002 at the local, state and federal levels, up from $9 billion two decades earlier. Over that same time frame, corrections has been the second fastest growing government spending category after health care.
Aside from public-housing restrictions, many former felons find they need special waivers to get licensed in vocations they learned while serving time. Some find their attempts to get an education are stymied by laws barring loans to those convicted of a crime. Still others can stumble into technical violations that send them back to prison, such as reporting late for a meeting with a probation officer. For those who have completed lengthy sentences, the most frustrating barrier is also the most basic -- getting a legitimate ID card, such as a driver's license.
"One barrier may not be that big a deal," says Debbie Mukamal, director of the prisoner re-entry institute at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Usually, though, offenders face several barriers, she says, adding: "You can't get housing, you have child support" payments to make, "you can't get ID and no one will hire you. Cumulatively, that sends a signal: You're not wanted." Ms. Mukamal is the co-author of a sweeping report last year funded by the Justice Department and conducted by the Legal Action Center, a New York nonprofit, examining "roadblocks to entry" facing ex-offenders.
After years of pushing for tougher sentences, politicians in Washington are rethinking their approach. The Second Chance Act, hammered out by a bipartisan group of lawmakers and introduced last month, would provide more than $80 million in grants for programs to help ex-offenders re-enter society.
Kellie Mann Owens might have benefited from a key part of the legislation: a provision ensuring that ex-offenders can be licensed in occupations they trained for in prison.
Ms. Owens was determined to learn a skill so she could land a job when she left the Alderson, W.Va., women's prison made famous recently for housing Martha Stewart. In 1993, Ms. Owens, who had just finished her sophomore year at Santa Rosa Junior College in Northern California, obtained LSD for her ex-boyfriend and mailed it to him in Georgia. He was caught and cooperated with authorities against those he had enlisted to secure drugs, including Ms. Owens. He was sentenced to two years while she received 10.
Ms. Owens, now 34 years old, joined the prison's all-women fire-fighting team, a group that provides fire protection for the prison and backup for other local fire squads. She figured it would position her well for a decent job. For more than five years, she slogged through classes and training, entering smoke-filled rooms with her oxygen mask blackened to simulate rescue situations and navigating the Appalachian mountain roads near the prison in a yellow fire truck.
"Any of the physical requirements that you had to do" for state licensing, "we were required to do in our classes," says Ms. Owens.
She eventually rose to the fire team's top rank of lieutenant, garnering 300 hours of training and 100 hours at the scenes of actual fires in the towns outside the prison.
In January 2001, President Clinton granted her clemency on his last day in office after receiving her name from Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a group that advocates changes in sentencing laws.
After eight years in prison, she left Alderson for her parents' home in Alpharetta, Ga., confident a fire department in one of Atlanta's booming suburbs would hire her. She filled out each job application truthfully, noting she was a felon. But state law bars hiring former felons.
Ms. Owens says she offered to "clean hoses, flush the truck," anything to get her foot in the door -- to no avail.
Eventually, she got a job with an organization that trains service dogs for people with debilitating diseases and injuries. Last year, she moved to Hawaii and started a catering business with her husband, who she had met back in high school. The business didn't take off so they are planning to try again in Mississippi.
Many ex-convicts leave prison wanting to start anew, and the first step is often trying to get an education. But while 63% of all undergraduates receive some form of financial aid, money isn't easy to come by for ex-felons.
Emily Wheeler, of Kenosha, Wis., says she was arrested Aug. 5, 2003, for growing and selling marijuana with her boyfriend.
Nineteen years old and in the early stages of pregnancy, she received a sentence of three months in jail and three years on probation -- reasonable, given that "I did screw up," she now says.
After she was released in January 2004, she applied to take classes in word-processing and other office skills at Gateway Technical College in Kenosha. "I was filling out the application [for financial aid] and I got to question 35. It asked me if I'd been convicted of a drug felony," she says. "I was totally halted right there."
Federal law states that first-time offenders convicted on federal or state drug-possession or drug-trafficking charges are ineligible to receive financial assistance for as long as two years after their convictions. Completing drug rehabilitation can cut that time, but such programs can be expensive.
"I understand their concern. A college campus is a perfect place to sell drugs, but I also know I can't move forward in my life without an education and a good job," says Ms. Wheeler. She now earns $7 an hour at a Culver's Frozen Custard, a fast-food restaurant, trying to make ends meet to help support Olivia Rose, her 1-year-old.
For Ms. Smith, the Applebee's cook, finding housing for herself and her teenage daughter has been the toughest challenge. Upon being released in July 2003 from the women's prison in Danbury, Conn., Ms. Smith headed for a halfway house.
Like many prisoners released before their sentence is completed, Ms. Smith was required to find a job in 15 days or face the possibility of being returned to prison to finish her last six months. But to get a job, Ms. Smith needed valid identification from the Department of Motor Vehicles. In New York, residents need a combination of documentation such as bills and voter registration cards that each add up to enough cumulative "points" to qualify for a driver's license or nondriver ID.
Ms. Smith had a federal prisoner ID, a birth certificate and a Social Security card. Those were not enough. Motor-vehicle personnel asked if she had a passport, a bill with her name on it, any additional identifiers. "I kept telling them that I'd been in prison the last 10 years and didn't have any other identification." Eventually she found a sympathetic supervisor who issued her the card.
She found a job quickly at a clothing store but switched after a few months to work for Applebee's, where she could use the culinary certificate she'd earned in training on the inside.
She struggled to find a cheap yet safe place for her and her daughter. The two are now living in the Sarah Powell Huntington House, a Women's Prison Association facility, funded through the city department of homeless services.
Ms. Smith has been trying to apply for subsidized housing. The federal government has a small number of restrictions against ex-felons living in public housing, such as sex offenders and those who have manufactured methamphetamine in a housing complex. However, local housing authorities are able to impose their own restrictions on ex-felons living in public housing, and those can be expansive.
Howard Marder, spokesman for the New York City Housing Authority, says there are virtually no vacancies in the city in public housing and with about 136,000 applications pending it is unlikely that someone with a felony record will get in. Besides, ex-felons are ineligible for public housing for six years after the completion of their sentence, including probation. Ms. Smith, who will be on probation another three years, won't even be eligible until 2014.
Ms. Smith recently met with a New York City Housing Authority case agent to discuss her application. She took certificates showing her training and her work experience, but the conversation turned toward her felony record. "I asked if that meant I wasn't going to get it. They wouldn't say no outright," she said, but she was left with the impression that her application would be rejected. "I still hope everything works out," she says, "but I don't know."
Until something else comes along, Ms. Smith says she'll keep pushing for promotions at work, while staying in the shelter. Returning to a life of crime and risking a return to prison is not an option, she says: "I don't have another 10 years to give to nobody."
Posted by Mikal at May 25, 2005 6:49 AM
| TrackBack
I was bothered at your answer to you friend's question back in January about DNA -- Mikal, he could be totally innocent of any further wrongdoing in the future and still suffer from having his DNA registered in the criminal justice system.
Aside from the fact that it's possible that an innocent person could have DNA at a crime scene, it's also true that there are dishonest or unscrupulous people in the penal system that could use that information in ways that it was never intended, and there's no check or balance on that happening.
And laying aside those practical matters, the principle of it is just wrong because he has no presumption of innocence or protection from self-incrimination.
I could understand setting those things aside for SOME types of convictions, like sex offenses or violent crimes where perpetrators are very likely to have committed more than one crime, but not in the case of your friend, where his crime is more one of spur-of-the-moment bad judgement, it isn't warranted.
I have been recently arrested and spent a hellish night/day behind bars. It's no picnic, and I have no desire to relive the experience..
The biggest obstacle prisoners have to overcome is the label of convicted felon. Not such a big deal if you're Ken Lay or Dennis Kozolowski, but for the vast majority, it is.
The law of the land has determined that they have repaid their debt to society and that should be good enough to restore their full rights and responsibilities. Unfortunately, potential employers sometimes look these things up, but less frequently, since such background checks may catch their child in a compromising situation.
A prisoner has paid his or her debt to society. Let him or her rejoin it.
You donít even have to be convicted, just arrested. A person I know was arrested when a fight broke out in bar and they arrested everyone that was in the bar at that time. Once it got all sorted out they dropped the charges. Now when she goes for a job interview, the interviews goes great but then they do a background check and she never hears from them again. One company flat out told her that, ìShe must have been doing something wrong to get arrested.î
Your topic is a touchy one...right up there with the subject of God and Politics. Perhaps they are all intertwined.
Everyone makes mistakes, not one of us is perfect{I have made my share... never convicted of a crime{gratefully!}. A crime IS a crime. When you go infront of a Judge/Jury, "they" are suppose to be a peer that is capable of judgement. If convicted of a crime, I believe there should be long term consequences for the "convicted". If there are/is not, what would make someone not disobey again. On the other hand it seems to me that many in the courts today are let off easily and without appropriate punishment... never serving a day, when it was evident the individual did the crime. Money talks and our judicial system is warped. I am sorry some have to pay the price others should be paying too. It sickens me to think some suffer needlessly... there should be a way to solve this. I am not sure how. I am sorry for your Friend Mikal... and I hurt for my Friend that posted above here. Dang-IT, wouldn't it be nice to have a magic wand and be able to change things...that should never have been?
Well I see the "RIGHT" to vote MUCH differently than the "RIGHT" to worship as one wishes.
One is GOD given.
The other is government given.
When you commit a felony you've demonstrated your disregard for the laws of government.
(at least in theory)
and thus losing some government granted rights may not be out of line.
Also Mikal your response to your friend did note the VERY HIGH percentage of crimes that are committed by previous felons.
Let's face it, right or wrong our prison system is punishment NOT rehab.
Doing the time earns your way out of that... a place back in society.
It doesn't necessarily earn you 100% good standing in that society.
Getting into society is earned through your sentence.
Getting a respected status in society is earned by your behavior upon your release.
Surely there are people convicted of felonies for which this is a harsh, and maybe even unfair, reality.
But for the most part I think this is perfectly reasonable.
Lets not forget that most felony convictions are horrible horrible crimes.
If you were talking about running down a mailbox I'd wager the prosecutor would not press to hard to put you in prison anyway.
Mikal, the right to vote is not a "right" such as the right not to be discriminated against based on color, creed, religion, etc.
The right to vote is a "privelege" one receives for living in America and obeying our laws. Once you have broken our laws, priveleges can and will be revoked.
Let me ask you this...does a person who habitually receives a DUI continue to be granted the "privelege" of having his license back? At what point do you draw the line?
I disagree with the two previous posts from Doug and Pete regarding rights and privileges. It is wholly inaccurate to state that the right to vote is "government given." Quite the contrary, the US Constititution limits the government from certain actions against the people using phrases such as "shall not be infringed", "shall not be violated", and "excessive bail shall not be required" all of which explicitly restrain government from tyranny against the people.
The crucial distinctions between rights and privileges should not be clouded since by doing so we the people render ourselves subservient to our government, the opposite of which was the founder's intent. Doug's statement "you've demonstrated your disregard for the laws of government (at least in theory) and thus losing some government granted rights may not be out of line", and Pete's peculiar equation of licensure to operate motor vehicles with voting for elected representatives in a republican form of government, however innocuously intended, eerily displays this subservience to government and an abdication of power as the people to rule the government and not be ruled by the government.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- The Declaration of Independence
By tacitly conceding that government is our parent worthy of inflicting punishments regardless of the Constitution's original intent we wade dangerously closer to increasing tyranny while still foolishly believing our government is truly benevolent and knows better what is appropriate for our safety and happiness.
The Declaration of Independence also states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Unalienable is defined as "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away" particulary by government as the founders intended since, to them, King George III was the government.
Moreover, but not to be construed as less important, government infringing on any citizen's (in this case, Lee's) right to vote is clearly taxation without representation. Since "Taxation without representation is tyranny" was the principle motto of the Revolutionary War, it behooves us as the people to always hold this slogan sacred lest government gobbles up more of our rights for lesser "infractions" while we genuinely or cynically hope that government will take care of us.
Sadly it seems the most forgotten and overlooked Amendment to the US Constitution is Article 9, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." We should cite this as often as we cite Article 1.
Without Prejudice
Ok this is going to be a long one..
I have to disagree.
on five points.
First ...
It is holly inaccurate to says " It is wholly inaccurate to state that the right to vote is "government given." :)
There are indeed rights that the founding fathers say are God given.
Voting isn't one of them.
Second ...
If the US constitution limits the government from denying voting privileges in all cases... then this is a moot point as it's already been decided.
Clearly this is not the case. And although I assume you were trying to make a point about the limitations of government.. that's really not the issue at question. The government DOES have a right to revoke voting privileges. If I'm wrong then write your congressman about this grievous injustice being done to felons all over the country.
third...
You said:
" the US Constititution limits the government from certain actions against the people using phrases such as "shall not be infringed", "shall not be violated", and "excessive bail shall not be required" all of which explicitly restrain government from tyranny against the people."
Quite true... but again... not what we were talking about.
Show me where the US Constitution protects voting beyond doing so for things like race, sex, etc.
It's not there. This very nice passage of yours has no bearing.
Fourth...
You said:
"The crucial distinctions between rights and privileges should not be clouded since by doing so we the people render ourselves "
I think it is you who have clouded the distinction.
Voting is a privilege.
If voting were one of the "certain unalienable Rights" that has been "endowed" to man by our Creator then we'd have to let the whole world vote in our elections.
Voting is MOST CERTAINLY a privilege granted by government.
The balance comes from our government being for the people by the people.
fifth....
You think my saying that losing privileges for demonstrating a disregard for law shows subservience?
Maybe we should do away with jail to .. since it seems you are saying I can't belive there should be consequences for felons unless I'm willing to admit to being a non-thinking conformist.
which leads me to number five:
you said:
"By tacitly conceding that government is our parent worthy of inflicting punishments regardless of the Constitution's original intent we wade dangerously closer to increasing tyranny..."
YOU said parent.
YOU
NOT ME.
YOU said regardless of the Constitution.
YOU
NOT ME.
But while we're on the topic...
OF COURSE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE "inflicting punishments".
That's one of the reasons we HAVE government.
So we don't need a bunch of roaming posses dispensing street justice.
I WELCOME a well thought out debate.
But if you're going to counter please don't put ideas or assumptions "in my mouth".
Dave, since you are so hung up on the constitution let me point out that the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution specifically ALLOWS states to deny the right to vote to people because of "participation in rebellion, or other crime."
Yes the constitution limits what the government can do ... but just as often (if not more so) it spells out what it can do.
There are plenty of parts of the Constitution that spell out when the right to vote is protected (I can quote them if you'd like), however it does not protect it in the case of conviction. In fact it specifically delegates that right to the states.
Recently, some senators have tried to change this - but they have so far failed to do so.
As for your comment "all of which explicitly restrain government from tyranny against the people" ... I suppose you are allowed your opinion that taking a felon's right to vote is tyranical ... but the US Constitution DOES NOT agree with you.
Dave, your interpretation of the 14th Amendment for the sake of this debate is incorrect. Section 2 states fully that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
From an historical context, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were included specifically with the emancipation of slaves in mind. Section 2 emplored to the States that federal power by way of representation in Washington DC shall be only apportioned by the number of eligble voters each State has not merely by the number of males including former slaves. For example, suppose Alabama had 3 million former male slaves ineligble to vote and 2 million male non-slaves eligble to vote. If Alabama refused to allow blacks the right to vote then the State's apportioned representation would be calculated on the 2 million which would mathematically reduce the State's power in Washington DC by 60%.
The Constitution does not allow 'states to deny the right to vote to people because of "participation in rebellion, or other crime' as you stated. Rather, after the end of the "War of Northern Aggression" as thought in the South, the newly empowered Federal Government threw down the gauntlet to those States that did in the past or would in the future deny voting rights to former slaves by making the States pay a heavy price of minimal representation if they continued the denial of those rights.
If the historical context as to why the 14th Amendment was written into the Constitution is excluded then you should also stipulate the exclusion of the historical context of the 15th Amendment which states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Servitude could just as easily be creatively misinterpreted as serving time in prison. However, each interpetation would be incorrect.
Dave,
Youíre wrong.
I really canít believe weíve spent so much time on this.
Now youíre quoting ìcreative interpretationsî of the constitution??
There are several things here that I think are important to STAY FOCUSED ON.
1) There are rights from God, and from man.
The God given ones go beyond any government, and are what ìjustifiedî our separation from the British in the first place.
Voting is NOT one of them.
Period.
Thusly it is a right that comes from man.
And thusly it can be revoked.
2) Revoking voting privileges is legal.
See number one.
It is legal and it is done all over the country.
If you judge yourself to be some expert in constitutional interpretation, and have decided that it is in fact UNconstitutionalÖ then by all means call the ACLU and have them help you bring light to this horrible tragedy.
3) You seem to want to argue something.
Youíve done a nice job of pontificating about everything from the declaration of independence to the emancipation of the slaves. All of which are completely off topic.
Iím honestly surprised that from the one-sidedness of your ìargumentsî you havenít decided that Jail being justified is ìWholly inaccurateî because ìlife, liberty, and the pursuit of happinessî has been taken from prisoners.
Good grief.
If you want to argue something so badly fine.
But it wonít change the fact that you are wrong in this case.
There are only three things at question here.
1) CAN voting ìrightsî be revoked?
2) Is the revocation of voting privileges legal?
3) Is it right to do so?
Weíve shown well enough, I think, that the right to vote did not come from GOD.
So it certainly CAN be revoked.
Weíve shown that it is LEGAL to do so.
It can, and DOES happen all the time.
(again if you question this then by all means call the ACLU. Nothing in your arguments though shows me any evidence of this being forbidden in any document youíve quoted)
And lastly is it right to do so?
Well I dunno.
Thatís REALLY the question we started with isnít it?
FOR ME I think it is perfectly justified to do so.
FOR YOU the answer may be different.
Thatís fine. Thatís another great thing about this country. We can disagree.
My problem with you Dave is that:
1) You responded to two peopleís post about their stance on a moral issue and TRIED to prove them WRONG (or at best naive) and TRIED to back up this defense of YOUR OWN standing with quotes from the constitution and the declaration of independence.
(quotes that were really off topic to begin with)
2) You did so in a condescending and ìcorrectiveî tone.
You donít get to correct my belief system. Especially when you are grossly misinformed.
Itís an insulting, and asinine way to treat people.
3) You seem bent on arguing SOMETHING. You either change the subject or quote 6 unrelated passages of some document to make a good show of it.
So let me state again.
1) CAN voting ìrightsî be revoked?
YES!!
Despite your 12,000 un-related posts this is quite clear.
Voting rights came from man, and can be taken away by man
2) Is the revocation of voting privileges legal?
YES!!
If your own legal expertise tells you otherwise call somebody!
3) Is it right to do so?
Well now weíre back to my original post wherein I said I believe so.
Thatís when you implied my belief was a danger to public freedom, and that I was apparently un-read in the topics of liberty.
Nothing in your behavior has made me want to continue with this with you.
Itís pretty cut and dry, and you seem to just want to argue.
I grow weary of finding new debates with you. As for the topics at handÖ
I think itís quite clear that you have at best over zealously interpreted things, and at worst decided to be condescending, insulting, and tiresome for the purposes of finding a debate somewhere.
Doug, I don't believe that my arguments were off-topic at all. Mikal stated "After all, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are equal, inseparable and take precedence over any subsequent enactments", an opinion I happen to share with him on this particular issue. Had Mikal, an old frend of mine for almost 20 years, believed the opposite I might have started my argument with the line "I disagree with you [Mikal] regarding rights and privileges" to which he might respond in spirited and inspirational debate.
It is unfortunate that you take these debates, which I deem to be healthy, as personal attacks on your belief system. Curiously, you stated that "I WELCOME a well thought out debate" but then chastise me for engaging in one by stating "Itís pretty cut and dry, and you seem to just want to argue." Which is it? It's like challenging me to a tennis match and getting mad that I am hitting the ball back too hard.
For the sake of your constrainment of this issue to just 3 questions (which you condescendingly assert that these are the ONLY 3; anything else is off-topic) I would respond thusly.
1) CAN voting rights be revoked?
"YES!!"
"Voting rights came from man, and can be taken away by man"
This is hardly the question Mikal was proposing, rather SHOULD voting rights be revoked to which my arguments addressed. Government CAN do any barbaric thing it wishes to do and has done in the past. It is up to the people to make sure it does what it SHOULD.
2) Is the revocation of voting privileges legal?
"YES!!"
Legality and morality, again the difference between CAN and SHOULD, respectively. Slavery was indeed legal 150 years ago but it was not moral and we now know that we should not have engaged in such barbaric behavior. Conversely, driving 60 mph in the late 1970's was illegal but certainly not immoral.
3) Is it right to do so?
This is the SHOULD part of the question negating the need for the first two questions. Many people believed that slavery was perfectly legitimate and moral and many did not. Each camp thought the other camp was wrong and challenged us to the biggest duel in our history. Does that mean that individuals with diametrically opposed beliefs should never be challenged?
ugh...
Ok look.
the three questions.
I never said they were Mikals.
I said they were key to the point and should be focued one.
Also you seem to stray into Number three with 2 so I don't really have an answer for you on that one.
Other than question two was quite simple.
Yes or no.
The answer is yes.
In your example slavery.. again compeletly off topic.. the answer WOULD have been yes.. now it's no.
Your "number three negates the need for the other two" is rediculous.
The only reasons laws EVER change is because reasonable people consider all three.
Two final points then I'm done.
You said in your origonal post:
"The Declaration of Independence also states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Unalienable is defined as..."
Since we are talking about "rights" that are NOT endowed by their Creator let alone unalienable it IS off topic.
I'm sorry if that truth offends you.
But it's either off topic or completely misguided.
I was trying to cut you some slack since for the most part your argument seemed to TRY and follow a logical path.
And lastly:
You're right I should have specified that I welcome well thought out and CIVIL debates.
At anyrate the thesis statement of your origonal post seems to be:
"It is wholly inaccurate to state that the right to vote is "government given."
What I said when was cut and dry was that you were wrong on this point.
I still beleive that.
There is a list of God given rights.
Voting isn't on it.
So it's government given.
I think that IS pretty cut and dry.
I have just one question, then. Why are convicted felons, who have paid their debt to society by imprisonment, then denied their right to representation, when their checks are garnished by taxes? If convicted felons cannot vote, why should they then pay taxes, if and when they can find a job?
Well those are valid concerns.
But not mutually exclusive.
Taxes pay for schools, firemen, police, and hospital services, transportation, and infrastructure support.
All of which said felons WOULD be using.
None of us pay a "voting" tax.
Neither are felons.
So their voting rights and tax payments are really separate issues.
Still I see your point.
Remember though that there are people out there that claim NONE OF US are required to pay taxes.
Right or wrong their argument highlights the fact that taxes, and the justification for paying them, is it's own messy debate.
Well played, Doug.
Not to play Mr. Obvious, but you don't get convicted of a felony for jaywalking. Felony convictions are given to people who have a serious disregard for the law. The Supreme Court continues to not overturn laws that block felons from voting. Until they do, I accept that blocking felons from voting to be a constitutional practice.
And I don't consider "jail time" paying your debt to society. Rather, only once you've exhausted all of your punishments have you paid your debt to society.
The assumption that felony convictions are given only to people who have serious disregard for the law depends upon your interpretation of what a serious violation entails.
For example, in the state of Indiana, Texas Hold-em tournaments operated by individuals who receive even a small portion of the evening's proceeds or who are otherwise compensated may be convicted of a class D felony thereby revoking their voting rights.
Would you deem a person engaged in this activity to have a serious disregard for the law?
No, you're right, I wouldn't.
But as I said...
"Surely there are people convicted of felonies for which this is a harsh, and maybe even unfair, reality."
I think though that most of these "minor" types of felony offenses rarely see a court room, let alone a felony conviction.
Most are probably plead down and dealt with. Prosecutors generally have the ability to weight the states action fairly.
But to be fair this certainly ISNíT always the case... and for those unlucky folks... sucks to be them.
Doug, therefore you think that if luck or fortune eludes an individual after commiting a minor felony such as the one I mentioned above, his/her right to vote should be forever revoked?
Fortunately the majority of states disagree with you.
There you go again putting words in my mouth.
RE-read my post if you are confused here Dave.
I think it's quite clear that my post was simply saying that I would NOT "deem a person engaged in this activity to have a serious disregard for the law"
I answered your question.
That's it.
Period.
Heck, I even agreed with you.
Yet you are putting words in mouth, trying to argue some more.
Show me where I EVER said:
"if luck or fortune eludes an individual after committing a minor felony his/her right to vote should be forever revoked."
You won't find it.
Know why?
I didn't say it.
Wow... Deja vu.
It's curious also that you directed me to that link.
The issue at the heart of the site that link points to is how vastly disproportionate the voting rights being revoked is when you compare race.
NOT the states opinion on the statement you PRETNDED I said.
That's not even a state run site.
Another case of off topic or completely misguided.
I'll let you choose.
(though since you are posting this based on some NON EXISTANT belief you have arbitrarily assigned to me... my vote is for misguided)
Truly Dave... your intellect is dizzying.
Hello there! I was convicted of burglary about seven years ago. My question is, can I still join the fire department to become a firefighter. This is my passion that i have. Can someone please help to answer this question.
I went to prison for 3 years ,when I was 24 .I am 27 now .I am denied a barbers license even the right to be a pest control guy .I have often thougt about getting a gun and just doing what it takes to make it ,I got saved in prison and preached in many churches upon my release ,but with no job opportunites its likely I will never get married ,and have a life ,its very fusterating.PLease pray for me because my intentions are to do whats right but with the stiff laws I am desiring to go back and next time It wont be for stealing
I went to prison for 3 years ,when I was 24 .I am 27 now .I am denied a barbers license even the right to be a pest control guy .I have often thougt about getting a gun and just doing what it takes to make it ,I got saved in prison and preached in many churches upon my release ,but with no job opportunites its likely I will never get married ,and have a life ,its very fusterating.PLease pray for me because my intentions are to do whats right but with the stiff laws I am desiring to go back and next time It wont be for stealing
Sallie, I just read your comments from 2005. Woman, you are not correct in anything that you say. You have most definately succombed to the ottrocities of society. Do you not see the system? The system of making a lot of money by our vastly corrupt government. I mean, come on, our laws are made by criminals themselves. Don't trust those who persecute. Read "through the lines"! Understand that the U.S. Government isn't a superior and flawless entity. The "System" was invented to make money for our government. If they give a felon no chance to a fair life, rehabilitation (punishment) or not, they will continue to make money off of us "FELONS" LOL. Get a life, and quit being brainwashed by our so-called "perfect" and "non-criminal" politicians!!!!
I was pushed by my Friend Mikal for this response...and so IT goes. Big ThanX before it. Up-front I have to state that no-one I know is currently in the throws of bars.
I stand by these words{wish I could edit the placement}...:
"Everyone makes mistakes, not one of us is perfect{I have made my share... never convicted of a crime{gratefully!}. A crime IS a crime. When you go infront of a Judge/Jury, "they" are suppose to be a peer that is capable of judgement. If convicted of a crime, I believe there should be long term consequences for the "convicted". If there are/is not, what would make someone not disobey again. On the other hand it seems to me that many in the courts today are let off easily and without appropriate punishment... never serving a day, when it was evident the individual did the crime. Money talks and our judicial system is warped. I am sorry some have to pay the price others should be paying too. It sickens me to think some suffer needlessly... there should be a way to solve this. I am not sure how. I am sorry for your Friend Mikal... and I hurt for my Friend that posted above here. Dang-IT, wouldn't it be nice to have a magic wand and be able to change things...that should never have been?"
Double standards exist in the courts. What happens to one is not what happens to another. What one is serving back then{as in years} sets a place for today. Murderers{ <= example "others" } and such are in jail "for life" while others are being put to death. Whom/who should sit for what crime... wher is the "place is the legel system?The system is unjust on that mark. "Who" is more just to die? I state this because a person has to look at the top and work down. Things are NOT equal... in most instances. {I don't have the time to give example}. Safe to say money talks volumes and that in itself is not fair.
I am not sure what to do about those situation. Seems to me, some kind of balancing rule needs to be implied. Gosh... USA politics are heavy on one side by who gives and those who do not. Are "they" influenced by money" ...behind the doors rule. ...such a shame.
Honesty should always win, here on Earth it may not. In the next world{if you believe in that], everything will be leveled. It does not matter what anyone else thinks, it is what YOU DO that goes to the front... "personal sorry, heart-felt" rides high.
OH, Aaron... grow-up and read more clearly between the lines.
In ohio along with other states driving is a privalge - it was interupted this why in order for the court not to have to adress license suspensions as a legal matter - if you of age, pass the test and can provide insurance its a right to drive. How in the hell is it viewed as a privalage, if you pass all the requirements then its your right period
In ohio along with other states driving is a privalge - it was interupted this why in order for the court not to have to adress license suspensions as a legal matter - if you of age, pass the test and can provide insurance its a right to drive. How in the hell is it viewed as a privalage, if you pass all the requirements then its your right period
Post a Comment:
|
