The criminal constituency

[angus]

But one has nothing to do with the other.  If I kill someone, then taking away my right (okay, we can call it privilege if you prefer) to vote doesn't bring that victim back to life.  Nor does it help to rehabilitate me in any way.  Nor does it help to guarantee the saftety of the public.

I'm a big fan of allowing all to vote, even if it means someone that I don't like will win.  There are dumbasses out there who I think ought not to vote, but that's just my opinion, it doesn't make it right for me to try to pass a law not letting them vote.  And not letting felons vote is the same thing.  Just because felons don't agree with you about ethics or about who should and shouldn't be president (they're mostly democrats), that's no valid reason not to let them vote.

And clearly disenfranchisement doesn't amount to restitution, rehabilitation, or deterrence, so we have yet to see a valid reason for not letting felons vote.

Also, to clarify my position, Carter may be ethically wrong for wanting felons to vote specifically because the vote for Democrats.  But sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons.  Any move toward allowing all voting age people (and I think the minimum ought to be at least 30, but that's another thread) is a move in the right direction.  So while I think folks may be wanting to do this for the wrong reasons, their greater goal of enfranchisement is worthy, so they have my moral support.

[angus]

The laws of the land should protect law abiding folks from criminals and provide punishment for law breakers.

I agree with that David.  You loose me in the second sentence.  Scoundrels?  Surely you have observed that many on this board would use that word, and far worse, to describe our leaders, from Bush, to Cheney, to Hastert, and right on down to the local mayor.  One man's scoundrel is another man's favorite politician.  If we never let "scoundrels" in we'd never have a government.

And "moral people"??!  Surely you can find many who don't find our 42nd president moral.  And you can find just as many who don't find our 43rd president moral.  You need look no further than this board to find many who will scream about the immorality of War in Iraq, of privatization, and of wiretapping the phones of citizens. 

The laws of the land should protect us and keep us safe.  Not allowing a convicted felon to vote does nothing to keep me safe.  On the contrary, it ferments hostility and repression. 

If you steal my purse, then you owe me a new purse, I agree.  Maybe you even need to spend some nights on a cold hard bunk to teach you a lesson, some would argue.  Some might even argue that you deserve a thorough beating.  But what you do not need is somebody telling you that you may no longer have a voice.  There is no justification for that.

Either we have a democratically run republic or we don't.  But to start saying you can vote and you can't is anathematic to the democratic principle.  Especially if that felon has served his sentence.  Letting someone out of jail, but then saying he can't vote is exactly tantamount to saying:  hey, I trust you enough to run about the streets with a knife and fork in your hand, but I don't like you enough to have you helping to decide the law.  Are we to only allow lawyers to vote?  Are we to only allow physicians to vote on medical issues?  Only economists to vote on economic issues?  Only priests to vote on ethical issues?  No, of course not.  All those affected are those who should vote.  A convicted felon has just as much stake in, for example, whether the municipal government ought to spend money on public transit as you do.

Farmers don't employ foxes to guard henhouses?  of course they don't.  And you don't hear me saying a man convicted of having sex with his dog ought to be employed as a dog walker.  Nor do you hear me saying a man who beats his son silly for having sex with a dog ought to be employed as a babysitter.  I'm with you there.  But none of that has anything to do with who should vote.