The criminal constituency

[David S]

The criminal constituency
BY JOHN R. LOTT JR.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 16, 2006
WASHINGTON // If you can't win elections, change the rules.
Despite warnings from people such as the chairman of Maryland's State Board of Elections that the new rules are inviting voter fraud, the General Assembly has pushed through regulations weakening safeguards on provisional ballots, absentee ballots and a long early voting period.
 
Not satisfied, the legislature now wants to make it easier for convicted murderers, rapists, armed robbers and other violent criminals to vote. Overall, 150,000 felons would be eligible.

When asked if the felon voting bill was motivated to defeat Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s re-election bid this year, Del. Jill P. Carter, a Baltimore Democrat, replied, "Of course that's the reason."

The power to deny voting rights to ex-convicts now rests with the states, so standards vary across the country. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly allows for states to deny felons the right to vote.

Maryland Democrats are not alone in wanting to let felons vote. Last year, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. John Kerry introduced the Count Every Vote Act, which would restore voting rights to felons who had completed their prison terms, parole or probation.

Maryland Democrats are proposing even more liberal rules and would allow any convict who is not imprisoned or waiting to serve a prison sentence to cast a ballot. Similar legislation is being pushed in other states.

Democrats have a good reason to want ex-convicts to vote: Felons overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

In recent academic work, Jeff Manza and Marcus Britton of Northwestern University and Christopher Uggen of the University of Minnesota estimated that Bill Clinton pulled 86 percent of the felon vote in 1992 and a whopping 93 percent in 1996.

The researchers found that about one-third of felons vote when given the chance. So if all 150,000 eligible Maryland felons are re-enfranchised, about 50,000 will cast ballots, and Democrats will pick up a net gain of 40,000 votes. Mr. Ehrlich still would have won in 2002, but his margin would have been cut by almost two-thirds.

At the national level, the study's results indicate that the felon vote would have given Democrats the White House in 2000 and control of the Senate from 1986 to 2004.

Full Article at  http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.felons16feb16,0,5189088.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

[Jacobtm]

When you say felons, you seem to be leaving out the part that they're ex-felons. Either that, or you're saying people who are serving time for felonies are going to be allowed to vote in Maryland.

If someone has served their time and all that, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? Should they be excluded from voting because they vote Democratic?

[Emsworth]

Democrats have a good reason to want ex-convicts to vote: Felons overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

In 1870, Republicans had a very good reason to want ex-slaves to vote: Ex-slaves overwhelmingly voted for Republicans. But does that make the Fifteenth Amendment a bad idea? If we apply this article's reasoning, the answer would be yes.

This article is nothing more than a long argumentum ad hominem circumstantiae.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

When you say felons, you seem to be leaving out the part that they're ex-felons. Either that, or you're saying people who are serving time for felonies are going to be allowed to vote in Maryland.

If someone has served their time and all that, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? Should they be excluded from voting because they vote Democratic?

[David S]

Democrats have a good reason to want ex-convicts to vote: Felons overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

In 1870, Republicans had a very good reason to want ex-slaves to vote: Ex-slaves overwhelmingly voted for Republicans. But does that make the Fifteenth Amendment a bad idea? If we apply this article's reasoning, the answer would be yes.

This article is nothing more than a long argumentum ad hominem circumstantiae.

There is a significant difference between an ex-slave and a felon. Hopefully you understand that. Also the 14th amendment does allow for depriving people of voting rights "...for participation in rebellion or other crime." Our justice system frequently deprives criminals of certain rights after serving their prison sentence. The right to own guns, or the right to travel freely, or the right to vote are examples. There is nothing unconstitutional or wrong about such laws. They are just part of the penalty for committing a crime.

The recidivism rate among ex-cons is high, which suggests that many are still criminals at heart even after serving their jail time. One should  wonder about the wisdom of allowing the criminally inclined to have a voice in deciding who our elected officials will be. People will vote for  whatever they perceive to be in their own personal best interest. For an ex-con that might include; voting for people who are soft on crime, voting for gun bans to disarm  potential victims, voting for welfare programs which use the power of government to take wealth from the people who earned it and transfer it to someone else.

[Emsworth]

There is a significant difference between an ex-slave and a felon.

That's not the point. This article argues that Democrats are proposing voting rights for felons primarily because felons vote for Democrats. Well, during the 19th century, Republicans proposed voting rights for ex-slaves primarily because ex-slaves voted for Republicans.

The article discusses just one point: why Democrats supposedly support giving felons voting rights. But all that matters is whether felons deserve voting rights or not. The motivation of the Democrats is utterly irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It does not require it. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are effectively arguing that people should be disenfranchised because of their opinions. You find the political philosophy of the "average felon" objectionable, so you suggest that they should be denied voting rights.

[A18]

What a horrible bill. Felons should be disenfranchised permanently.

[David S]

There is a significant difference between an ex-slave and a felon.

That's not the point. This article argues that Democrats are proposing voting rights for felons primarily because felons vote for Democrats. Well, during the 19th century, Republicans proposed voting rights for ex-slaves primarily because ex-slaves voted for Republicans.

The article discusses just one point: why Democrats supposedly support giving felons voting rights. But all that matters is whether felons deserve voting rights or not. The motivation of the Democrats is utterly irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It does not require it. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are effectively arguing that people should be disenfranchised because of their opinions. You find the political philosophy of the "average felon" objectionable, so you suggest that they should be denied voting rights.

Would you like to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum too?

My point is that criminals would like to enact laws favorable to crime. Do you favor that? In any event the Dems seem willing to accept that in exchange for more votes.

[Emsworth]

My point is that criminals would like to enact laws favorable to crime. Do you favor that?

The mere fact that someone supports laws "favorable to crime" is not grounds for disenfranchising him. One should not be denied the right to vote merely because one supports or does not support something. Such an attitude is contrary to the principles that form the very foundation of a democratic republic.

Many Democrats support laws favorable to crime. Does that mean that they should be disenfranchised?

[A18]

Not only should felons not be allowed to vote, one house in every state legislature should be based on equal representation for each county, and the other should be entirely for property owners over the age of 25.

You should have to be 25 to vote for U.S. House, 30 to vote for U.S. Senate, and 35 to vote for president.

You should also have to own property to vote for president or governor.

[Jacobtm]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 14th ammendment defines citizenship. It's the 15th ammendment that deals with voting rights. it says, in it's entirety.

"Section 1.
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--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Clearly, any state can still restrict voting rights on the basis of an individual having committed a felony. However, just cause the Constitution doesn't strictly forbid it, doesn't mean it should be done. Each state can do what it wants in regards to whose voting rights it restricts.

I just happen to be of the opinion that people are innocent until proven guilty. If someone commits a crime once, and a jury of their peers sentences them to x amount of time in prison, and they're done, I see no reason to restrict their rights. If they behave criminally again, then they should be imprisoned again. But it's saying that Ex-Cons shouldn't be allowed to vote because they might vote for those who are soft on crime is less logical than Japanese-American internment during WWII.

At least during WWII, it's likely that some Japanese-Americans might've been spies. When you're dealing with spies, a single individual can cause alot of damage.

But with ex-cons, what is the likelyhood that they'll get together and vote for something like legalizing theft, or roberry? If you think they're perpetual dangers to society, then they really shouldn't be out on the streets in general. But if a jury deems them ready to re-enter society, labelling them as second class citizens who can't influence their government would only lead to disenfranchise them and lead to more crime. Getting them involved in a normal life would probabally be far more conducive to them becoming productive citizens than telling them they're unable to have the same rights as everyone around them.

Of course, there are some people who are criminally insane who shouldn't be allowed to vote. But then, those people really shouldn't be out on the streets in general, because reckless voting is the least of the problems they cause.

[Emsworth]

The 14th ammendment defines citizenship. It's the 15th ammendment that deals with voting rights.

No, the Fourteenth also deals with voting rights. See Section 2 of the amendment.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

There is a reason why we separate felonies and misdemeanors based on the severity of crimes.  A felony crime creates repercussions for their victims that last long after the criminals have completed their sentences.  If the effects of the crime are permanent, there is no reason why someone's priveledge to vote should not be permanently stripped.

[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.

[David S]

The laws of the land should protect law abiding folks from criminals and provide punishment for law breakers. To allow scoundrels to participate in the law making process is to invite a perversion of the justice system to favor criminals at the expense of the law-abiding.

To say that criminals simply have different opinions than me is ludicrous. I hold that it is wrong to assault, rape, rob or murder someone and that those things should be illegal. Criminals don't agree. Is that just a difference of opinion?

One of the founders ( I don't remember which one) once said that the constitution was written for a moral people and that it was wholly inadequate for any other. This is what he was talking about.

Possibly you have noticed that farmers don't employ foxes to guard the henhouse. There is a reason for that.

[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.

[Emsworth]

To say that criminals simply have different opinions than me is ludicrous.

But that was the basis of your logic. You argued that criminals should be denied the right to vote simply because they might favor certain types of laws (laws that are "favorable to crime"). 

I agree that there are valid reasons to deny felons the right to vote. But the fact that they supposedly tend to support certain types of laws is not  one of them.

[David S]

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.

In this case "scoundrels" was simply meant to be another word for the aforementioned felons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok then I, as a purse thief, work to pass laws making it legal for me to steal your purse. Still want me to vote?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems to me that both you and Emsworth think of criminals as just average folks who happen to commit crime for a living. In other words they are just like doctors, or teachers, or engineers, or bricklayers. They are not. And treating them like they are invites danger. You and Emsworth both strike me as decent honest people and if you were in need of a place to stay for a night I would have no problem allowing either of you to use our spare bedroom.  But I would not extend that courtesy to a convicted murderer out on parole. Can you see the difference?

[ilikeverin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok then I, as a purse thief, work to pass laws making it legal for me to steal your purse. Still want me to vote?

OK, I'm a liberal.  By Libertarian Logic (tm), taxation is theft, so I basically want to steal money from your purse.  Still want me to vote?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The criminal justice system has tilted too far towards punishment and away from rehabilitation.  Our probation systems are a joke for the most part and should be strengthened if we want to reduce recidivism.  Locking people up for a period of time and then throwing them back on the street without a useful probation system to guide them back into society is a prescription for more crime.  Lengthening jail time only treats the symptoms without treating the underlying problem.

We need to revamp our drug, gambling, and prostitution laws because as they exist now, they do far more to increase crime than they do to solve the very real social problems that their proponents claim for them.  Take away the funding for criminal organizations that drugs, gambling, and prostitution provide and we'd have much less violent gang crime.

[dazzleman]

There is a significant difference between an ex-slave and a felon. Hopefully you understand that. Also the 14th amendment does allow for depriving people of voting rights "...for participation in rebellion or other crime." Our justice system frequently deprives criminals of certain rights after serving their prison sentence. The right to own guns, or the right to travel freely, or the right to vote are examples. There is nothing unconstitutional or wrong about such laws. They are just part of the penalty for committing a crime.

The recidivism rate among ex-cons is high, which suggests that many are still criminals at heart even after serving their jail time. One should  wonder about the wisdom of allowing the criminally inclined to have a voice in deciding who our elected officials will be. People will vote for  whatever they perceive to be in their own personal best interest. For an ex-con that might include; voting for people who are soft on crime, voting for gun bans to disarm  potential victims, voting for welfare programs which use the power of government to take wealth from the people who earned it and transfer it to someone else.

I agree completely.

[Gabu]

The recidivism rate among ex-cons is high, which suggests that many are still criminals at heart even after serving their jail time. One should  wonder about the wisdom of allowing the criminally inclined to have a voice in deciding who our elected officials will be. People will vote for  whatever they perceive to be in their own personal best interest. For an ex-con that might include; voting for people who are soft on crime, voting for gun bans to disarm  potential victims, voting for welfare programs which use the power of government to take wealth from the people who earned it and transfer it to someone else.

To play Devil's Advocate, how is this different than someone who is not an ex-con voting for what's in their own personal best interest?  Should we disenfranchise people who we simply suspect of having criminal tendencies, too?

[dazzleman]

The recidivism rate among ex-cons is high, which suggests that many are still criminals at heart even after serving their jail time. One should  wonder about the wisdom of allowing the criminally inclined to have a voice in deciding who our elected officials will be. People will vote for  whatever they perceive to be in their own personal best interest. For an ex-con that might include; voting for people who are soft on crime, voting for gun bans to disarm  potential victims, voting for welfare programs which use the power of government to take wealth from the people who earned it and transfer it to someone else.

To play Devil's Advocate, how is this different than someone who is not an ex-con voting for what's in their own personal best interest?  Should we disenfranchise people who we simply suspect of having criminal tendencies, too?

Non-criminals have more of a legitimate right to seek out their personal best interest.  Criminals have shown that they regard their personal best interests to be at odds with the best interests of the rest of society.

The most I would say is that ex-felons could have their voting rights back if they've stayed out of trouble for a period of time -- say, ten years.  That would be the most liberal position I would take on this issue, and even that is stretching it.

[opebo]

Yet another thread in which a lot of deludeds misunderstand the nature of 'crime', individual volition, responsibility, class, society, and power.

[Gabu]

Non-criminals have more of a legitimate right to seek out their personal best interest.  Criminals have shown that they regard their personal best interests to be at odds with the best interests of the rest of society.

The most I would say is that ex-felons could have their voting rights back if they've stayed out of trouble for a period of time -- say, ten years.  That would be the most liberal position I would take on this issue, and even that is stretching it.

Okay, so we have the fact that their best interests are likely to be at odds with the population's best interests as a whole.

However, there's a very important question to be asked: is this a legitimate reason to restrict them from having a say in matters?  Should the group interest sufficiently trump individual interests to such a degree that we should entirely forbid people from participating in the democratic process who are deemed to be acting against the group interest?  What about people who are not ex-cons, but whose interests are nonetheless opposed to the interests of the population as a whole - should these people be disenfranchised as well?

You're sounding a lot more liberal than you might like to think.