U.S Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL-MN) seeks to allow ex-felons to vote.

[Ban my account ffs!]

http://www.startribune.com/10223/story/1556449.html

I say freedom fighter!

Once felons have served their sentence, their right to vote should be restored.

[Eraserhead]

Ellison is a grade A FF and always has been.

[Ebowed]

From the looks of it, Ellison has a five star record on voting rights issues.

I support this, although I would take it further and allow prison inmates to vote as well.

A felony in some states can actually be quite petty.

[WalterMitty]

im not a fan of ellison, but i do support this idea.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The solution is to stop making victimless crimes illegal not giving felons the right to vote.

[Eraserhead]

The solution is to stop making victimless crimes illegal not giving felons the right to vote.

I think they should do both.

[Ebowed]

The solution is to stop making victimless crimes illegal not giving felons the right to vote.

I think they should do both.

Eraserhead speaks the truth.

[Gabu]

I was always under the impression that the purpose of releasing people from jail is to signify that their punishment has ceased.  It always confused me that they'd restore all of their liberties save for the ability to vote, as a result.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Good stuff from my Congressman in a short time.

I was always under the impression that the purpose of releasing people from jail is to signify that their punishment has ceased.  It always confused me that they'd restore all of their liberties save for the ability to vote, as a result.

Well you could bring up examples of guns and driver's licenses which can be restricted, but that example doesn't really work since those restrictions only happen if your crime was related to those things in some way. It's really just a dumb way to look "tough on crime". I highly doubt you'll have a case where some guy will commit an armed robbery if the penalty was 10 years but would not commit an armed robbery if the penalty was 10 years + loss of right to vote.

[Gabu]

I was always under the impression that the purpose of releasing people from jail is to signify that their punishment has ceased.  It always confused me that they'd restore all of their liberties save for the ability to vote, as a result.

Well you could bring up examples of guns and driver's licenses which can be restricted, but that example doesn't really work since those restrictions only happen if your crime was related to those things in some way. It's really just a dumb way to look "tough on crime". I highly doubt you'll have a case where some guy will commit an armed robbery if the penalty was 10 years but would not commit an armed robbery if the penalty was 10 years + loss of right to vote.

I could see it if the continued restriction had something to do with a reasonable concern of a repeat offense, but as you said, the right to vote really has nothing to do with anything of the sort.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I was always under the impression that the purpose of releasing people from jail is to signify that their punishment has ceased.  It always confused me that they'd restore all of their liberties save for the ability to vote, as a result.

Well you could bring up examples of guns and driver's licenses which can be restricted, but that example doesn't really work since those restrictions only happen if your crime was related to those things in some way. It's really just a dumb way to look "tough on crime". I highly doubt you'll have a case where some guy will commit an armed robbery if the penalty was 10 years but would not commit an armed robbery if the penalty was 10 years + loss of right to vote.

I could see it if the continued restriction had something to do with a reasonable concern of a repeat offense, but as you said, the right to vote really has nothing to do with anything of the sort.

I agree - once their sentence is up - they should be able to vote.

[Alcon]

Most states do allow ex-felons to vote once they have paid their restitution, as far as I know.  Most of the debate involves indigent persons.

[minionofmidas]

Good stuff from my Congressman in a short time.

I was always under the impression that the purpose of releasing people from jail is to signify that their punishment has ceased.  It always confused me that they'd restore all of their liberties save for the ability to vote, as a result.

Well you could bring up examples of guns and driver's licenses which can be restricted, but that example doesn't really work since those restrictions only happen if your crime was related to those things in some way. It's really just a dumb way to look "tough on crime".

No - these restrictions are mostly older than "tough on crime" dumbness. It's 100% aimed at keeping ns and the non-respectable working classes out of polling booths, really.

As to the part about "sentence is up" etc (in other posts), that's a bit misleading since nominal sentences are typically twice as long as periods actually served. (In the US. Here in Germany, 50% longer. In some European countries, identical.)

[Silent Hunter]

Agree with the guy on being allowed to vote once out of prison. Don't agree on allowing serving prisoners to vote.

Name a victimless crime, by the way.

[minionofmidas]

Possession without intent to sell.

[Joe Republic]

I find it amusing that the rights of ex-felons are to be determined by pre-felons in Congress.

[MODU]

Once felons have served their sentence, their right to vote should be restored.

Yes, that is correct. 

Don't agree on allowing serving prisoners to vote.

That is also correct.

I'm glad to see the sanity on the board.

[Verily]

Once felons have served their sentence, their right to vote should be restored.

Yes, that is correct.

But not universally true, particularly (IIRC) in the South. I remember Florida was the biggest offender on voting rights (surprise, surprise).

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I find it amusing that the rights of ex-felons are to be determined by pre-felons in Congress.

They're looking out for their future interests.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Agree with the guy on being allowed to vote once out of prison. Don't agree on allowing serving prisoners to vote.

Name a victimless crime, by the way.

Drug use, promiscuity, Underage drinking, broadcasting porn on the media, publicy nudity.

[Silent Hunter]

Drug use: Damages you, costs the state a lot of money, distresses your relatives.

Promiscuity: That's not a crime. STDs by the way.

Underage drinking: A whole bunch of problems.

Broadcasting porn on the media: Not a crime if it's done at the right time.

Public nudity: Rather disturbing to some people.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1
a It's your body not the state's.
b Yeah it costs the state alot of money because of BS enforcement
c Hey it's your lfie not theirs.

2 Just provide free condoms/lube and intern everyone with AIDS and require all peopel wanting visas/immigrating in to gert mandatory AIDS tests.

3 No. The problem is wasting police resources on BS 'crimes'.

4 Government censorship of the media fails hardcore.

5 The presence of homosexuals and minorities is disturbing to some people. Should we now start gassing gays and darkies to appease bigots?

[Silent Hunter]

1a. Given to you by God, actually. It's still going to ruin your life if you're ravaged by cocaine.
1b. I'm talking about medical treatment, rehab, paying for your funeral...
1c. They're still going to suffer if you end up ODing in a crack house. If they end up with depression, that's more money lost.

2. Intern everyone with AIDS. Why?

3. Some problems: Vandalism, drink-fuelled violence.

4. I never argued for censorship, I argued for regulation.

5. That's not the same thing and you know it.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1a There's no god.
1b The US doesn't have a singlepayer system so your concerns don't apply. Also the relatives can pay for the funeral.
1c Alot of the problems caused with drugs are because they're illegal.

2 Funny you were talking about STDs and chastising me ofr my stances and yet you oppose an idea to get rid of them

3 I consider the social costs of wasting policing on alcohol/drug 'crimes' and thus ignoring violent crimes to be far too high

4 The only regulations for TV content should be no kiddie porn, no bestiality and no necrophilia. That's all.

5 It's not the same thing but it's a step down that path. Outside of basic things like "don't rape kids/farm animals/corpses" and "don't kill/mug/assault people" public opinion should play no role in what your'e allowed to do in public.

[Silent Hunter]

1a. Yes, there is a God. Who created the universe otherwise?

1b. A mother should not have to pay for her own son's funeral. A mother should not have to bury her own son, full stop.

1c. They're also addictive, make you do dangerous things, lead to crime.

2. Not everybody gets HIV/AIDS via sex. Needle sharing, dodgy blood transfusions, for example, being the child of a woman with said condition.

I oppose that idea because its just plain wrong. It violates peoples' rights and makes being ill a crime. Would you say that the internship of Japanese-Americans was right? There are other ways.

3. Drugs fuel violent crimes.

4. Would you want your 6-year-old child watching a full sex scene in Spongebob Squarepants?

5. Suppose a man is driving along the road and sees a naked woman. He crashes his car and kills four other people. Not harmful?

Wow, my first argument with a libertarian.