For felons, a nudge to the voting booth

MSNBC ^ | 8/11/2008 | Krissah Williams Thompson

[Red in Blue PA]

TALLAHASSEE - Herbert Pompey had gone through rehab, stayed sober, held a job, married and started a landscaping business in the two years since he walked out of Taylor Correctional Institution. But what Pompey hadn't done -- and what he assumed a string of felony drug and DUI convictions would keep him from ever doing again -- was vote.

So his pulse quickened when civil rights lawyer Reggie Mitchell called to tell him that his rights had been restored.

"You're eligible to vote now, Mr. Pompey," Mitchell said, calmly relaying the news. "Can I bring you a voter-registration card?"

[Red in Blue PA]

Gee, wonder if these will be D's or R's?/sarcasm

[WayneS]

I think non-violent felons should have their rights restored when their entire sentence (including probation, etc.) has been served.

VIOLENT felons should NEVER have them restored.

[SJSAMPLE]

Agreed.

We parole convicted criminals who’ve served their sentence, and then treat them like they’re still on the inside.

Including non-violent felons in the political process is just another step in legitemizing them and bringing them back into civilized society.

We cannot keep doing the same old things and expecting different results.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

As long as their second amendment rights are restored as well, I agree. Link the two let’s see how enthusiastic the Dems are to restore rights.

[wendy1946]

A person either is an American citizen or he isn’t, there should not be any categories of second or third class citizenship. It will be too easy for any one of us to spend time in prison for firearm possession or some other form of republicanism-crime and never be able to vote again.

[wendy1946]

Bingo. If somebody is too dangerous to own firearms he should be in prison.

[WayneS]

I agree whole-heartedly.

[SECURE AMERICA]

I think non-violent felons should have their rights restored when their entire sentence (including probation, etc.) has been served.

VIOLENT felons should NEVER have them restored.

Maybe you are not clear on the term Felony? You seem to be indicating that violence be the criteria for people to lose their right to vote. However many misdemeanor charges are for acts of violence.
The judicial system grades crimes on seriousness by summary misdeameanor and felony. The most serious category (feling was chosen as the one that would lose a person the franchise. To strat trying to figure out which felony should be exempt and which should not would be a nightmare of litigation.

[WayneS]

I am perfectly clear on it.

Violent crimes are either serious (misdemeanor) or VERY serious (felony).

As far as “figuring it out”, the felony in question either involves acts of physical violence, in which case it is a VIOLENT felony and its perpetrator therefore a viloent felon, or it does not, in which case it is not and the perpetrator is NOT a violent felon. No litigation necessary.

And I AM indictating that it is my OPINION that violence be the criteria by which felons permanently lose their franchise (and their right to own firearms).

Feel free to disagree with my OPINION, but please do NOT accuse me of not understanding the issue.

[TLI]

As long as their second amendment rights are restored as well, I agree.

Correct. You can not start cherry-picking which of the rights are to be restored because sooner than later someone will claim to have the authority to cherry-pick your rights.

[screaminsunshine]

They should make it easy for the dem base. Just put an atm feature on the voting machines. That way the non taxpaying democrats could have the money deducted straight from the tax paying republicans accounts. This would save money on all the paperwork and make it more efficient to redistribute wealth from the workers to the democrat taxtakers. The hoards of government workers could go to a three day workweek and still get paid their share of the loot.

[RU88]

There is a huge push in blue states to have felons voting rights restored for the obvious benefit of the rat party. It’s pretty pathetic that the rats can’t increase their vote totals with law abiding citizens and have to resort to the votes of murderers and rapists to get elected. Anyone who votes for this restoration should be held accountable at the polls.

[theBuckwheat]

While the issue of rehabilitating felons with respect to voting is all too convenient for politicians who hope the ex-cons will vote for them, it does raise two important issues:

1) have we found it too easy to categorize too many crimes as felonies? In my own state, any theft above $500 is a felony, but that limit was set decades ago and if adjusted for inflation it would be several thousand dollars;

2) when a felon has served his full sentence, we must be very careful to consider what it means to ‘pay your debt to society’, and to be willing to welcome these people back into society as much as possible. This is especially true for people who were convicted of non-violennt crimes, especially violations of technicalities such as failure to properly label a shipment, or to correctly account for a business payment.

We also must take into account the full cost of incarceration, which can exceed $30,000 per year. In short, because of the heavy cost to the criminal and to society, we should reserve felonies for serious crimes. We erode the legitimacy of government, indeed we invite tyranny, when we allow government to find it too easy to charge someone with a felony.