Rights Of Convicted Felons

[skap35]

What are your supporting arguments, particularly for your assertion that voting should be enjoyed by all citizens?

A couple brief suggestions for making your argument:

1.  You use "privilege" and "right."  Your argument suggests that you mean "right."  Choose between these words carefully.

Sorry, I meant "right" not just "privilege."

2.  Are you sure you mean all citizens?  Are you including, say, the very young, the retarded, the insane?

Citizen - "an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman."

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...nary&va=citizen

The groups you listed are not "free men." They do not have the ability to think rationally and are subject to the authority of their parents (in the case of the young), or doctors or guardians (in the case of the mentally handicapped). I would also add criminals in prison to your list. Therefore, they don't enjoy the same rights as a full citizen. Since they are (correctly) subject to an authority in addition to the rule of law, they can't be considered "free."

Even though legally speaking, these people are still citizens (the groups above are citizens in the sense that they are simply members of this country), when I use the word "citizen" I am using the definition above. Someone who can move about freely and live his life only under the law, and nothing else. Based on the definition above, those groups are not considered citizens.

If I am subject to taxes, the draft, and laws restricting my actions, then (if I am truly considered to be "free"), I have the freedom to control what becomes law, within the bounds of the Constitution. If I don't have the right to vote, then I am, by definition not free. Stealing a car is a serious crime, but it hardly should result in a permanent loss of freedom. Do you disagree?

Furthermore, in the case of conviction by an unjust law, with every conviction, that law becomes stronger and harder to remove. Each person wronged by that law loses his ability to correct the injustice. And with each conviction, that is one less opponent for the supporters of that injustice. If you are simply imprisoned from an unjust law, at least you have a chance to right the wrong when you are released.

I'm sure you agree that there are unjust laws in this country, some of them being felonies.

This is not a basic idea of the country. It's not even a basic idea of Rand. Voting is a consequence, not a primary, of a free society.

When Rand said this she was referring to an unrestricted democracy. Where the majority rule has the ability to vote away the basic rights of an individual. She was saying that a free society does not have the ability to vote away the basic rights of any man. She was not referring to who has the right to vote at all. Read the chapter "Collectivized 'Rights'" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

In that same chapter, Rand argues that the ability to choose the form of government is a right of the individual. In contrast to this, what you are saying is that the ability to choose the government is not a right, but a privilege granted by those in charge. In other words, you are basically justifying the "Collectivized Rights" that Rand was arguing against. I as an individual have the right to select my government. If a law is passed by majority rule restricting my right to vote due to my actions, I have then become a victim of "mob rule."

Using the reference from VOS, taking away my right to select my government is something that a free society does not have the ability to do if it is to be considered free.

[Captain Nate]

When Rand said this she was referring to an unrestricted democracy.

She was talking about all democracy. By the definition of the word, Democracy is an organized mob rule. Rand advocated a limited government, and within the confines of that government voting was a consequence, but not a primary. We can still live in a free society if, for just reasons, people's right to vote was removed.

In that same chapter, Rand argues that the ability to choose the form of government is a right of the individual.

I don't have the text in front of me, but I distinctly remember voting not being a right, as much as a means for free people to conduct proper government.

In contrast to this, what you are saying is that the ability to choose the government is not a right, but a privilege granted by those in charge.

Not at all. I think all people deserve to vote as long as there is no compelling reason -- such as violating a major law -- to disenfranchise them.

Using the reference from VOS, taking away my right to select my government is something that a free society does not have the ability to do if it is to be considered free.

Once you commit a crime, you cease to have the right to live in a free society. At that point, the degree of your freedom is up for the courts to decide.

Edited August 8, 2005 by Captain Nate

[Robspe]

Civil rights are the right to vote, the right to sit on a jury, the right to hold public office and the right to possess a firearm. 

I agree.  There will always be a need for judgment.  Some states have an appeals process wherein a convicted felon can petition to have his civil rights restored, and I agree there should be such a process.

In other states, the loss of civil rights is only for a specified time.

Good question.  I used the phrase "initiate (potentially) deadly force" to identify individuals willing to threaten your life in the commission of a crime.  Your question is should this be expanded to include all acts of violence, including those that are not lethal.

I don’t think we can automatically include all acts of violence.  I think it has to be judged case-by-case.  Shoving someone to the sidewalk is an act of violence, but one that probably won't do much harm and is not life threatening.  Shoving someone into traffic may also do no harm but is obviously more dangerous and may well be life threatening.  We would need the full context, including the pusher’s knowledge and state of mind, to determine whether there was a deliberate attempt to threaten the victim's life or merely do non-lethal harm.

  Good point.

I hae no problem with the requirement that a convicted felon have to affirm his commitment to living within the law before he is allowed to vote in the system which makes the laws. If he's not willing to do this, why should he be able to vote? And I don't know that any states completely and forever deprive felons of the right to vote. I know that in Florida a simple and clear procedure exists to get your rights back. Of course the existence of victimless crimes, which were made crimes by elected officials, makes a mockery of this requirement, but that's a side issue.

[skap35]

She was talking about all democracy. By the definition of the word, Democracy is an organized mob rule. Rand advocated a limited government, and within the confines of that government voting was a consequence, but not a primary.

No, there are different forms of democracy. She was referring specifically to a democracy in which the people can arbitrarily vote away basic rights. You can still have a constitutionally limited democracy. NOT all forms of democracy are "mob rule."

I don't have the text in front of me, but I distinctly remember voting not being a right, as much as a means for free people to conduct proper government.

The way I understood it, Rand claimed that the people had a right to select their own government. In other words the right to vote.

Not at all. I think all people deserve to vote as long as there is no compelling reason -- such as violating a major law -- to disenfranchise them.

I agree with that but only while they are removed from society. Once they return to society and their debt to society is paid, they are again subject to taxes and laws, why shouldn't they be allowed to select their government? Especially if they have paid their debt.

[Captain Nate]

No, there are different forms of democracy.  She was referring specifically to a democracy in which the people can arbitrarily vote away basic rights.  You can still have a constitutionally limited democracy.  NOT all forms of democracy are "mob rule."

The way I understood it, Rand claimed that the people had a right to select their own government.  In other words the right to vote.

Only free people could elect their own government -- even communist countries sometimes "voted." Having a system which ensured liberty( i.e., protecting individual rights) is more important than, and a prerequisitive to, having a system which every single individual voted.

I agree with that but only while they are removed from society.

But why? Why can't permenent disenfranchisement be a part of their punishment? Their punishment for their crime does not have to consist, and take place, solely during a period where they are under observation in a government facility (prison).

Once they return to society and their debt to society is paid, they are again subject to taxes and laws, why shouldn't they be allowed to select their government?  Especially if they have paid their debt.

Well, whether they could truly pay their debt after comitting certain crimes is a matter of opinion. I say, no, and disenfranchisements is part of their punishment and is done to protect the vast majority of everyone else.

[DavidOdden]

Why can't permenent disenfranchisement be a part of their punishment?

Because punishment is determined by the courts. The disenfranchisement which follows a felony conviction is not handed down by the court, and therefore is not part of the punishment for a crime. Of course, the law can be changed to make disenfranchisement (permanent or otherwise) be a possibility, and the duration might differ depending on the crime, e.g. fraud yields disenfranchisement for 10 years; battery gives you 20 years no-voting; manslaughter gets you 60 years, and so on. The point is that an objective judgment has to be made as to whether the person must lose their right to vote, and that must be made in the courts. The fundamental question is what gives people a right to vote in the first place.

[skap35]

Only free people could elect their own government -- even communist countries sometimes "voted." Having a system which ensured liberty( i.e., protecting individual rights) is more important than, and a prerequisitive to, having a system which every single individual voted.

Maybe I should have clarified this better. When I say "the right to vote" I assume that "fake voting" as in Communist or one party rule countries is not counted. That's why I've been using "right to vote" and "right to select the government" synonymously in this thread.

But why? Why can't permenent disenfranchisement be a part of their punishment? Their punishment for their crime does not have to consist, and take place, solely during a period where they are under observation in a government facility (prison).

One problem I see with this is when the criminal is released from prison. They are saying "your debt to society has been repaid." Well, if I still can't vote then it hasn't exactly been repaid then has it?

Well, whether they could truly pay their debt after comitting certain crimes is a matter of opinion. I say, no, and disenfranchisements is part of their punishment and is done to protect the vast majority of everyone else.

That really depends on the crime. When it comes to murderers and rapists, no they can never repay the debt. But when it comes to car theft or fraud, if they repay the money they stole and serve time in prison, then why should they continue to be punished for the rest of their lives? Once their debt to society is repaid, the benefits of living as free men should be restored to them.

Let me just ask you this: Specifically dealing with a car thief. If he serves several years in prison and pays back the victim for the value of the car why should he continue to be punished by not voting?