On Topic Discussion Voting Before Entering Prison and After Leaving

[medic1]

There is a lot of political pressure being put on our First Minister just now about this.

A Scottish cross-party committee has said that prisoners should be allowed to vote, all of them. At the moment only those on a Tag, or remand can vote.

My POV is, that if you are serving a sentence, then you have by your actions, recused yourself from that "right".

 

[opinterph]

I looked online but have not been able to find any statistics on the percentage of US criminals who voted before incarceration. That would seem relevant, as the fight to enfranchise seems to assume that the population is prone to vote.

Does anyone know of any reliable data on the question.

A 2007 report based only on data from North Carolina suggests …

Twenty-nine percent of people convicted of felonies were registered to vote prior to being convicted of their first felony, compared with 65% of the general population. [Link]

The report notes that other factors may be involved in reaching a conclusion, such as educational and other disadvantages, age (young people are generally less likely to participate in politics), and marital status.

 

[NotHardUp1]

That is exactly my point. Only one in three could have ever voted in the first place. And for those registered, we by no means see anywhere near 100% of us using our right to vote.

And of course it is driven by education, sex, race, poverty, and age, just like the factors that led the prisoners to lives of crime.

Again, I'm not against prisoners voting, but it seems a bit of a red herring, and if you were to offer a prisoner a choice on his release between $1000 and foregoing his voting privileges for 10 years, I have high confidence that a huge majority would take the money because they know that they've not voted regularly before, so what's to lose?

Still, let them vote when released. It's a non-issue with no impact other than a bone in the culture wars.

It's actually amusing to contemplate the candidates NOT wanting the endorsement of the Prisoners' Voting League.

 

[bankside]

My guess is that the denial would have been part of the punishment of their conviction, just like they no longer have liberty or the option of pursuit of happiness either.

There is a lot of political pressure being put on our First Minister just now about this.

A Scottish cross-party committee has said that prisoners should be allowed to vote, all of them. At the moment only those on a Tag, or remand can vote.

My POV is, that if you are serving a sentence, then you have by your actions, recused yourself from that "right".

These distinctions are very important. Someone remanded to custody and yet to be convicted of any crime absolutely must be able to vote. Stripping the vote makes far more sense as a specific punishment relevant to the type or magnitude of the crime for which someone has actually been convicted. (provided that exclusion expires when the sentence does.)

A 2007 report based only on data from North Carolina suggests …



The report notes that other factors may be involved in reaching a conclusion, such as educational and other disadvantages, age (young people are generally less likely to participate in politics), and marital status.

Thank you for finding this. As always, the inescapably relevant part is buried in the notes. Those "other factors" should not be compounded by a hasty or blanket exclusion from democratic rights.

That is exactly my point. Only one in three could have ever voted in the first place. And for those registered, we by no means see anywhere near 100% of us using our right to vote.

And of course it is driven by education, sex, race, poverty, and age, just like the factors that led the prisoners to lives of crime.

Again, I'm not against prisoners voting, but it seems a bit of a red herring, and if you were to offer a prisoner a choice on his release between $1000 and foregoing his voting privileges for 10 years, I have high confidence that a huge majority would take the money because they know that they've not voted regularly before, so what's to lose?

Still, let them vote when released. It's a non-issue with no impact other than a bone in the culture wars.

You point out the limited practical applicability of making a big stink over this, and maybe it's real-world relevance compared with other issues, but what's your view on the symbolism of it? Democratic rights are some of the most essential, and in my view they require not only practical protections but symbolic. And if someone can be bribed with a hundred dollars a year to ensure their own survival, the vote is probably the most important of their tools and the last that should be relinquished. In the famine, sickness, poverty and distress of Sudan, and every other failed nation, they don't fight for apartments and satellite TV, they fight for government.


--
Also just going to point out a continuing flaw with US democracy: "Registration" shouldn't be a thing. The fact that someone is of age and has nationality is enough to vote on voting day, provided they are not subject to a specific, judicially-reviewed exclusion. Some invented administrative procedure should never be a barrier to voting. "Voter Registration" is in itself an anti-democratic intrusion on that right. Imagine setting up a registry of citizens entitled to speak freely, write an editorial, ask questions at a community league, author a book...

 

[Alistair]

^well said bankside. I agree wholeheartedly

 

[NotHardUp1]

. . . what's your view on the symbolism of it? Democratic rights are some of the most essential, and in my view they require not only practical protections but symbolic.

My view of it symbolically is the best argument to be made against enfranchisement during incarceration. I agree with other members' statements in regard to disregarding the rights and freedoms by being convicted of having contempt for the public good. If I were to decide on symbolism alone, no convicted criminal serving a sentence, whether on probation or in a prison or jail, would be allowed his liberty to vote. After that, yes, but not during. It would be part of the punishment.

Also just going to point out a continuing flaw with US democracy: "Registration" shouldn't be a thing. The fact that someone is of age and has nationality is enough to vote on voting day, provided they are not subject to a specific, judicially-reviewed exclusion. Some invented administrative procedure should never be a barrier to voting. "Voter Registration" is in itself an anti-democratic intrusion on that right. Imagine setting up a registry of citizens entitled to speak freely, write an editorial, ask questions at a community league, author a book...

Agreed. One must simply show current residency and declare it at the point of occupancy. Once that "registration" is completed with the local government, one should be allowed to vote by simply proof of identity.

 

[bankside]

My view of it symbolically is the best argument to be made against enfranchisement during incarceration. I agree with other members' statements in regard to disregarding the rights and freedoms by being convicted of having contempt for the public good. If I were to decide on symbolism alone, no convicted criminal serving a sentence, whether on probation or in a prison or jail, would be allowed his liberty to vote. After that, yes, but not during. It would be part of the punishment.



Agreed. One must simply show current residency and declare it at the point of occupancy. Once that "registration" is completed with the local government, one should be allowed to vote by simply proof of identity.

Awesome. I’d add some latitude for the judge to decide during sentencing in the same way that they often can choose between a fine, incarceration, or other remedies, like mandatory participation in a treatment program if addiction is the problem. I can imagine some cases where I’d be willing to allow a judge to decide and to be strategic, I think you get better law that way. Let the judges figure out based on the facts of a few cases if there are times when it is warranted and times when it would represent an unreasonable punishment. Their job is to do all that research and hear all those arguments. It gives a strong legal record of the pros and cons that way, and in 10 or 15 years you can go in and amend the law with what we now know.

As far as registration, as long as that happens also at the voting booth, I agree. Alternative measures to ID should also be available. We can show a bill with our address, on the day of voting. Or we can have someone just vouch for us. It’s hard to say there is any real barrier to any legal voter, and we have good electoral integrity.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

 

[NotHardUp1]

I'm against unnecessary ID requirements, but I disagree it is something casually done upon showing up. Residence is central to what tax bonds you vote on, and which representatives you can choose, etc.

A printed statement from a business is in no way a validation of residence. People could easily get mail at any number of addresses that they might have access to. I find it perfectly legitimate that the government be privy to the declaration of residence whenever a citizen changes permanent residence. That shouldn't be a complicated or onerous process. Simply declaring it on the postal website, with some verification like a credit card or something, is fine. I hate the complication of tax laws, tax complications, and other processes that seem designed to do little more than obfuscate and preserve some ruling bureaucracy.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I looked online but have not been able to find any statistics on the percentage of US criminals who voted before incarceration. That would seem relevant, as the fight to enfranchise seems to assume that the population is prone to vote.

Nope, "You didn't vote before" does not justify stripping someone of their right to vote in the future nor are any of us abitrators of who gets to vote or is more likely to vote a la "Too late for you to join the race."