5 ms·

You're not explaining the other side of the story. Many felons are convicted and owe fees to their victims, or to the govt. If you commit a violent crime, or a

You're not explaining the other side of the story. Many felons are convicted and owe fees to their victims, or to the govt. If you commit a violent crime, or a financial crime, there can be a financial penalty. Many of the felons that want to vote, never paid back their victims, or the state, for the crimes they were committed. The Florida proposition "restored the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation" Now, they want to vote, but still haven't compensated their victims, which was a part of the sentence, based on a lawful conviction.

kerkeslager 6y ago
You haven't actually presented another side to the story, you've just cited a legitimate, but completely irrelevant, concern. If people aren't paying their debts, garnish their wages, seize their assets, or if they're flagrantly avoiding paying back debts, put them back in jail--you know, normal things that we already do which actually get people to pay back their debts. Failure to pay reparations is a legitimate concern, but it's not relevant to voting rights. Let's not pretend this is about reparations. It's about disfranchising people.
throwlaplace 6y ago
False. I'm drawing attention to the amendment and what the will of the people was/is and efforts made to subvert that will. The amendment as on the ballot said nothing about requiring money as a prerequisite. That's what Florida voted for: returning freed felons their rights. To ascribe some other interpretation to "terms" is to subvert the will of the people of Florida. Ultimately the courts will decide whether the legal language "terms" includes fines and restitution. Seeing as these felons are free and fines are a civil matter I don't know how the courts could find that such things are part of their criminal sentence. Edit: also btw I linked to reputable sources. I didn't obscure anything or omit anything. It's right there on wiki: >However, by mid-2019 Republican Governor DeSantis signed a bill into law which originated in the Florida Senate, SB 7066, which required that "people with felony records pay 'all fines and fees' associated with their sentence prior to the restoration of their voting rights" It's a post facto qualifier. If fines were implied by the initial amendment this bill would be unnecessary.
- JarlUlvi 6y ago
  That sounds more like an interpretation issue, than a posto facto.
saagarjha 6y ago
I still don’t understand why we deny felons the right to vote while they are serving their sentence, so extending this to nonpayment of fines seems even more arbitrary.
- calpaterson 6y ago
  In the UK people in jail (so a subset of convicted people) are not allowed to vote. The argument is that while you are detained in jail you are being punished by loss of civil rights and that voting is one of these.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    As far as I understand, in Florida even people with past felony convictions can't vote, even if they served their sentence.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    People might be interested in this which describes attempts to allow some prisoners in the UK to vote: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7461/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
- luckylion 6y ago
  One obvious answer is that we've found them to be problematic with regards to living peacefully with other people, so much so that we feel the need to physically remove them so they cannot hurt others. Why would we allow them to vote under those circumstances?
  - kelnos 6y ago
    It's analogous to taxation without representation. Jailed felons are subject to the laws of the land, but have no say in what those laws are. I think that's unjust. It's especially nefarious when you consider all the people in jail for non-violent offenses.
    - 6y ago
baddox 6y ago
What does that have anything to do with whether someone ought to have representation in the very government that created and enforces the laws they were found to have violated?
yardie 6y ago
The state doesn't know how much they owe because they weren't all that concerned before. Also, the Florida DOC has a nasty habit of inventing fines and fees. According to you it should be simple. Whatever the sentencing judge has put in the sentence is the sentence. But that has proven not to be the case. The governor wants the DOC to find any and all unpaid fines and fees. And they want to be allowed years to resolve it. The judge looked at the excuses the DOCs counsel was offering and quickly swatted it down. An ex-convict that has satisfied the terms of his sentence as it is written on the sentencing docket has no reason not to have their rights restored.

kerkeslager 6y ago

You haven't actually presented another side to the story, you've just cited a legitimate, but completely irrelevant, concern. If people aren't paying their debts, garnish their wages, seize their assets, or if they're flagrantly avoiding paying back debts, put them back in jail--you know, normal things that we already do which actually get people to pay back their debts. Failure to pay reparations is a legitimate concern, but it's not relevant to voting rights. Let's not pretend this is about reparations. It's about disfranchising people.

throwlaplace 6y ago

False. I'm drawing attention to the amendment and what the will of the people was/is and efforts made to subvert that will. The amendment as on the ballot said nothing about requiring money as a prerequisite. That's what Florida voted for: returning freed felons their rights. To ascribe some other interpretation to "terms" is to subvert the will of the people of Florida. Ultimately the courts will decide whether the legal language "terms" includes fines and restitution. Seeing as these felons are free and fines are a civil matter I don't know how the courts could find that such things are part of their criminal sentence. Edit: also btw I linked to reputable sources. I didn't obscure anything or omit anything. It's right there on wiki: >However, by mid-2019 Republican Governor DeSantis signed a bill into law which originated in the Florida Senate, SB 7066, which required that "people with felony records pay 'all fines and fees' associated with their sentence prior to the restoration of their voting rights" It's a post facto qualifier. If fines were implied by the initial amendment this bill would be unnecessary.

JarlUlvi 6y ago
That sounds more like an interpretation issue, than a posto facto.

saagarjha 6y ago

I still don’t understand why we deny felons the right to vote while they are serving their sentence, so extending this to nonpayment of fines seems even more arbitrary.

calpaterson 6y ago
In the UK people in jail (so a subset of convicted people) are not allowed to vote. The argument is that while you are detained in jail you are being punished by loss of civil rights and that voting is one of these.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  As far as I understand, in Florida even people with past felony convictions can't vote, even if they served their sentence.
- DanBC 6y ago
  People might be interested in this which describes attempts to allow some prisoners in the UK to vote: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7461/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
luckylion 6y ago
One obvious answer is that we've found them to be problematic with regards to living peacefully with other people, so much so that we feel the need to physically remove them so they cannot hurt others. Why would we allow them to vote under those circumstances?
- kelnos 6y ago
  It's analogous to taxation without representation. Jailed felons are subject to the laws of the land, but have no say in what those laws are. I think that's unjust. It's especially nefarious when you consider all the people in jail for non-violent offenses.
  - 6y ago

baddox 6y ago

What does that have anything to do with whether someone ought to have representation in the very government that created and enforces the laws they were found to have violated?

yardie 6y ago

The state doesn't know how much they owe because they weren't all that concerned before. Also, the Florida DOC has a nasty habit of inventing fines and fees. According to you it should be simple. Whatever the sentencing judge has put in the sentence is the sentence. But that has proven not to be the case. The governor wants the DOC to find any and all unpaid fines and fees. And they want to be allowed years to resolve it. The judge looked at the excuses the DOCs counsel was offering and quickly swatted it down. An ex-convict that has satisfied the terms of his sentence as it is written on the sentencing docket has no reason not to have their rights restored.