4 ms·

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 physicall

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.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  There's the idea that, felons have opted out of civilized intercourse. You can't do that, then pick and choose which rights you want to keep. After you've deliberately violated rights of others. In the past, felons were transported. It was cruel and caused unspeakable suffering. Kind of like what the felons did. So a balance of a sort. I've got the strange feeling that Mars may not be the rich person's paradise folks joke about. It may be a prison colony. The rigors of the trip (permanent physical impairment) may preclude soft rich people from applying for the trip. Anyway, to return to the topic, if I were officiating a baseball game and somebody came out on the field and broke the bat, pried up the bases and tossed the ball over the fence, I'd evict them from the park. It's only sensible. They can't obey the rules, they're out. Otherwise the game is completely disrupted.
  - charlesu 6y ago
    Where is this “idea that felons have opted out of civilized intercourse”? Spaghetti Westerns? North Korea? It certainly isn’t an idea aligned with American values. Imprisonment is meant for rehabilitation in addition to punishment. There’s the idea, at least in theory, that people who commit crimes can eventually be functional members of society with full rights given a second chance. So we send people to prison and then let them resume their lives as citizens afterwards. If they owe money due to a civil suit they can still vote because why wouldn’t they? Franchise isn’t tied to financial means and shouldn’t be.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Imprisonment is meant for rehabilitation in addition to punishment. Don't forget the third big part: stopping them from violating the rights of others. They do temporarily lose some rights, they do (and should) get them back when their "debt to society" is paid (which I find a slightly weird term, but whatever), why shouldn't the right to vote be one of the rights that you get back when you're rehabilitated and reintroduced into society, just like your right to freely move about?
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    What the fuck is it with this site and shitty, specious analogies? Society is not a game or stadium. There is no outside. Justice is imperfect. Laws are not all as obvious as 'breaking the bat'. Now, responding to the part of your comment that isn't the shitty, specious analogy. You beg the question, saying that felons don't get to vote because they've opted out of civilized intercourse. You don't bother to argue the antecedent, you just assume it. That doesn't address the question being asked in the thread, it just affirms the way things are.
    - throwlaplace 6y ago
      >What the fuck is it with this site and shitty, specious analogies? This site is full of privileged people that have been told their entire lives that they're smart. So they assume that their reductive hypotheses, informed by their sheltered experiences, are novel/insightful/smart. They also presume themselves to rational/dispassionate arbiters (because that's what hn styles itself as a forum of) and so they never doubt their biases. Btw your comment will get elected downvoted flagged shortly (and dang will show up to admonish about the rules and the sacrosanctity of hn) but the person's to whom you responded won't. And so that kind of reasoning/behavior is rewarded reinforced.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > There's the idea that, felons have opted out of civilized intercourse. Not all felons, though. Only the ones we choose to surveill and prosecute. So coke-sniffing bankers tend never to be caught. But 19 year old poor hispanic kids with weed in their pockets end up in jail on a three strikes violation because the police stop them all the time just for standing on the street. > if I were officiating a baseball game Now extend this analogy appropriately: what if the RULES of the baseball game were only written by the winning team? And that team made it so they were allowed to do this stuff without penalty? So they always win. And the loser team can't fix that. Because to change the rules to make them fair they have to win, and they can't. Because of the rules. That's how this works in reality: the point to disenfranchising felons isn't to punish them, it's to keep them from voting for the party whose policies might make them less likely to be felons.
    - jacobush 6y ago
      Oh dear, that was so beautifully put. Thanks.

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.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
There's the idea that, felons have opted out of civilized intercourse. You can't do that, then pick and choose which rights you want to keep. After you've deliberately violated rights of others. In the past, felons were transported. It was cruel and caused unspeakable suffering. Kind of like what the felons did. So a balance of a sort. I've got the strange feeling that Mars may not be the rich person's paradise folks joke about. It may be a prison colony. The rigors of the trip (permanent physical impairment) may preclude soft rich people from applying for the trip. Anyway, to return to the topic, if I were officiating a baseball game and somebody came out on the field and broke the bat, pried up the bases and tossed the ball over the fence, I'd evict them from the park. It's only sensible. They can't obey the rules, they're out. Otherwise the game is completely disrupted.
- charlesu 6y ago
  Where is this “idea that felons have opted out of civilized intercourse”? Spaghetti Westerns? North Korea? It certainly isn’t an idea aligned with American values. Imprisonment is meant for rehabilitation in addition to punishment. There’s the idea, at least in theory, that people who commit crimes can eventually be functional members of society with full rights given a second chance. So we send people to prison and then let them resume their lives as citizens afterwards. If they owe money due to a civil suit they can still vote because why wouldn’t they? Franchise isn’t tied to financial means and shouldn’t be.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Imprisonment is meant for rehabilitation in addition to punishment. Don't forget the third big part: stopping them from violating the rights of others. They do temporarily lose some rights, they do (and should) get them back when their "debt to society" is paid (which I find a slightly weird term, but whatever), why shouldn't the right to vote be one of the rights that you get back when you're rehabilitated and reintroduced into society, just like your right to freely move about?
- maxerickson 6y ago
  What the fuck is it with this site and shitty, specious analogies? Society is not a game or stadium. There is no outside. Justice is imperfect. Laws are not all as obvious as 'breaking the bat'. Now, responding to the part of your comment that isn't the shitty, specious analogy. You beg the question, saying that felons don't get to vote because they've opted out of civilized intercourse. You don't bother to argue the antecedent, you just assume it. That doesn't address the question being asked in the thread, it just affirms the way things are.
  - throwlaplace 6y ago
    >What the fuck is it with this site and shitty, specious analogies? This site is full of privileged people that have been told their entire lives that they're smart. So they assume that their reductive hypotheses, informed by their sheltered experiences, are novel/insightful/smart. They also presume themselves to rational/dispassionate arbiters (because that's what hn styles itself as a forum of) and so they never doubt their biases. Btw your comment will get elected downvoted flagged shortly (and dang will show up to admonish about the rules and the sacrosanctity of hn) but the person's to whom you responded won't. And so that kind of reasoning/behavior is rewarded reinforced.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > There's the idea that, felons have opted out of civilized intercourse. Not all felons, though. Only the ones we choose to surveill and prosecute. So coke-sniffing bankers tend never to be caught. But 19 year old poor hispanic kids with weed in their pockets end up in jail on a three strikes violation because the police stop them all the time just for standing on the street. > if I were officiating a baseball game Now extend this analogy appropriately: what if the RULES of the baseball game were only written by the winning team? And that team made it so they were allowed to do this stuff without penalty? So they always win. And the loser team can't fix that. Because to change the rules to make them fair they have to win, and they can't. Because of the rules. That's how this works in reality: the point to disenfranchising felons isn't to punish them, it's to keep them from voting for the party whose policies might make them less likely to be felons.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    Oh dear, that was so beautifully put. Thanks.