Holder wants to let felons vote

[PhatMack19]

"By perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood they will commit future crimes," Holder said Tuesday at a Washington, D.C., symposium on sentencing laws.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/its-time-let-felons-vote-holder-says-n26906

[tvc184]

While knowing full well that most felons are not Republicans.................... 

[LumRaiderFan]

While knowing full well that most felons are not Republicans.................... 

:D

[shovel]

This really angers me. With all the "issues", THIS is what the Attorney General and the Justice Department wants to address?

[stevenash]

 

"By perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood they will commit future crimes," Holder said Tuesday at a Washington, D.C., symposium on sentencing laws.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/its-time-let-felons-vote-holder-says-n26906

 

They wont need to commit crimes when they get out of prison. There is too much "free stuff" provided by the government today. Why go to the trouble of committing crime?

[77]

fundamental change !

[5GallonBucket]

thats the left's m o isn't it

 

at all cost we try to buy votes....via catering to prisoners, the lazy, gays, and baby killers

 

what a terrific group to be part of.....they have such a great platform..

.....next up lets reduce sentences on pedifiles.

 

 

and we wonder whats wrong with AMERICA

 

 

[chukslegacy]

Crooks love Crooks!

[stevenash]

 

thats the left's m o isn't it
 
at all cost we try to buy votes....via catering to prisoners, the lazy, gays, and baby killers
 
what a terrific group to be part of.....they have such a great platform..
.....next up lets reduce sentences on pedifiles.
 
 
and we wonder whats wrong with AMERICA

 

Soon a Super Bowl halftime show will feature two pedophiles getting married

[rolltides]

America is doomed we are collapsing just like the roman empire.

[NorthoftheBorder]

Holder makes Obama look like a Tea Party member.  You can't get much lower than him!!

[Amphibious Rodent]

When or we going to do something about our terrible politicians. We complain but not much else. We need to ban together and take our country back.

[Amphibious Rodent]

Excuse me I think I'm sick now!

[westend1]

Everybody ban together

[TxHoops]

Fact of the matter is, there are laws in effect that allow one time offenders all the rights the rest of us have.  Depending on the severity of the crime, most felonies, at least in Texas, allow for "deferred adjudication" which is basically probation which, if successfully completed (i.e., you keep your nose clean) keeps a conviction off your record.  Then you can vote, own a firearm, etc.  Further, we now have a law whereby although this arrest and probation isn't removed from your record for law enforcement purposes, you can have it "non-disclosed" which means prospective employers, etc., can't find it when you apply for the job (information isn't available to the general public).  If you mess up again after all those second chance options, that's on you. 

 

For what it's worth, I think those laws are good because a lot of people make a mistake in life, especially when they're young.  But they LEARN from it.  What was being discussed at the symposium is mostly ridiculous.  Lack of consequences in their life is how many ended up where they are in the first place.

[Bigdog]

I think you have your laws mixed up,  most misdemeanors allow deferred adjudication in Texas, not felonies.  TVC what say you?

[tvc184]

I think you have your laws mixed up,  most misdemeanors allow deferred adjudication in Texas, not felonies.  TVC what say you?

 

TX allows deferred adjudication for felonies. 

 

While on deferred for a felony, you are essentially still under indictment (charges still pending). For things like purchasing firearms, that is a no-no. Once they have cleared deferred adjudication, they are considered never to have been convicted with all rights returned. 

 

Deferred is not a guilty verdict. The "judgment" of guilty or innocence is deferred to some time in the future. It is almost like pleading no contest and if your successfully serve out your time, charges are dropped. I don't think TX allows deferred once you have a conviction however. 

[TxHoops]

TX allows deferred adjudication for felonies. 

 

While on deferred for a felony, you are essentially still under indictment (charges still pending). For things like purchasing firearms, that is a no-no. Once they have cleared deferred adjudication, they are considered never to have been convicted with all rights returned. 

 

Deferred is not a guilty verdict. The "judgment" of guilty or innocence is deferred to some time in the future. It is almost like pleading no contest and if your successfully serve out your time, charges are dropped. I don't think TX allows deferred once you have a conviction however. 

 

This is almost all correct.  Except for the last sentence.  You actually can get a deferred adjudication with a conviction; however, it almost never happens.  It gets confusing but once you have a conviction, you are not "eligible" for probation.  This means a jury, if you are subsequently convicted of another crime, cannot give you probation, deferred or otherwise.  A judge still has this option though in sentencing.  Basically, a judge has authority to do what he believes is in the best interests of justice.  Again, very unlikely you would get deferred though with a previous conviction.  By the way, prosecutors, depending on the offense, often prefer deferred because is an offender messes up on their probation, they still have the full range of punishment on the original offense, which you don't with what we call "straight probation." 

[tvc184]

This is almost all correct.  Except for the last sentence.  You actually can get a deferred adjudication with a conviction; however, it almost never happens.  It gets confusing but once you have a conviction, you are not "eligible" for probation.  This means a jury, if you are subsequently convicted of another crime, cannot give you probation, deferred or otherwise.  A judge still has this option though in sentencing.  Basically, a judge has authority to do what he believes is in the best interests of justice.  Again, very unlikely you would get deferred though with a previous conviction.  By the way, prosecutors, depending on the offense, often prefer deferred because is an offender messes up on their probation, they still have the full range of punishment on the original offense, which you don't with what we call "straight probation." 

 

That is why I said "I think". 

 

I usually choose my words carefully and watch what I commit to.  ;)

[BLUEDOVE3]

While knowing full well that most felons are not Republicans.................... 

Typical response from a party of individuals wanting to maintain the current power structure (strangulation) among its own citizens. 

[tvc184]

Typical response from a party of individuals wanting to maintain the current power structure (strangulation) among its own citizens. 

 

And Holder's statement/plan is a typical response to gain Democratic votes by allowing felons to vote after having that right removed long ago by their own actions.

 

You seem to want to play politics on one side of the aisle but give a pass to the other. This is nothing more than a vote scheme and everyone knows it. It is no different than the move to give citizenship to illegal aliens or to simply allow them to vote. If 65% of Hispanics or felons voted Republic instead of Democrat, the Dems would be fighting such a notion with every ounce of breath. 

 

All you would have to show Holder that Obama won the last election by 5 million votes but allowing Hispanics to vote at 65% Republican would automatically doom the next Democrat in the presidential election by increasing the Republican vote by 10 million. You would bet that there would be no move by any national Democrat to allow anyone else to vote unless they gained from it. It is comical to claim that they are worried about rights. 

[bullets13]

 

And Holder's statement/plan is a typical response to gain Democratic votes by allowing felons to vote after having that right removed long ago by their own actions.
 
You seem to want to play politics on one side of the aisle but give a pass to the other. This is nothing more than a vote scheme and everyone knows it. It is no different than the move to give citizenship to illegal aliens or to simply allow them to vote. If 65% of Hispanics or felons voted Republic instead of Democrat, the Dems would be fighting such a notion with every ounce of breath,  
All you would have to show Holder that Obama won the last election by 5 million votes but allowing Hispanics to vote at 65% Republican would automatically doom the next Democrat in the presidential election by increasing the Republican vote by 10 million. You would bet that there would be no move by any national Democrat to allow anyone else to vote unless they gained from it. It is comical to claim that they are worried about rights.

 
No different than politicians in texas gerrymandering districts a couple of years back to decrease the amounts of democrats in power. both sides abuse their power in order to increase their power, and affilliates of both sides "play politics on one side of the aisle while giving a pass to the other." If illegal aliens voting helped republicans, not only would democrats be acting the same way that republicans are now, but republicans would be acting the same way that dems are now. it would be total role-reversal.

[stevenash]

Bullets, do you believe that people in this country ought to be able to vote without validating the fact that they are legal citizens?

[bullets13]

 

Bullets, do you believe that people in this country ought to be able to vote without validating the fact that they are legal citizens?

 
absolutely not. but do i believe that the right would be far more accomodating to the practice if unvalidated citizens were voting republican? absolutely.

[LumRaiderFan]

absolutely not. but do i believe that the right would be far more accomodating to the practice if unvalidated citizens were voting republican? absolutely.

And why do you think "unvalidated citizens" wouldn't vote Republican... that's the question people should be asking themselves.