Should convicted felons be allowed to vote

[Englebert]

I'm not sure how Republicans or Democrats feel about convicted felons (or persons convicted of any crime) being allowed to vote. That is, I don't know what the party lines are. My personal thoughts are that anyone should be allowed to vote. I don't think you should be stripped of your right to vote because of some crime. Granted, I haven't thought about this topic much, so I'm definitely persuadable.

In the same vein, I don't think a person convicted of a crime should lose their second amendment rights. I'm open to stripping that right if the crime involves the use of a firearm, but would definitely need to see the wording of the law (which would have to include measures to keep the law from being abused). My stance is that if you are stripped of your second amendment rights, you should necessarily be stripped of other rights, including the right to vote. If you are deemed deficient in the your ability to protect yourself, you should be deemed deficient in your ability to choose the people that represent yourself and others.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Should a person lose his right to vote if convicted of a crime? If so, what crimes should be included? If you lose the right to vote, should you also lose your second amendment rights (and vice-versa)? 

[mat]

It's a good topic and no one else replied so; I feel convicted felons of aggravated crimes should never be allowed to own a firearm. I think felons of non violent crimes should be able to own a firearm and vote once their parole has ended. They have then served their time. I'd be OK with all felons being able to vote once their parole has ended. Once again, they have served their time. My two cents.

[Englebert]

23 minutes ago, mat said:

It's a good topic and no one else replied so; I feel convicted felons of aggravated crimes should never be allowed to own a firearm. I think felons of non violent crimes should be able to own a firearm and vote once their parole has ended. They have then served their time. I'd be OK with all felons being able to vote once their parole has ended. Once again, they have served their time. My two cents.

Thanks for the reply. I thought this topic would get more responses.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

I agree to a point with Mat...if they pay their debt to society, I lean towards return all their rights.

The violent offender is a tough one.  If they get out after a lengthy sentence and they want a gun they’ll get one.  

I would have a hard time not enabling someone to protect themselves but I can certainly understand someones point that feels they lose these rights.

[baddog]

6 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I agree to a point with Mat...if they pay their debt to society, return all their rights.

The violent offender is a tough one.  If they get out after a lengthy sentence, if they want a gun they’ll get one.  Of course, this could also be a hook to put them back in if violated.

I would have a hard time not enabling someone to protect themselves but I can certainly understand someones point that feels they lose these rights.

Agree with you and Mat. If the convicted felon is an American citizen, then he/she should be able to vote and serve jury duty. As for the firearms, like you said , they can get them. My stance is, if you cant trust a convicted criminal with a firearm, who has paid their debt to society and supposedly been rehabilitated under our penal guidelines, then why are they out of jail?

[Englebert]

My thoughts are that if society deems you dangerous enough to strip your right of self protection, then you should still be locked up. If a person is deemed dangerous to the point of capable of taking another life, he doesn't need a gun to do it, and society should be shielded from him. But I can also see the viewpoint of those that think a violent offender should never own a gun. 

I'm not so sure convicted persons, or people incarcerated, should not be allowed to vote. I would not let prisoners vote on who will be their warden, but selecting political representatives seems to be a different subject. I would not want them to be allowed to vote for anyone that can give them favors. I can see a whole prison population telling a gubernatorial candidate they will vote for him en masse if he will grant them a pardon. Other than that, I can't see a logical argument for stripping the right to vote. Maybe if convicted of voter fraud. Hopefully we will get some more responses.

[Englebert]

5 minutes ago, baddog said:

Agree with you and Mat. If the convicted felon is an American citizen, then he/she should be able to vote and serve jury duty. As for the firearms, like you said , they can get them. My stance is, if you cant trust a convicted criminal with a firearm, who has paid their debt to society and supposedly been rehabilitated under our penal guidelines, then why are they out of jail?

You posted yours just as I was posting mine. 

[LumRaiderFan]

I will clarify that I think they should be allowed to vote after they have served their time.  

[mat]

I would also like to clarify,  once time served they should be able to vote with a photo ID.  

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, mat said:

I would also like to clarify,  once time served they should be able to vote with a photo ID.  

Awesome!

[Hagar]

Call me extreme right on this.  Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony, should lose their right to vote.  As I understand it, to be deemed an aggravated felony, you’ve threatened (with a weapon) or actually harmed the general public.  That’s a bridge to far imo.  And definitely no guns.

Great thread!  I have to admit, I’m surprised at the responses.  It’s a prime example of why all of us shouldn’t pigeon hole each other, ie, Libs/Cons, Dem/Repub.  Although my position here is extreme right, I have a few stands that would be considered liberal, and most of you would disagree with me (I even agree w/Bernie on one point).  I have a long time staunch liberal friend who is a gun advocate and is for the death penalty.  Different strokes.

[Law Man]

12 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I agree to a point with Mat...if they pay their debt to society, I lean towards return all their rights.

The violent offender is a tough one.  If they get out after a lengthy sentence and they want a gun they’ll get one.  

I would have a hard time not enabling someone to protect themselves but I can certainly understand someones point that feels they lose these rights.

Violent offenders do not receive the right to vote. They will receive a mandatory 5 years federal sentence if they are in possession of a firearm are a single bullet. There are strict guidelines for a violent offender even after he or she is nolonger on paper. They will always be labeled as a ex-felon.

I support the Second Chance Act for non-violent offenders.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

47 minutes ago, Law Man said:

Violent offenders do not receive the right to vote. They will receive a mandatory 5 years federal sentence if they are in possession of a firearm are a single bullet. There are strict guidelines for a violent offender even after he or she is nolonger on paper. They will always be labeled as a ex-felon.

I support the Second Chance Act for non-violent offenders.

 

I understand what the law is, but you will never keep someone from acquiring a weapon if they want one...ever.

If they are too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon, better keep them locked up as has been mentioned here earlier.

This is a post about opinions, not the standing law, although I can definitely understand folks that feel these rights should never be restored.

[UT alum]

17 hours ago, Englebert said:

Thanks for the reply. I thought this topic would get more responses.

 

I’m with you on this one Englebert. Once they’ve paid their debt, convicted felons should have all rights restored, unless the felony involved defrauding the election process or the crime involved use of a firearm.

[BS Wildcats]

7 hours ago, UT alum said:

I’m with you on this one Englebert. Once they’ve paid their debt, convicted felons should have all rights restored, unless the felony involved defrauding the election process or the crime involved use of a firearm.

Sounds like something hillary has done!

[UT alum]

16 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Sounds like something hillary has done!

She shafted Bernie using Party procedural rules that have since been changed. No more super delegates.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

She shafted Bernie using Party procedural rules that have since been changed. No more super delegates.

She bought Bernie a lake house.