[scooter]
Footballguy
Yo dawg.Can we at least show libs eating libs on how libs they can lib?
Yo dawg.Can we at least show libs eating libs on how libs they can lib?
In Florida it's about 1.5 million former felons who can't vote. DiSantis and the GOP are slow walking and trying to create barriers in implementing Amendment 4 which would restore their voting rights. Many felons just possessed a couple of reefers decades ago.Depending on how it's calculated, Tennessee has between 320,000 and 421,227 convicted felons who are prohibited from voting.
There are thousands of additional felons in Tennessee who are eligible to vote, either because they received a pardon or because they were convicted during an 8-year window (1973-81) when the current disenfranchisement law did not apply.
I love day drinking. I get tired early so it's a much better option than night drinking.Wait, just because it doesn't fit for one does not mean it is not a perfect fit for others.
Yeah. Its my day off. But what is the lib only vote on this...z???? Who supports zbern?This isn't the most coherent statement, but if it means what I think it means then it puts the whole "echo chamber" notion into question.
Lol coherent isnt my specialty. Good catch thoughThis isn't the most coherent statement, but if it means what I think it means then it puts the whole "echo chamber" notion into question.
Just my opinion, but that would depend on the felonyShould felons be able to own guns,?
Or it could be a difference of opinion. Those two things aren't the same.Joe... this is how they eat their own as I implied once
Yeah, no ####. I'm really tired of the hyperbole raining down from the belfry.Or it could be a difference of opinion. Those two things aren't the same.
Well, I guess I was referring to the classic stated purposes for criminal punishment like specific deterrence, general deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, etc. It doesn’t seem like disenfranchisement fits very easily into any of those categories.I don't understand what you mean by "criminal justice purpose" if you don't allow for "protecting society as a whole from someone with demonstrably bad judgment specifically with respect to the health and welfare of society." I guess it's punitive, but that's not the primary purpose in my opinion.
Can you explain what you mean by "criminal justice purpose"?
"They shouldn't be able to decide what to do all day because we don't like what they will do all day" - prisonWell, I guess I was referring to the classic stated purposes for criminal punishment like specific deterrence, general deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, etc. It doesn’t seem like disenfranchisement fits very easily into any of those categories.
What you’re describing sounds more like “they shouldn’t vote because we don’t like how they would vote.” And that to me is problematic, because it sounds just like every other form of voter suppression.
Yeah those examples seem pretty dissimilar to me. We don’t let sex offenders near schools because we don’t want them molesting kids. We don’t let certain people on probation drink because we’re afraid they could become violent or drive drunk or something. Those are issues of public safety or other compelling government interests."They shouldn't be able to decide what to do all day because we don't like what they will do all day" - prison
"They shouldn't be able to be around a school because we don't like what they do with children" - sex offender rules
"They shouldn't be able to drink because we don't like what they do when they drink" - ingestion restrictions on probation
"They shouldn't be allowed to be around felons because we don't like how they act in groups of felons" - association restrictions
"They shouldn't be allowed to have guns because we don't like what they might do given their violent histories, even if it didn't involve a gun" - firearm restrictions for felons
Yeah, generally we stop people from doing things because we don't like how they would or might do it. And I understand you don't think that should apply to voting, I personally think it can apply to virtually anything while serving a sentence and shouldn't apply to as much after serving a sentence, with some exceptions.
Going to the corner store to purchase a pack of cigarettes isn't a violent act, either, but we don't let people who are incarcerated do that.Yeah those examples seem pretty dissimilar to me. We don’t let sex offenders near schools because we don’t want them molesting kids. We don’t let certain people on probation drink because we’re afraid they could become violent or drive drunk or something. Those are issues of public safety or other compelling government interests.
By contrast, we don’t let incarcerated felons vote because they might vote for candidates we disagree with. Casting a vote isn’t a violent act, it’s pretty much the opposite of a violent act. If felons feel like they’ve been wronged by society in some way I’d rather them try to rectify that at the ballot box than by doing something dangerous.
It’s the going to the store thing we’re worried about. They wouldn’t need to leave prison to vote.Going to the corner store to purchase a pack of cigarettes isn't a violent act, either, but we don't let people who are incarcerated do that.
If some guy was convicted of tax fraud, why are we worried about him going to the store?It’s the going to the store thing we’re worried about. They wouldn’t need to leave prison to vote.
Probably because it’s a flight risk I’d imagine.If some guy was convicted of tax fraud, why are we worried about him going to the store?
Why would he be a flight risk if he can do whatever he wants except crimes?fatguyinalittlecoat said:Probably because it’s a flight risk I’d imagine.
Incarceration rate, certainly, and disenfranchisement for released prisoners. Voting restrictions while in prison we’re not that much of an outlier.SoBeDad said:The USA is an outlier among democracies when it comes to both incarceration rate and voter disenfranchisement for criminals. The roots of both are in racism.
I don’t understand.Why would he be a flight risk if he can do whatever he wants except crimes?
We don’t keep people from leaving prison solely to keep them from fleeing or committing more crimes. We do it because they’ve broken the social contract and are no longer entitled to societal freedom and the full range of rights.I don’t understand.
This is a relatively interesting comment to the current state of politics in this country and how the "sides" differ. It's a rather good illustration of the old "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" narrative. It's absolutely stunning that simply having a differing opinion within a group that agrees on 90ish percent of things is "eating their own". There seems to be so little room for differing opinion on the right that when they see two people having different opinions they immediately jump to "eating their own". The condition is apparently real.Max Power said:Can we at least show libs eating libs on how libs they can lib?
Just seems to be another attempt to sidestep the will of the people. Pay the fines levied as part of the sentence before you can vote and serve all your time? Sure...no problem. The rest is garbage and just a big F-you by the politicians to the electorate.Sanders slams Florida bill requiring felons to pay court fees before voting as 'racist and unconstitutional.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) denounced the passage of a bill in the Florida House that would require felons to pay court fees before becoming eligible to vote, calling it a “racist and unconstitutional” effort "to deny people the right to vote...The Florida bill would limit a state constitutional amendment that passed in 2018 that restored voting rights to about 1.5 million felons who have been released from prison."
The court fees are not assessed by the judge as part of the sentence. In Florida , they're assigned by the court clerks to fund court operations. It's estimated that 80% of felons who have complete the terms of their sentence including probation and restitution, would not be able to pay court fees and fines. https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-referendum-florida-gop-set-to-exclude-up-to-80-of-felons-from-voting
This could play a role in determining our next president.
I think paying your fines is part of the restitution process and should happen prior to giving back voting rights. I don’t know how that works with the vote in Florida though.Sanders slams Florida bill requiring felons to pay court fees before voting as 'racist and unconstitutional.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) denounced the passage of a bill in the Florida House that would require felons to pay court fees before becoming eligible to vote, calling it a “racist and unconstitutional” effort "to deny people the right to vote...The Florida bill would limit a state constitutional amendment that passed in 2018 that restored voting rights to about 1.5 million felons who have been released from prison."
The court fees are not assessed by the judge as part of the sentence. In Florida , they're assigned by the court clerks to fund court operations. It's estimated that 80% of felons who have complete the terms of their sentence including probation and restitution, would not be able to pay court fees and fines. https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-referendum-florida-gop-set-to-exclude-up-to-80-of-felons-from-voting
This could play a role in determining our next president.
Dead people should not be allowed to voteMaybe has a point and case.
Those who think a jeffery Dahmer should have a vote, please talk to me.
You dont because its outrageous.
Stop playing the card.
I'm not sure our personal preferences about the "restitution process" are relevant to the story here. Florida voters passed a referendum calling for restoration of "voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." The only question is whether the fines and fees are "terms of their sentence" as the Florida voters understood it. I don't think any reasonable reading of that language would include administrative fees levied by court clerks as "terms of a sentence." Sentences are handed down by judges.I think paying your fines is part of the restitution process and should happen prior to giving back voting rights. I don’t know how that works with the vote in Florida though.
Paying your debt to society includes actually paying your debts to society.
I consider paying the fees a part of making restitution. They owe the communities the money to cover the costs they incurred as a part of their illegal activity.I'm not sure our personal preferences about the "restitution process" are relevant to the story here. Florida voters passed a referendum calling for restoration of "voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation." The only question is whether the fines and fees are "terms of their sentence" as the Florida voters understood it. I don't think any reasonable reading of that language would include administrative fees levied by court clerks as "terms of a sentence." Sentences are handed down by judges.
I consider paying the fees a charitable donation to help buy Rick Scott a handsome toupee.I consider paying the fees a part of making restitution. They owe the communities the money to cover the costs they incurred as a part of their illegal activity.
As to how that impacts the Florida law, I’ll let the Florida courts sort that out.
I agree. I was focused on the topic question. I really don’t want to get into the Florida-specific issues. I’m not that knowledgeable on the details and I don’t really have any desire to be.I consider paying the fees a charitable donation to help buy Rick Scott a handsome toupee.
Our perspectives are equally relevant to the question of whether the Florida legislature is subverting the will of the voters here, given that the ballot measure did not use the word "restitution."
You know there are both republicans and democrats in prison. So tell me again how it is going to increase ones base.Absolutely no
Yet another cheap ploy by one party to increase their base.
What Florida Republicans are trying to do is include post-sentence civil judgments and "court user fees" as part of the restitution process.I think paying your fines is part of the restitution process and should happen prior to giving back voting rights. I don’t know how that works with the vote in Florida though.
Paying your debt to society includes actually paying your debts to society.
Any sane court should shoot this down. We shall see if a court in Florida does.What Florida Republicans are trying to do is include post-sentence civil judgments and "court user fees" as part of the restitution process.
If you believe that it's OK to require these tacked-on fees to be paid off before voting, that's your prerogative. But I don't think that is what the people were voting for. It will be up to the courts to decide if the letter of the law is being followed or not.
I think they should be. These are fees associated with the costs of their actions.What Florida Republicans are trying to do is include post-sentence civil judgments and "court user fees" as part of the restitution process.
If you believe that it's OK to require these tacked-on fees to be paid off before voting, that's your prerogative. But I don't think that is what the people were voting for. It will be up to the courts to decide if the letter of the law is being followed or not.
The ballot measure made no mention of any "fines" or "court costs" outside the scope of the sentencing.I think paying your fines is part of the restitution process and should happen prior to giving back voting rights. I don’t know how that works with the vote in Florida though.
Paying your debt to society includes actually paying your debts to society.
So, as I said before, if part of your sentence handed down by the judge is a financial payment of some sort, fine. The rest is garbage.A "yes" vote supported this amendment to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.
You know there are both republicans and democrats in prison. So tell me again how it is going to increase ones base.
This is the real reason for pushback by DiSantis and the Florida GOP on amendment 4.
I figured it was common knowledge a vast majority of felons would vote Democrat.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jail-survey-7-in-10-felons-register-as-democrats
So what you're saying is by keeping them from voting, it helps the party you favor.
I figured it was common knowledge a vast majority of felons would vote Democrat.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jail-survey-7-in-10-felons-register-as-democrats
Not at all. It’s a common mindset from common folk that murderers, thieves, child molesters, terrorists, drug kingpins, rapists, etc. lost their right to vote when they committed their crimes.So what you're saying is by keeping them from voting, it helps the party you favor.
This is what I'd like @knowledge dropper to address. Felons who have been released from prison have most of their freedoms. I don't see the downside of restoring their right to vote. Well, other than keeping the Dems from voting.What’s the legal basis for voting rights withheld? This is one of those side topics that surfaces a bit every big election, but I’m largely ignorant to the ins and outs aside from knowing that some states don’t allow felons to vote. Voting obviously isn’t an all or nothing right, as evidenced by this topic existing. Initial reaction would be “why would this be revoked after serving the remedy prescribed them according to law (their sentencing) to atone for whatever societal ill perpetrated?” Even if violent, they can roam free after jail/prison, but stay away from the voting booth?