Mehdi HasanVerified account

idk it's either an inalienable right or it's not, no? I worry drilling down into which crimes should bar you from voting and which ones shouldn't wouldn't get anywhere.

Yeah I get that, but i was just addressing the politics of it. Right now it’s not a right for any of them - outside of Maine and Vermont - and it’s easier to make the case for nonviolent offenders rather than the intense focus on the fricking Boston Marathon Bomber red herring.

I get that, I just mean someone is always going to try to say "oh so you think even THIS PERSON should vote???" so maybe it's just simpler to say "yes, everyone" and leave it at that

Maybe. Not sure tbh. The UK had this same debate. It always comes back to murderers and rapists.

Florida Amendment 4, which passed last year to restore voting rights to former felons, excluded people who'd been convicted of murder or felony sex offenses. The advocates argued that those exceptions were the only way it could pass, but it was controversial in CJ circles.

But it did pass and it was worth it! Didn't know that, thanks for sharing Maryam :-)

Well, yes, except now Republicans are fighting its implementation. Sigh...

Surprise!

It doesn’t make logical sense as to why one would lose their constitutional rights because of committing a crime. Prison is slavery in this country.

Well, in the US, whether or not you and I support this, you lose all sorts of rights when you commit a crime - including potentially the right to life. I’m guessing the death penalty is a bigger challenge for murderers than losing their right to vote.

But you’re kinda right re prison and slavery. Did you see the recent Alabama prison stuff in the NY Times? Horrific. Sickening.

Have you seen DuVernay’s ‘13th’? It’s a great primer on this!

.@ava rules! :-)

Over half of those behind bars in state prisons are there for violent crimes.

Yeah I don’t think robbers should lose their right to vote

I don't think anyone should lose their right to vote. But not sure how you make a distinction here. An armed robbery can be just as traumatic as other violent crime.

The criminal justice system by definition makes distinctions between different crimes. There are exceptions to all sorts of things. I get why folks would be touchy about allowing Dylann Roof to vote. I’m just addressing perceptions and politics here, not rights.

An unarmed robbery can be traumatic. But so too can a financial fraud that devastated victims' savings. We won't find an indisputable line to draw, but the same could be said of their sentencing, yet we drew one. If the public response is "no murderers," then make that the line.

I could get behind a general "no murders, no rapists" rule.

Same, and I think that's Mehdi's point: the nature of the loudest objections (terrorists/rapists/murderers could vote!) suggests that a line could be drawn with well over majority support. Maybe it's "violent crime," maybe something more narrow.