Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Felon voting rights

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 11:26:47 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
There is no such thing as a right to vote.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
s0m31john
Posts: 1,879
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 11:27:51 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I'm not sure how it works, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Almost a felon myself (pending charges, diverted to a program) I don't think I should lose the right to vote.

a) I know I didn't do what they are charging me with. People could lose their rights because of a bad ruling
b) The supposed crimes I did do not warrant taking away my rights, they were two types of fraud, third degree felonies.

The convictions need to be broken down further, felony and misdemeanor are not enough. Someone who killed a person and is charged with murder should not lose the same rights as someone who committed "Crimes Against Computer Users" (me), a third degree felony in the state of Florida.
CiRrO
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 2:16:42 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Ok, a felon is someone who committed a felony. I.e. murder, rape, kidnapping, terrorism, treason, ect.

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
CiRrO
DisneyFTW
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2008 8:41:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Hm... I'm not really sure that I can help you much here, considering I prefer PF, but I'll try.

Everyone seems to like Locke this year. You could say that social contract theory voids a persons right to the basics of a democratic government when they commit a felony. That somewhat applies to Social Contract Theory...

As far as a rebuttal goes for the above (which I would expect to be a common argument), one could argue that it is a citizens duty to know whether or not they are in violation of a law, especially a felony. As viewed by the government, breaking the law is breaking the law, whether it was intentional or accidental (although I'm not sure there can be such a thing as accidental felony, except maybe in the state of Florida ;) ).

I'll try and think more about this over the weekend and post again.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2008 9:17:00 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
What if someone is arrested and convicted of breaking a law he broke because he personally did not find just?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2008 9:24:05 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/5/2008 11:26:47 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no such thing as a right to vote.
Do you mean as in "people aren't born with the right to vote" or do you mean that even though we are citizens are handed the right (which can be synonymous to ability), we technically don't have it?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2008 9:32:31 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/9/2008 9:24:05 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 10/5/2008 11:26:47 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no such thing as a right to vote.
Do you mean as in "people aren't born with the right to vote" or do you mean that even though we are citizens are handed the right (which can be synonymous to ability), we technically don't have it?

"Rights" are limits on social action that are objective requirements of human qua human existence.
It's not a "limit" on social action in the sense it's meant (it's not a prohibition on people stopping you from "voting," but a positive statement that you are entitled to having them pay attention to your vote, i.e., a violation of their right to not be forced into doing things for you). Government recognition of "Voting" is an assertion that everyone is a slave to the minority. A right cannot violate another right.
And if you are handed something by the government, it's not a right, now is it? Rights exist prior to government, the purpose of government being to protect them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2008 9:51:54 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Correction, government recognition of voting is an assertion that everyone is a slave to the majority. Not minority.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2008 3:43:49 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"Rights" are limits on social action that are objective requirements of human qua human existence.
It's not a "limit" on social action in the sense it's meant (it's not a prohibition on people stopping you from "voting," but a positive statement that you are entitled to having them pay attention to your vote, i.e., a violation of their right to not be forced into doing things for you). Government recognition of "Voting" is an assertion that everyone is a slave to the minority. A right cannot violate another right.
And if you are handed something by the government, it's not a right, now is it? Rights exist prior to government, the purpose of government being to protect them.

Good point R_R, I see a possible Negative Case here.
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2008 7:12:30 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
And if you are handed something by the government, it's not a right, now is it? Rights exist prior to government, the purpose of government being to protect them.

But there are different types of rights. Voting may not be a human right but rather a government given right (I think it's called something like Civil Right?) But if we have it 'prior to government', then what about King and Queen governments? Dictator governments? I know the resolution DOES say 'democratic society' BUT it still does go to show that the right to vote doens't exist until the government is established.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2008 8:02:22 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/9/2008 9:32:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/9/2008 9:24:05 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 10/5/2008 11:26:47 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no such thing as a right to vote.
Do you mean as in "people aren't born with the right to vote" or do you mean that even though we are citizens are handed the right (which can be synonymous to ability), we technically don't have it?

"Rights" are limits on social action that are objective requirements of human qua human existence.
It's not a "limit" on social action in the sense it's meant (it's not a prohibition on people stopping you from "voting," but a positive statement that you are entitled to having them pay attention to your vote, i.e., a violation of their right to not be forced into doing things for you). Government recognition of "Voting" is an assertion that everyone is a slave to the minority. A right cannot violate another right.
And if you are handed something by the government, it's not a right, now is it? Rights exist prior to government, the purpose of government being to protect them.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Still, I cannot help but question your rendering of rights. If you're saying that rights exist prior to a government then that must mean that you believe there is no such thing such as a "right" to due process or to a fair trial either given that both of these require form of government to exist in the first place. Please explain.

In addition, for your own hypothetical country (Ragnar Land), if you're against "voting", then what would you say as the logical method to use when determining who was government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2008 9:10:21 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"civil right," is quite simply, a contradiction in terms. A more apt word is civil privilege.

Of course, the existence of a government which fails to recognize a given right is not a disproof of any right.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MVBuffaloAthlete
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2008 9:31:05 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
You are not born with the right to vote, you have to wait till your 18 and "register" to vote. the government gives you the right to vote, and if you can't follow the law set by that government then you should not have the rights they give.
DisneyFTW
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 4:43:09 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/10/2008 9:31:05 AM, MVBuffaloAthlete wrote:
You are not born with the right to vote, you have to wait till your 18 and "register" to vote. the government gives you the right to vote, and if you can't follow the law set by that government then you should not have the rights they give.

Thats not a bad way to look at it.

As far as voting goes, you can say that we are born with the right to vote, but denied it by the government and fellow citizens until we are 18 years of age, and even then, we are not given the right to vote without having several restrictions.

A good way to go pro would be to say that it is not the government's right to say who can and who can not vote. If it is an intrinsic thing, then everyone that is a citizen of the United States shouild be given the right to vote at all times, even if they are a felon.

Only problem with that is if someone comes up with some really strong Supreme Court Case that says random stuff about special circumstances.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 6:51:33 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"If you're saying that rights exist prior to a government then that must mean that you believe there is no such thing such as a "right" to due process or to a fair trial either given that both of these require form of government to exist in the first place. Please explain."
Correct, there is no such right, however, once a government exists, the practice of due process and trials often help to protect the rights that do exist. Though not always of course.

"
In addition, for your own hypothetical country (Ragnar Land), if you're against "voting", then what would you say as the logical method to use when determining who was government?"
In determining who IS government? Whoever has the most power IS the government, right or wrong. If you mean who one should lend power to cause them to BECOME the government... whichever proposal is espoused by the strongest party among those which seek to protect rights should be supported. The structure of government is not a primary issue, it's a means to an end, and can and should change when it's usefulness changes. If a government seeking to create a free country gets elected, if it inherits a throne, if it makes a coup-- heck, if people just accede to it because a monkey flung poo at them, fine by me. I judge a government on what it seeks to do and does, not how it starts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2008 7:05:28 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/9/2008 9:17:00 PM, Kleptin wrote:
What if someone is arrested and convicted of breaking a law he broke because he personally did not find just?

A few years ago foxhunting was banned in England. This "sport" was patronised almost exclusively by the aristocracy and the landed gentry. However, some foxhunters have flouted the ban and have been convicted in court, thus making them criminals (albeit very posh ones)!

Nevertheless, they are unrepentant - they say that they are otherwise law-abiding citizens and claim they have the right to pursue foxes accross the countryside, just as their forefathers have for generations before them and that the rights of a minority should be protected.

To which I say, in a democracy you can't pick and choose which laws you abide by on the basis of whether or not you think they are "just".

A minority of men may claim they have the right to have sex with underage kids and that the legal age of consent is "unjust", but should society let them off molesting children, even if they are otherwise law-abiding citizens?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2008 9:59:12 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
To which I say, in a democracy you can't pick and choose which laws you abide by on the basis of whether or not you think they are "just".

That's an indictment of democracy.

A minority of men may claim they have the right to have sex with underage kids and that the legal age of consent is "unjust", but should society let them off molesting children, even if they are otherwise law-abiding citizens?

Uh, yeah, see another topic in this board :D
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Bushido
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2008 10:46:45 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/5/2008 11:18:52 AM, CiRrO wrote:
Should felons have the right to vote? Ideas....

Here's a good idea dude... Read a book called "The Road to Serfdom" by i think it is Hayker if i remeber it correctly. Anyway he has a lot of crazy theories on democracies. One of them being that democracy itself is an illusion and a tool to achieves ends. He's got some good stuff for Neg case arguments. But then again i always love to run crazy arguments with strange impacts that aren't really far-fetched.
Juggernaut
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 4:04:14 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Allowing murderers and rapists will just create a new demographic of voters. Politician will cater to felons and pass more special interest spending across the table, to represent their criminal voters.
Xera
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2008 10:30:48 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/13/2008 4:04:14 AM, Juggernaut wrote:
Allowing murderers and rapists will just create a new demographic of voters. Politician will cater to felons and pass more special interest spending across the table, to represent their criminal voters.

exactly, our vote is our only (rather tiny) voice in how laws are made and enforced. If we let the felons have an equal say, the agenda of the lawless will lead to a lawless land. I know Ragnar will likely disagree with me, but lawlessness is only good for those strong enough to force their will on others by brute force. As a rather smallish woman, I can't say I support that concept.
We need a president who's fluent in at least one language. " (Buck Henry)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2008 11:12:33 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I know Ragnar will likely disagree with me, but lawlessness is only good for those strong enough to force their will on others by brute force.

True, I will disagree with you. There are no such people. Imposing your will on others by brute force is a risky and losing game, to be engaged in only to the extent those others have irrationally given you no other option by starting the game :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
AdamF2009
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2008 2:09:36 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Actually,If you are a convicted felon in the United States you DO have the right to vote.If you are currently not serving a sentence or on parole then you can vote!
meer2kat
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2008 6:40:15 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
This is actually what I'm working on right now for my debate league. I personally think that if felons do not retain their right to vote then their society cannot be classified as democratic due to majority rule not existing without full citizen participation.
meer2kat
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2008 5:26:53 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if we are all missing a key point. Retain is usually defined as keeping, but everyone keeps using it as regaining.

Has anyone else thought about this or am I just losing my mind?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 8:23:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you're a felon currently incarcerated, no, you forfeit that right. If you were a convicted felon who has served your sentence then, yes, you should be able to vote.

Mad props for the 4 year bump, btw
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)