Prisoners. Should they have the right to vote?

[Keith]

Christ you guys would argue over a knitting convention. Can you please try and keep it civil, if only out of respect for the OP's question?

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Aside of the fact these people have been given jail terms after an investigation by the police force followed by a court case all at the tax payers expense , they are also being kept at huge cost and the prison staff are stretched to the limits the answer has to be a big NO.



They would only confirm that they are left wing anyway.

Bob

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

I think pearl is much better than plain.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Prisoners in Oz can vote Federally if their sentence is less than three years, most states follow suit I think. Once even a long term sentence is served the ex con has voting rights restored.

 

[Jim Craik]

Keith, when Larry said this.....

That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. It had to have come from a lefty. ('Serious. 'Had to. No one else could be that irresponsible. That 'Blunt' guy is no conservative...'don't care what 'label' is attached to him in the article.)posted by Larry

You said nothing.......

When Mike said this.......

However, all criminals are allowed to vote as long as they aren't yet convicted of their crimes. Then, instead of being called 'criminals', they are called by their proper name, which is, of course, 'Democrats'. :laugh: Posted by Mike

Once again Keith said nothing........

But when I point out that their posts were entirly without basis in fact..............

Suddenly Keith does not like the way the conversation is going.....

Calling the left Dumb and Irresponsible, no problem, jokingly saying that people on trial should not be called 'criminals', they should be called 'Democrats'. :laugh: Once again, Keith had no problem.

But my pointing out that they had the facts completely wrong, that caused Keith to immediately to jump in with....

"Can you please try and keep it civil, if only out of respect for the OP's question?"

 

[Keith]

Jim, what prompted my comment was Mike's "joke" about Democrats, so wind your neck in. Try not to be too paranoid Jim (doesn't mean they're still not out to get you though).

Anything designed to be deliberately provocative will be moderated - it's immature, predictable and excludes at least 60% of the Paddock.

Go and have your private spat elsewhere.

Remember too that we have been given a new (or at least further) lease on the Paddock. If it fails it will be turned off for good.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

So there Keith:tongue3:

 

[Jim Craik]

Keith,

Just so we all understand..........

When Larry said this:

That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. It had to have come from a lefty. ('Serious. 'Had to. No one else could be that irresponsible. That 'Blunt' guy is no conservative...'don't care what 'label' is attached to him in the article.)

Here in the U.S. it's been proposed by some in the past that FELONS ought to have their right to vote restored once they're out of the slammer. Aaaaaand of course the ACLU (no outfit is further left) was (and STILL is, no doubt) right in the thick of it:

You made the very next post and as you said nothing, are we to assume that you do not condsider Larrys post to fall under your:

"Anything designed to be deliberately provocative will be moderated"

Just so I understand, cause I would hate to draw your wrath.......

You you do not consider: Calling one political party "Dumb" and "Irresponsible", to be "deliberately provocative".....

But you do draw the line at calling Democrats "Crimminal"?

 

[Keith]

Not getting drawn in - I just ask everyone to keep things civil.

 

[Jack]

And I can piss higher on the wall than all of you!
WOGG's rule!

 

[Robert May Eng.]

And I can piss higher on the wall than all of you!
WOGG's rule!

Come on Jack , just climb down off the ladder now.

Bob

 

[Jack]

While standing in a hole Bob...

 

[Larry L.]

Mike, Larry, you may want to check again, you would not want to misslead anyone.

Oh, for crying out the window, Jim. EVERYONE HERE knows voting 'restoration' laws vary from state to state and country to country. OBVIOUSLY my comments were in opposition to passing laws restoring a criminal's voting rights where the current law doesn't allow it. (Must one forever fill in all the qualifying 'minutiae' before he states his position?)

I'm OPPOSED to restoring a criminal's voting rights and OPPOSED to laws that permitted the 'restoration' process in the 1st place.

I'm just flat out not going to debate you on what my own position is in your eyes.

'Dunn' now...'dinner time...

 

[Jim Craik]

Of course you did Larry,

But I wonder, in response to Marks question wondering if all punishment should really be never-ending?

You said this:

"BUT - part of the sentence itself is the loss of the right to vote. That's part of the punishment. The law doesn't say the right to vote is simply 'suspended' for a time concurrent with a person's stay in the slammer".

So Larry when you said that, what did you mean?

 

[Mike Drew]

Prisoner voting rights are a state issue, so the laws are different from state to state. Some states allow only individuals on probation. Others allow individuals on parole and probation. As of 2011, only two states, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent a restoration of rights granted by the Governor or state legislature.[31] However, in Kentucky, a felon's rights can now be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights.[31]

**************

Once again I repeat myself, but its not hard to check before you post, it will save you the embarrassment of once again having a Democrat point out your errors.

Oh, I'm not embarrassed--I make mistakes all the time, and am quite appreciative when they are pointed out to me. So thanks for that.

I must have confused the right to vote with the right to own firearms--that is probably what is denied to convicted felons for life, no?

 

[Jim Craik]

Sorry Mike,

But you really don't think you can make a joke that confuses criminals with Democrats and not excpect a little blow back?

Good move though, I'd change the subject too.

 

[Larry L.]

But I wonder, in response to
You said this:

"BUT - part of the sentence itself is the loss of the right to vote. That's part of the punishment. The law doesn't say the right to vote is simply 'suspended' for a time concurrent with a person's stay in the slammer".

So Larry when you said that, what did you mean?

What did I just tell you above (post #33), Jim?

'Meant it.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

We Aussie can piss higher than all of you put together:laugh::laugh:

 

[Mike Drew]

Sorry Mike,

But you really don't think you can make a joke that confuses criminals with Democrats and not excpect a little blow back?

There's no confusion on this end. A substantial majority of criminals (convicted and otherwise) are democrats or at least have democrat leanings--that's been shown time and again, and there are many good reasons for that which are easy to understand.

That doesn't mean the opposite is true, that the majority of democrats are criminals--that would be a ridiculous assertion.

That's also the reason why historically, democrats have advocated for reinstatement of criminal voting rights while republicans have been advocates for disenfranchisement of these people--it's pure self-interest in both cases.

 

[Jim Craik]

That's also the reason why historically, democrats have advocated for reinstatement of criminal voting rights while republicans have been advocates for disenfranchisement of these people--it's pure self-interest in both cases. Posted by Mike

This is from the Louisville News 09/17/2013:

Kentucky Senate Republican Leader Open to Giving Felon Voting Rights a Second Look

Enlarge image

State Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown,

A day after U.S. Sen. Rand Paul called on Republican lawmakers in the Kentucky General Assembly to give restoration of felon voting rights a second look, a prominent GOP state senator says the caucus might be open to the idea.
Speaking at the Plymouth Community Renewal Center earlier this week, Paul said U.S. drug laws disproportionately effect racial minorities.
One of the consequences, Paul said, is voter disenfranchisement for African-Americans.
The senator told west Louisville residents he would lobby leaders in the Republican-controlled state Senate to seek a compromise on House Bill 70.
The bill would automatically give certain felons their rights back and passed the state House in a bipartisan 72-25 vote.

*********************

So Mike, any thoughts?