Civil rights organizations are applauding Gov. Terry McAuliffe's order on Friday restoring voting rights to roughly 200,000 Virginians by eliminating what they all "vestige of our nation's Jim Crow past."
The problem is that now that they can vote is... Being able to vote! To judge by Arizona and New York ... They think they will be able to vote do they? Lol
However it is about time that they were restored their rights to be cheated out of voting like the rest of us are. Equality counts even if your votes don't!
This is actually a good thing. But I am sorry you were somehow cheated of your own voting rights. And you're not even Black!
What is wrong with you? Keep your racism to yourself! Maybe I should say this in simpler terms for you? My comment was sarcasm and maybe a bit of satire ( look up those words ) and of course it was a good thing but it wasn't a black only issue. Other people are in jail besides black people you jerk.
Although I don't know that I'd agree with the broader proposition that even those still incarcerated should be able to vote - although I'm willing to be persuaded - I do believe society would be well served by restoring that right to those no longer separated from it, but still subject to "supervised release, parole or probation".
If release is intended to indicate one's fitness to reenter public life, the rights attendant to that sphere should accompany that transition.
Yep. All Lives Matter. But "Deep South" votes don't matter so much. Let me see if I can anticipate a response: "White people live in the Deep South too, you jerk." You're right, sarcasm is fun.
I wonder if your reluctance about condoning incarcerated persons' voting rights hinges on an assumption that people locked up in the USA are locked up for good reasons. Consider that the US is far, far, farthest off the charts on Planet Earth in terms of how many people get locked up here. And consider that some people in this country, such as Black men and women and children, are locked up at racism-turbo-charged rates even beyond the "regular" US rates of incarceration. In other words, there are a whole lot of people behind bars in the US who really shouldn't be (and that doesn't even start to approach the idea of stopping the use of incarceration itself as a very poor substitute for rehabilitative and restorative justice and socio-economic development to meet human needs). US incarceration is systematically targeted at the poor and the marginalized, entrapping those whose paths away from jail often had roadblocks thrown across them. Incarceration and its most evil brethren, capital punishment, is nearly never the reward for mass murderers who lead wars for empire. Denying the vote to the poor and marginalized beings who are incarcerated is the least of their worries, but it is a few more pinches of salt sprinkled by a seemingly pitiless nation on their open wounds. If we like the ringing sound of "one person, one vote," and if prisoners are yet people, while corporations really still aren't, then... you can finish this sentence.
"I wonder if your reluctance about condoning incarcerated persons' voting rights hinges on an assumption that people locked up in the USA are locked up for good reasons."
A visit to my site should dispel that notion.
Was Bill Clinton consulted by Gov. Terry McAuliffe when issuing,
"the ... Restoration of Rights order allows convicted felons who've served their time and finished any required supervised release, parole or probation, to be able to vote, as well as be able to run for office, serve on a jury, or be a notary public"?
After all, concerning Clinton's Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,
“Crime did drop in the years after the bill passed, as Clinton said, but he gives too much credit to the crime bill for that. Experts who have studied the impact of the law say forces independent of the law were mostly responsible for the crime drop.... What were those other factors? Increased employment, better policing methods, an aging of the population, growth in income and inflation, to name a few".
And, now a qualifier further reducing the "glory" of Bill Clinton's Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994:
“The trend toward increased incarceration began in the early 1970s [initiated by that good "liberal" Nelson Rockefeller when governor of New York], and quadrupled in the ensuing four decades. A two-year study by the National Research Council concluded that the increase was historically unprecedented, that the U.S. far outpaced the incarceration rates elsewhere in the world, and that high incarceration rates have disproportionately affected Hispanic and black communities. The report cited policies enacted by officials at all levels that expanded the use of incarceration, largely in response to decades of rising crime". (Robert Farley, “Bill Clinton and the 1994 Crime Bill”). http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/bill-clinton-and-the-1994-crime-bill/
Is Bill Clinton a bigot ("high incarceration rates have disproportionately affected Hispanic and black communities")? I think not. Rather he is an insensitive self-absorbed politician who does whatever he perceives will get him popular approval. This, without any consideration for the consequences because of his self-absorbtion. Thus, he attacks Black Lives Matter demonstrators in New York, then subsequently apologizes when his attack blows up in his face because hurting Hillary by antagonizing potential supporters. He has become a pathetic lonely wretch, much like Michael Corleone at the conclusion of the Godfather trilogy, who authorized the assassination of his own brother.
This ruling should be the tail that wags the dog --
We need to restore the concept of REHABILITATION to our prisons.
As I recall it back in the Clinton Administration we were releasing 450,000 prisoners
What state of physical well-being and mind do we want those prisoners to have upon release?
We're not naïve -- we know that many have a strong urge to punish and often they end up
in control of our prisons.
We also know that many still act out of racist ideas and hatreds which must be changed.
As we've watched the Bernie Sanders campaign we can see that the public is welcoming and
embracing the wisdom, compassion, love and understanding that he has shown to all citizens -
and his especial concern for those in our prisons today.
Why shouldn't they? Currently where I am living overseas, ballots are delivered to the prison. Granted that doesn't mean we have democracy here but it does seem to argue that such is possible and considered reasonable somewhere. Would that be persuasive?
I realize that's the situation in some other countries, and it may well be something I'd consider a rational policy. I just haven't seen a detailed defense of it.
My view at present is that if someone has been imprisoned for a crime, they forfeit certain rights, freedom being the most obvious, but the right to vote, as well, for the period of their confinement.
Again, once they've been released, regardless of any conditions such as probation, they are no longer separate from society, and should be able to exercise those rights, for their own and the greater good.
Across the world, untold numbers of persons are in jail or prison who are either innocent or whose crimes don't require that separation. They shouldn't be incarcerated in the first place.
There are those who believe we abolish imprisonment. That too might be a rational course to take, but I don't have the information I need to make that call, either.
What I can say with absolute certainty is that perpetual disenfranchisement is not only grossly unjust, but an attempt to perpetuate a defiled "democracy" that exists in name only.