Home | About | Donate

'Should the Boston Bomber Be Able to Vote?' A Provocative Question. And the Wrong One.

'Should the Boston Bomber Be Able to Vote?' A Provocative Question. And the Wrong One.

Jeffery Robinson

Do you want the Boston marathon bomber to vote?” is a provocative question that acts as a smokescreen concealing the real issue — why and when did America decide that people convicted of a crime should not vote?

2 Likes

This is a new topic for my consideration as felons in my state of New Mexico are disenfranchised in prison and thereafter for an unknown amount of time. I just assumed that if you get caught and go to prison voting was one of one’s losses. I’ve given some thought about this and now agree with the other nations that allow prisoners–with a few exceptions–to vote. This article gives a nice overview of a rarely discussed topic(I certainly learned things). The weaponization of this topic by political operatives to smear the real progressive, liberals by using ‘loaded’ questions mentioning the “Boston Bomber” just inflame the topic with toxicity. Perhaps the candidates need to have a smart reply to counter the smears that will be relentless in the coming months as neo-liberal darlings like Joe “Hands” Biden becomes the anointed to dethrone Trump. If this is the strategy we might very well have four more years of Trump. Our prison system is still based on a punitive instead of a rehabilitative system to allow an integration back into society. The recidivism rate shows what a failure this current system is. Allowing political action from prison will give a way for voices from within to be heard to all those seeking to actually represent ‘the people’. This will be a nasty fight from all the conservative, punitive advocates smearing the left as if they are unfit for office. Tread lightly my friends. Peace

3 Likes

Robinson sez:
“Why aren’t we asking why countries around the world handle this issue so differently?”

Whoa … it’s almost as if the commentary has veered to the subject of health care. Or perhaps firearms regulation.

5 Likes

Fascinating to think that “the Boston bomber” - (note the schism bludgeoned in between propaganda and real name - not a solitary incident) is ONE person who cannot influence beyond his own position, cannot work with others to organize - aside from - say the prison population and all that entails.

Most revealing is the propagandist dependency on distortion. The fact that the “argument” is even made is painfully revealing of the construct of “privilege”. The etymology of the latter, once again, = privi- ‘first before’, prior to + legum - law.

If one places oneself before/prior to the law, one is implicitlyplacing oneself above the law. Only one who is accustomed to operating above/before the law thinks and produces such consequences in terms making one ‘dead’ to the law. This is one historical pile of very sick BS. You could not write a more insinuating handbook to create terrorists. The system is slowly being unveiled for the crust of terrorism it has spewed from the start.

Our task is to tease apart the BS from functional loving premises. This is a task that will take generations… let the work begin in earnest.

And no jokes about 'don’t call me Earnest.

1 Like

Very very interesting article. Speaks tons about our illusion of democracy. But this topic, goes hand in hand with (1) US having the largest incarcerated population in the world (by all metrics), and (2) US having a “for profit” incarceration system. In all three issues we seem to be exceptional indeed.

6 Likes

“In France, only election offenses and abuse of public power warrant disenfranchisement.”
Sounds good to me, as it would disenfranchise Trump, the entire GOP and most of the Democrats.

6 Likes

Hi August: I like that idea: abuses of public power as the marker for losing the right to vote. people convicted of crimes spend time in prison, but currently, people in government, who commit crimes often end up walking free. Then I guess Mr. Abrams couldn’t vote nor Mr. Scooter Libby, nor Bush nor Cheney for lying to the public and causing the deaths so many and Bill Clinton for lying to Congress. In fact, I bet a whole lot of those in Congress would lose the right to vote, because in creating an illegal and unjust war, how many lost their lives due to the actions of government officials. I do support that all those in Congress who vote for war need to go. If that were true, I doubt that Trump, Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams would be so needful of war in Venezuela!

4 Likes

Question: “What’s the worst he could do, vote for something that at least half of the voting population also supports?”

2 Likes

Article makes good points, and most people are incarcerated at state levels, under state jurisdictions. This is what the state of Florida just did after voters passed a popular proposition to give ex-felons the right to vote:

Notably, this goes right along with Republicans in Tennessee and Texas making it harder to organize and register people to vote.

Given the above, talking about incarcerated people voting feels like an utter distraction when we are working to keep the voting rights we do have in multiple states for non-incarcerated people. I’d rather have Sanders and other candidates focus on that than focus on something that’s, frankly, dreamland stuff right now, particularly when a president is limited on what he/she can do on this issue. Just my take, of course.

1 Like

I also want to remind everyone that EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN THAT IS FORCED TO PAY TAXES, should have the absolute right to vote on how their money is spent - period. No taxation without representation. Until such time as they are willing to allow ex-felons an exemption from paying taxes, they’d better be prepared to allow them to vote. Didn’t we use this as an excuse for war with the mother country?

6 Likes

And that should also include the Permanent Residents in the US, who right now are discriminated against. They are required to pay taxes, as they should, as they reside here, but they cannot vote.

2 Likes

We ALL should have the right to vote, eat , shit, and sleep.
First they took a felons right to vote, and I wasn’t a felon sooooo…

2 Likes

There are a number of reasons why I agree with the sentiments of the bombers finger portrayal.

1 Like

Sanders was pretty clear that he wasn’t focusing on this issue, he was simply answering a question accurately and with basic details - you know, what politicians are supposed to do.

2 Likes

True. “Focus” was a strong word on my part.

2 Likes

According to some, illegal immigrants also pay taxes. Should they vote too?

Voting should be limited to citizens of a country. I know quite a few permanent residents that have no long term plans to stay in the US. Not sure why they jump thru all the hoops to get that green card in the first place.

1 Like

Should the Boston bomber vote? I think the answer is a resounding “no.” This person was tried and convicted and sentenced to death. The surviving victims and their families I am sure are wondering what is taking so long for him to be executed.

1 Like

I don’t think the voting privilege is proposed for death row convicts. And it shouldn’t.

Which brings up the question: Do we reinstate a driving license to a convicted person of drunk driving homicide? It would seem more egregious than preventing someones voting right.

1 Like

Then the title of the article is misleading as it says should the Boston bomber vote? Absolutely not! Why is he still here and is even being mentioned? Also, if someone is a drunk driver and kills someone- then that person should go to jail for life. Period. They killed someone all in the name of having fun. Bye Bye

More correctly, and far more concisely, the correct answer to:

“Do you want the Boston marathon bomber to vote?”

…is simply. “That is a complete red-herring that warrants dismissal without further discussion”