"Paid their Debt to Society"

[UTChE96]

I support the idea of only allowing citizens who do not receive any funding from the government to vote. SS and Medicare would have to be exempt since folks were forced to participate but all other social programs would be considered. Non-violent felons would be allowed to vote after they repay their cost to the government for all the years of incarceration and fairly compensate all wronged victims. Violent felons can go f themselves.

 

[Statalyzer]

SS and Medicare would have to be exempt since folks were forced to participate but all other social programs would be considered

Which ones comes from taxes that we only participate in voluntarily?

 

[UTChE96]

Which ones comes from taxes that we only participate in voluntarily?

I meant SS & Medicare are different because we are forced to participate in a pay for benefit type program. Almost every citizen pays into SS & Medicare and pretty much every citizen (who lives long enough) will eventually get a benefit from both programs. That cannot be said for any other social welfare program.

I would even be ok with a different model that uses net payers / net consumer for determining voter eligibility. That would include both SS & Medicare after someone consumes more than they contributed.

 

[Monahorns]

I judge a pot dealer in Texas differently, not because what he's doing is inherently worse but because he's willing to break the law and cheat in order to make money and serve his own interests. There's a reason why drug dealers, pimps, and dudes who sell electronics and jewelry out of their trunks aren't known for being strong family men. To me, that means there's also a reason to disenfranchise him at least temporarily.

I agree just wanted to see exactly what your thoughts were. Plus, the person who is willing to break the law to sell pot is more likely to be willing to break other laws through theft and violence and dishonesty.

 

[Monahorns]

I would be in favor of a 3rd category for crime in between misdemeanor and felon. Then voting rights could be maintained for misdemeanors and the 2nd tier, but felons would never be reenfranchised. But the number of crimes called felonies would be smaller than now, maybe much smaller.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I’m not the one that compared a felon’s judgment as the same as a non-felon’s judgment who’s ideology being different than yours.

No, but you can start by demonstrating reading comprehension skills. I didn't make the comment because of your political ideology.

 

[mb227]

For those that believe a felon has 'paid their debt to society' and thus has earned the right to vote, where do you stand on the ability of someone who said something that offended some group years ago but has apologized for their conduct?

On another forum where I am a regular, the people who might have done something years ago that is viewed as politically incorrect now (whether racist, sexist or some other offensive -ist or -phobic) are allegedly incapable of being forgiven.

How then do you reconcile one group who actually harmed people being able to be forgiven with someone who uttered something decades ago, caused no actual harm but has also apologized and sought to advance their mea culpa?

 

[Statalyzer]

That's a reasonable comparison, but what individuals believe about someone's potential prejudice and what the government allows them to do are different, sort of like how private companies banning someone is not a 1st Amendment issue.