So, another dimwit felt the need to post an anonymous comment in the Daily Crime today.
"The Democrats in Maryland both the House and Senate have passed a bill to restore convicted felons' voting rights. Now this bill sits on Gov. Martin O'Malley's desk, waiting for him to sign it into law. This is simply outrageous. If O'Malley signs this bill, he might as well open all the cell doors in every prison in this state of Maryland and let all these inmates go free."
But as we address this issue, let's leave out the fact that the comment makes no sense and concentrate instead on the larger question of allowing ex-convicts to vote.
First, I can't see a reason for them not to be able to vote... is thee some sort irrational fear that they could emerge as a voting block and perhaps elect someone who is stupid, malicious, or dishonest? Well, don't worry about it, because the bonafied voters have already done that time and again, and all too frequently those voters and elected officials came from the "law-and-order" party.... just look at recent history: Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were chased out of office with the hounds of felony charges snapping at their heels; Ronald Reagan and King George I were haunted by their traitorous acts relative to the Iran Contra affair.
So what's the reason? Is it a belief those who are convicted of crimes should lose all their rights and liberties forever? If we subscribe to that policy, then where is the incentive for those who have served their sentences to rejoin society as a productive and law-abiding member?
Still unaddressed here, is the real reason this bill needs to become law, and it has a lot to do with that fact that minorities are convicted of felonies at a significantly higher rate than us white folks, and by some estimates that means that about 25 percent of the black population is barred from casting a ballot.... and that's one way of getting around the Voting Rights Act, huh? So, is that the reason for the opposition.... because it might eventually mean a minority would occupy the Statehouse or even the Whitehouse?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Maybe, just maybe, "minorities are convicted of felonies at a significantly higher rate than us white folks," is because they COMMIT more felonies than us white folks.
You used a legitimate question to get a dig in at two fine presidents. That was juvenile. Start another post if you want to comment on the voting trends of law abiding citizens.
To answer you question- “where is the incentive for those who have served their sentences to rejoin society as a productive and law-abiding member?”
The incentive is: To stay out of jail and away from Bubba’s Johnson.
Beside, why change now? The process has worked lo these many years, with no ill effects. I don’t understand why anyone would even take up the issue, we are only talking about a bunch of convicted felons.
Alfalfa:
Maybe they do commit more felonies than us white folks, or maybe they're just convicted at higher rates because of institutionaled racism and they can't afford legal representation and so are stuck with legal aid lawyers who are under funded and so can only provide a minimum level of representation.
"Why change now? The process has worked lo these many years, with no ill effects."
Well, it may work for you. But it doesn't work for the minority community and it doesn't work for the democratic process because it dilutes the minority vote and so dilutes their representation. Also, the Constitution defines the right to vote as an inalienable right.
You really need to look at this issue in a context of something more than the harm or good it may do you, and instead try to look at it in the context of it's impact upon society.
While the origins of crime have many roots, certainly one of them is a sense of disenfranchisement- the feeling that one has no say in their economic or social circumstances- and society (led by politicians)are going to to whatever they want to whomever they want. And without that sense of self-determination, relative to oneself and one's community, it follows that if you have no rights, then you have no responsibility to uphold the social contract that holds society together in a peaceful and mutually profitible unit.
Actually, felons already have the right to have their vote restored under Maryland law. Back in 2003 the General Assembly passed a measure allowing once-convicted felons to get their vote back once 3 years has elapsed from their release and they made monetary restitution for their offenses.
This bill eliminates the waiting period and the restitution - personally I think it's a bad bill because of that fact. The current statute seems like a fair compromise to me, especially compared to the new proposal.
Mike:
Requiring restitution prior to the restoration of voting rights is equivalant to a poll tax in that it prevents poor people from voting.
No it doesn't.
It only prevents lazy unwilling to work people from voting. A convict can EARN his right back, by working and making restitution. More than likely restitution would (at least it should) be a condition of parole. If he violates parole and is sent back to jail, should he keep his now restored right to vote?
yes... I think only those convicted of spying, espionage, desertion under fire and LEGITIMATE terrorism charges should not be allowed to vote.
Post a Comment