Shot In The Dark: Blowing the Case

August 16, 2006

Blowing the Case

Steve Chapman opines in favor of extending the franchise to felons who've done their time:

We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders.

Many of them can be. The pleasures of long-term confinement serve to deter a lot of them from reverting to mischief. If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place. If we regard voting as a commendable activity, we should encourage it among ex-convicts as a way of reintegrating them.

The felons who are incorrigible are not likely to exercise the franchise anyway. They're too busy stealing cars and mugging old ladies. The people hurt by the loss of voting rights are the ones who want to live normal, productive lives. All disenfranchisement does is inflict a humiliating disability on offenders trying to stay on the right track.

I agree, to an extent; I think people who've served their time and lived for a stretch as law-abiding citizens should get the franchise back. It's one of those things - ephemeral as it may seem - that can help mark a felon's return to the straight life.

But I suspect Steve Chapman's motivations are different:

The chief obstacle to change is not that the idea lacks merit, but that it could tilt the electoral balance. One study calculated that if all those 600,000 excluded felons had voted in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would have won the state and the presidency. So Republicans may be forgiven for a lack of enthusiasm.

Actually, I suspect Steve Chapman's enthusiasm for the idea is largely driven by this belief.

How can we tell?

In fact, though, most of those offenders probably wouldn't have voted, and it's by no means guaranteed they would go heavily Democratic anyway. With the recent plague of corporate corruption, who knows? Some correctional facilities may even become GOP strongholds.

Uh huh.

Two words: Kathleen Soliah.

Posted by Mitch at August 16, 2006 07:24 AM | TrackBack

Comments

"But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders."

If you were really, really drunk when you committed your crime does that make you more or less trustworthy when you "help choose our leaders"? Seriously, should we be terribly interested in the political opinions of someone who has made their living by, say, running a crack lab? It doesn't even show minimal regard for the well-being of your fellow citizens or the state.

" If we regard voting as a commendable activity, we should encourage it among ex-convicts as a way of reintegrating them."
Voting is not going to church. There is nothing commendable about voting in and of itself. It's not an exercise in therapy, either.

And yes, I do know convicted felons. Nice people, but I wouldn't trust any of them to watch my house for the weekend.

Posted by: Terry at August 16, 2006 08:48 AM

“We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders.”

Yes shocking isn’t it? It’s almost as if we’ve decided that voting isn’t an absolute right (or maybe it’s not even proper to call it a “right”) and that it can in fact be denied to people unless it’s solely for reasons of race, gender, being over the age of eighteen, or failure to pay a poll tax. Funny that being convicted of a serious crime doesn’t make one a member of a protected class.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at August 16, 2006 10:19 AM

There are entirely too many behaviors classified as felonies, but that isn't a good reason to let felons vote. To commit a felony, properly understood, is to launch a grievous assault on society, and it is entirely reasonable to permenently deny a role in governing society to those who have been willing to grievously assault society.

Posted by: Will Allen at August 16, 2006 04:03 PM

Posted by: serge at October 29, 2006 06:41 PM