The rationale for this actually makes some sense. You wouldn’t want an incumbent to be able to remove an opponent by railroading them into a minor felony conviction. With the way Trump ran things, if all it took was a minor felony to make sure Biden was ineligible, he absolutely would have pressured the DOJ to find something.
How does that make sense if you’re not allowed to participate in the voting process as a felon? Or do you also think that felons should be eligible to vote?
I can’t think of any good reason anyone’s right to vote should be revoked. In fact, it’s probably very important that those that have been targeted by the system are able to have their voice.
felons should be elligible to vote. For one, there are statistically a number of people in jail who are fully innocent but convicted anyway. Second it means that politicians would have incentives not to ignore conditions of inmates. If you look at groups unable to vote: noncitizen legal residents, kids, and prisoners then you see people with fewer rightds.
If you have served your time, then all rights should be restored to you. So many people are stuck in a system of poverty because of how our system works.
That’s primarily due to application disclosure law not having an expiration or qualification for forgiveness. Make one bad choice at 18 and you’ll be working entry-level or manual labor for the rest of your life. Not to mention the difficulty in finding a landlord that’ll rent to you. It’s so close-minded that we don’t believe in rehabilitation or change as a nation.
It is in fact a problem when you can prescribe drugs and are expected to be impeccably honest.
Is it a bit of a Catch-22? Sure. Should a doctor be able to do heroin? Sure. Should a doctor caught selling heroin to junkies without even checking their health history be able to keep his license or practice medicine?
Or how about an accountant that embezzled from his clients?
Agreed. Our one-chance system is designed to kill addicts. Prison is not rehabilitation, and often leads to the homeless/prison cycle for those who struggle with addiction.
Yeah, however in this case Trump did all the felonies is on his own. Your argument is for a very specific set of circumstances, in which one party nominates a candidate for the primaries, who, then commits felony crimes before the general election.
He can still become president with a criminal conviction. He just can’t vote in the election. Isn’t our system swell?
The rationale for this actually makes some sense. You wouldn’t want an incumbent to be able to remove an opponent by railroading them into a minor felony conviction. With the way Trump ran things, if all it took was a minor felony to make sure Biden was ineligible, he absolutely would have pressured the DOJ to find something.
This is what Putin conveniently does for any opposition.
And America does to voters instead.
How does that make sense if you’re not allowed to participate in the voting process as a felon? Or do you also think that felons should be eligible to vote?
I can’t think of any good reason anyone’s right to vote should be revoked. In fact, it’s probably very important that those that have been targeted by the system are able to have their voice.
I agree. It simply makes no sense that felons don’t get a say in the nation, but can somehow run it.
felons should be elligible to vote. For one, there are statistically a number of people in jail who are fully innocent but convicted anyway. Second it means that politicians would have incentives not to ignore conditions of inmates. If you look at groups unable to vote: noncitizen legal residents, kids, and prisoners then you see people with fewer rightds.
If you have served your time, then all rights should be restored to you. So many people are stuck in a system of poverty because of how our system works.
That’s primarily due to application disclosure law not having an expiration or qualification for forgiveness. Make one bad choice at 18 and you’ll be working entry-level or manual labor for the rest of your life. Not to mention the difficulty in finding a landlord that’ll rent to you. It’s so close-minded that we don’t believe in rehabilitation or change as a nation.
It really shouldn’t be legal to ask if someone was a non-violent felon (violent felons would need a different classification).
There are some things it’s relevant for, in terms of financial crimes or pharmaceuticals.
Or a rape charges for working in a SA survivor clinic.
Elder abuse in nursing homes…
Etc.
And all of a sudden when see why we just need to stop categorizing things into felony/misdemeanor and take cases individually
I would say some of that is violent though, rape and elder abuse has a victim, drug use does not.
It is in fact a problem when you can prescribe drugs and are expected to be impeccably honest.
Is it a bit of a Catch-22? Sure. Should a doctor be able to do heroin? Sure. Should a doctor caught selling heroin to junkies without even checking their health history be able to keep his license or practice medicine?
Or how about an accountant that embezzled from his clients?
I don’t know about that one.
As of now, it’s mandatory to disclose if you’ve ever had a conviction, and verified prior to employment.
I know it is, I just don’t think it should be. Way to many non-violent drug users have their lives ruined over an addiction.
Agreed. Our one-chance system is designed to kill addicts. Prison is not rehabilitation, and often leads to the homeless/prison cycle for those who struggle with addiction.
Yeah, however in this case Trump did all the felonies is on his own. Your argument is for a very specific set of circumstances, in which one party nominates a candidate for the primaries, who, then commits felony crimes before the general election.
I’m actually okay with that.
There are too many people with false convictions
You’re ok with a man who has openly conspired with Russia to overthrow the US government being president?
Please tell me that’s not what you meant.
I think they were meaning they’re fine with felons voting, which I can’t disagree with.
It’s similar to how many guilty men would you let go free before you were ok with jailing an innocent man.
When the choice is between a conspired atrocity vs an active support of a genocide… ima go with the one that just says yeah we’re guna kill them all.
What system is better bro? I mean, what country the size of the United States is doing it the “right way?” India? China?
That is a false equivalence
It’s much more of a question that requires perspective and thought to address beyond just drive by hand waving one liners.
Idk, not taking away voting rights of citizens after they did their time?
Come on, it’s not that hard to think about what could be made better.