- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AG Holder wants felons to vote primarily because of race
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:26 pm to PanhandleTigah
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:26 pm to PanhandleTigah
Do you think marijuana should be illegal?
1
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:02 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:Yes I do. I've heard quite a few people say it's not a gateway drug, but more times than not it is. I never thought it should be legalized but my feelings weren't truly cemented until I saw up close the destruction it can cause. The kid I've talked about started with pot then moved onto more powerful drugs when the pot wasn't giving him enough of a high.
Do you think marijuana should be illegal?
Just like alcohol, no one sees a problem with it until it begins to destroy people's lives. I realize I'm coming from a place of resentment and anger because I've watched it progress over the past three years.
I suspect the states that have legalized it will come to regret that decision.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 10:04 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:43 pm to PanhandleTigah
quote:
PanhandleTigah
Posted on 2/12/14 at 12:07 am to PanhandleTigah
It is illegal, but your kid did it anyway. So what good is the law? I can give you a few billion reasons it should be legal. As someone who has used it, grown it, and suffered the consequences, I can tell you that people have to make choices and be responsible for those choices. The government can not do it for anyone.
Meanwhile the drug war rages on. Billions of dollars spent, thousands of lives lost, cartels getting rich and powerful...but let's keep it this way because your kid is a screw up.
Meanwhile the drug war rages on. Billions of dollars spent, thousands of lives lost, cartels getting rich and powerful...but let's keep it this way because your kid is a screw up.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 12:27 am to PanhandleTigah
quote:can we assume you think alcohol should also be illegal?
PanhandleTigah
Posted on 2/12/14 at 6:44 am to olgoi khorkhoi
OK, let's get one thing straight - he ain't my kid. Thank God! And I get your point, but I just hate them.
CherryGarciaMan, get some help.
CherryGarciaMan, get some help.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 7:07 am to LSUwag
quote:After 5-10 years clean, maybe, depending on the crime. Most felons remain felons, in or out of prison, and it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. If they can't govern their own actions, I don't want them voting on things that govern mine.
think that once a person has paid their dues and cleared themselves from the restrictions of their sentence, they should have their voting rights restored
quote:
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
The above info is from a Bureau of Justice tracking study of 15 states encompassing 272,111 prisoners, which represented 2/3 of all prisoners released in the US the year of the study. 67.5% of the prisoners released were re-arrested within 3 years.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 2/12/14 at 8:12 am to TigerTattle
quote:Obviously if they had been allowed to vote they would not have returned to a life of crime.
67.5% of the prisoners released were re-arrested within 3 years.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 8:18 am to PanhandleTigah
Dollars to doughnuts say that kid started with alcohol, the true gateway drug.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 8:34 am to dante
While causality is obviously hard to prove, there is actually a lot more of a link here than you might think.
Here's a study, if you're into empirical data
Here's the part of interest:
And as it turns out, a lot of those felons would have probably voted.
The basic idea is that disenfranchisement ostracizes felons from society and drives them back to crime as a result.
Now, whether or not you buy that enfranchising them will magically drop recidivism is another matter. Still, there's some food for thought up above. A 19% difference in recidivism is kinda hard to chalk up to chance.
Here's a study, if you're into empirical data
Here's the part of interest:
quote:
“We next considered whether variation in state disenfranchisement policies accounted for this observed variation in recidivism across states. A transformation of the coefficient for a state‘s disenfranchisement law reveals that individuals who are released in states that permanently disenfranchise are roughly 19% more likely to be rearrested than those released in states that restore the franchise post-release. This finding provides initial evidence consistent with the thesis that disenfranchisement is directly related to recidivism" [later, in the same context] “Taken as a whole, our findings indicate that states which permanently disenfranchise ex-felons experience significantly higher rates of repeat offenses than states that do not.”
And as it turns out, a lot of those felons would have probably voted.
quote:
"Our estimates of felon turnout range from a low of 20.5 percent (for the 1974 Congressional elections) to a high of 39 percent (for the 1992 presidential election). On average, we predict that about 35 percent of disenfranchised felons would have turned out to vote in presidential elections, and that about 24 percent would have participated in Senate elections during nonpresidential election years. Although these numbers are well below the corresponding rates among non-felons, they suggest that a non-trivial proportion of disenfranchised felons were likely to have voted if permitted to do so."
The basic idea is that disenfranchisement ostracizes felons from society and drives them back to crime as a result.
quote:
"For the individual ex-felon, felon disenfranchisement laws deny them the opportunity to exercise the quintessential rights of citizenship, most notably the right to vote. As a result, ex-felons tend to be alienated ex-felons from mainstream society. For many ex-felons, this legalized exclusion is more often than not an extension of that which they may have experienced either because of poverty or because of race discrimination prior to becoming convicted felons, and leads them to commit such crimes again. In an article in the February 3, 2000 edition of USA Today David Cole writes that "we stamp [ex-felons] as outsiders and bar them from the quintessential act of citizenship, only increasing the likelihood that they will return to a life of crime." The refusal to restore the right to vote, as well as the host of other rights prohibited to ex-felons, denies them the opportunity to begin life anew as fully incorporated citizens. While felon disenfranchisement laws bar the exercise of some rights, the laws do not invalidate other profitable obligations associated with citizenship. Ex-felons who manage to become gainfully employed are still required to pay taxes even though they are denied the benefits associated with those duties such as the ability to elect their representatives or to decide on policies that will govern their lives, and lives of their families. Centuries ago this prospect of taxation without representation was untenable to some Americans. Today, however, such a policy is acceptable, as long as the voice that is denied is that of the ex-felons. Consequently, by alienating ex-felons and treating them as non-citizens, felon disenfranchisement laws merely contribute to the difficult process of reintegration for the ex-felon."
Now, whether or not you buy that enfranchising them will magically drop recidivism is another matter. Still, there's some food for thought up above. A 19% difference in recidivism is kinda hard to chalk up to chance.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 9:08 am to Captain Jaye
quote:Is there a difference in programs/education available in prisons in these states compared to the states that permanently disenfranchise inmates?
individuals who are released in states that permanently disenfranchise are roughly 19% more likely to be rearrested than those released in states that restore the franchise post-release.
I guess the problem I have is that crimes were committed willingly and they were prepared to go to prison, but if they knew they would lose their voting rights they would have thought twice about the decisions they made?
Posted on 2/12/14 at 9:31 am to dante
I'm unfortunately unsure of the details, but considering the uniqueness of states' approaches to sentencing policy I'm willing to be there are. Still, the variance in the nature of the states that chose to enfranchise post-release seems to indicate to me that it's the policy and not environment the policy is implemented in.
What you're saying is plausible, but I don't know if it stands up to scrutiny for a couple of reasons. There is a lot of misinformation about sentencing laws. Some states allow for reenfranchisement and some don't. So that's the first assumption. The second assumption is that criminals act with consequences in mind. While they certainly will have an ambiguous idea of jail in their consciousness, losing the right to vote is peripheral if you're committing a felony. Thirdly, it assumes rational thought on the part of the actor. All premeditated felonies have some degree of rational thought, but crimes of passion don't. Fourthly, it assumes there is no change in values after sentencing. The purpose of the system is supposed to be punishment with rehabilitation. Successful rehabilitation would give much greater weight to a fundamental right in a law abiding society than the felon probably had prior to his crime.
Common sense says you're right, but those numbers and continued logical analysis for some reason lead me away from that conclusion. Which is disconcerting, usually they go hand in hand.
What you're saying is plausible, but I don't know if it stands up to scrutiny for a couple of reasons. There is a lot of misinformation about sentencing laws. Some states allow for reenfranchisement and some don't. So that's the first assumption. The second assumption is that criminals act with consequences in mind. While they certainly will have an ambiguous idea of jail in their consciousness, losing the right to vote is peripheral if you're committing a felony. Thirdly, it assumes rational thought on the part of the actor. All premeditated felonies have some degree of rational thought, but crimes of passion don't. Fourthly, it assumes there is no change in values after sentencing. The purpose of the system is supposed to be punishment with rehabilitation. Successful rehabilitation would give much greater weight to a fundamental right in a law abiding society than the felon probably had prior to his crime.
Common sense says you're right, but those numbers and continued logical analysis for some reason lead me away from that conclusion. Which is disconcerting, usually they go hand in hand.
This post was edited on 2/12/14 at 9:53 am
Posted on 2/12/14 at 9:52 am to Captain Jaye
You are obviously much more informed than me on this topic. But let's keep things in perspective. Holder's sole reason for this is based on race. If the numbers were reversed I doubt he would even be discussing this issue.
quote:He is also fighting states from enacting photo ID laws.
these measures to strip African-Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable.”
Posted on 2/12/14 at 9:54 am to PuntBamaPunt
quote:PBP, you could very well be correct but please don't tell me pot is harmless and doesn't lead the way to harder drug use.
Dollars to doughnuts say that kid started with alcohol, the true gateway drug.
ETA: I used to drink but have never touched illegal drugs.
This post was edited on 2/12/14 at 9:55 am
Posted on 2/12/14 at 9:58 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
As someone who has used it, grown it, and suffered the consequences, I can tell you that people have to make choices and be responsible for those choices.
quote:Since you've done the same thing he has, do you consider yourself screw up or just other people who do what you've done?
but let's keep it this way because your bf's kid is a screw up.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 9:59 am to PanhandleTigah
quote:
I've heard quite a few people say it's not a gateway drug, but more times than not it is
The true gateway drug in our society is cigarettes. That is what twelve-year olds steal from their parents and run behind the house to smoke.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 10:00 am to dante
Holder *did* mention it reducing crime as well, but yes, that was absolutely peripheral in his stance. And honestly, Holder is full of it. I guess he's trying to in a very circumscribed manner draw a link between racism in sentencing and therefore a racist effect by disenfranchisement laws. There simply isn't another plausible way to link disenfranchisement, which equally affects all races when applied, to racism. But that's an incredibly stupid way of dealing with the issue. (Incidentally, there's a lot of academia who agree with the logic used by Holder, which is just sad.)
If the sentencing is flawed. (A big if.) You fix the sentencing. Somehow, Holder is trying to argue that because sentencing is flawed, we need to abolish an completely separate part of criminal law to try and somehow compensate.
I'm sorry Holder. But... No.
If the sentencing is flawed. (A big if.) You fix the sentencing.
Somehow, Holder is trying to argue that because sentencing is flawed, we need to abolish an completely separate part of criminal law to try and somehow compensate. I'm sorry Holder. But... No.
This post was edited on 2/12/14 at 10:03 am
Posted on 2/12/14 at 10:02 am to CherryGarciaMan
i agree with you point but here in TD political talk lala land they are all hard working,tax paying, never committed a crime people..
Posted on 2/12/14 at 10:05 am to Captain Jaye
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News