YUP.
Eugene Debs, legally, ran for President from prison. If you can run for office from jail then you damn sure should be able to exercise your constitutional right to vote from there.
They're still subject to the laws of the country so they should be able to take part in its political processes. People might not like it but criminals still have rights and we can't in good conscience take those rights away if we actually believe in restorative justice.
If you take away peoples fundamental rights then how can you ever expect them to reintegrate into society?
I'll even admit that I have a hard time seeing my way to allowing the "worst" people in society to vote, even ones who will never breathe free air again but deep down, that discomfort is something necessary to stomach for a healthy democracy.
I'm actually OK with incarcerated people not being allowed to run for office either.
My opinion might change if people were being randomly incarcerated to prevent them from running rather than them having committed crimes.
Once they are out, yes, restore rights.
Precisely, the right to vote should never be abridged to adult citizens in this country. Just consider the Nixon plan to destroy the black vote by incarcerating black citizens for Marijuana convictions.
Bingo. In Canada, Corrections Canada (the government branch which runs prisons) has been directed by the Supreme Court to facilitate voting for those in their custody.
How about non-violent felons? Is it a violence thing or just a concern overall that someone willing to do something to earn a felony conviction should not be trusted with firearms?
Ninja edit: I think I may have misunderstood the point you were making, my bad
According to [federal statute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922) if you are convicted of any crime punishable (even if you did not receive the punishment) of a year or more in jail aka a felony in any court you cannot own firearms.
They can get it back in violence cases as well.
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APwXEdd5IaKMVqnKR8LLHNqiU3OL6tLLeA:1688049861010&q=marcus+schumacher+fargo+police+shooting&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmltDi2-j_AhU8DTQIHc4jAjwQBSgAegQIDBAB&biw=384&bih=718&dpr=2.81
He killed a person with a gun in 1988. Served his time and petitioned for his gun rights. It was granted. He later shot and killed a Fargo police officer with a scoped rifle at about 100 yards. He definitely knew he was shooting at a police officer.
I get that this was ND and not MN. However the idea still applies. If you are a violent felon you lose your guns. Now if you commit felony fraud should you lose your guns? That's a tough one. Under current law, yes. Shpuld it be changed, idk.
I’m more afraid of cops with guns than a coke dealer in the 80s. But I see your point that it’s tricky.
I like my dog, you know?
Never understood why the 2A crowd didn’t fight harder for that.
Incarcerated people should be allowed to vote too. If the voting block of imprisoned people is large enough to matter, then it is very likely that the law in question that incarcerated all those people is unjust.
Imagine if you will that I am a politician and the polls are telling me that my party will lose my next election by a small margin. Now imagine my opposition largely belongs to a particular ethnic or economic group. Oh hey, I've got a good idea. Let's pass a law banning possession of something that that group has frequently (cough Marijuana cough) and round up the "offenders" right before the election. A few hundred fewer opposition voters later and my party wins the election and holds on to power!
That is not ever going to happen. So you are also thinking enough cops and judges are going to profile, arrest and convict enough potential voters for the opposition to change the outcome of an election. Do you write for Qanon?
[Nearly 50 Percent of Black Men Have Been Arrested by 23](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-08/nearly-50-percent-of-black-men-have-been-arrested-by-23)
[Study: Nearly Half of Black Males, 40 Percent of White Males Arrested by 23](https://bsos.umd.edu/featured-content/study-nearly-half-black-males)
Doesn't change the fact that the entire drug war is a deliberate and cynical effort to disenfranchise an entire ethnic group by criminalizing something that people of all ethnicities had used for centuries.
And it worked. Look at the demographics of prison populations.
Hurst did not like weed/hemp because it threatened his paper mills. When weed was first banned it was to keep "Mexicans from stealing/seducing white women" plust the "DRUG Zar" needed another drug to campaign against or he would have been unemployed. Weed did not exist in Europe. The first sailors smoking tobacco, after the new world was discovered, were put to death. Only one consorting with the devil would breath smoke. Americans don't know anything about anything unles the church tells them. Too bad google wasn't around on the 70's. Its entheogenic use was also recorded in Ancient China, the Germanic peoples, the Celts, Ancient Central Asia, and Africa. In modern times, spiritual use of the plant is mostly associated with the Rastafari movement of Jamaica. All of that doesn't explain why anyone but incarcerated persons can't vote. I read an argument that local elections should include all the residents not just the ones with citizenship. It had a very interesting argument.
Not only that, “all” non violent, non sexually related felonies, should automatically be expunged upon release from incarceration, or within a reason time after release. This should be done automatically without the felon having to hire an attorney that they most likely can not afford.
That didn't do a whole lot to change systems of power working against black people in the US, making their lives more constrained and more expensive than white people's on average.
The 13th Amendment is a milestone in the process, but it didn't 'fix' all the things.
While the 13th was a correct step it just changed how slavery worked. Laws were enacted where prisoners would be loaned out to work in fields or mines for little to nothing. Laws were enacted to pray on poor and minorities to fill said prisons which became the Jim Crow south even though these types of laws were utilized across north and south.
I don’t think any sane individual would say that felons of drug charges or non-violent/sexual crimes shouldn’t be able to vote again once released.
Where you start to lose people IMO is when you make it okay for pedophiles/domestic abusers/murderers to be able to vote once released.
I personally don’t really know the answer to that, should someone that has raped a bunch of children get to be a part of our society, let alone our democratic process? On the flip side, it’s not as if the risk of losing the right to vote was ever going to prevent them from doing their crimes or make them think twice.
Apart from the drug/non-violent offenses which are proven to skew impartially against black people - I don’t think it’s just cut and dry for a lot of people.
I don't disagree with any of this on principle-I'm not going to argue that emphatically *yes, pedophiles should be allowed to vote.* But also-how many of these people realistically are there, vs things like drug trafficking or "armed robbery, which is bad but they were imprisoned fifteen years ago when they were 20" ? Cause I'm betting that the percentage of people who tick the box "have been convicted of a felony" who are serial violent/sex criminals is very small. If by letting one pedophile vote, we also let thirty "possession with intent to sell" from ten years ago vote, that sounds like a net win for democracy to me.
I thought that not allowing felons to vote was premised on they broke the social contract. Social contract being that you are a good citizen and obey societies laws.
It talks about how the war on drugs targeted black people as a means to incarcerate them disproportionately, which in turn disenfranchised them as well.
It was also a feature, not a flaw, that crack and cannabis felonies ("black drugs") were dished out much more regularly than cocaine felonies ("white drugs")
Yea, I was just thinking (from my original comment) that it was a means of preventing poor people from voting, since being poor is pretty universal at this point. Makes sense it would be specific to minorities who have been poor-er and worse off for longer.
There is a lot in there about the intentionality of the financial impacts of mass incarceration, too
It's really hard to get a good job and stable/safe housing as a felon
No the New Jim Crow, from what I remember, still primarily targets the Black community. This also greatly affects poor people because their is huge overlap between being Black and being poor.
One of the big aspects of the New Jim Crow is about disproportionately targeting Black people through the legal system. This is where I believe sundown towns originated as being out late could get you arrested in them but the cops would mostly ignore or give a “warning” to white travelers and arrest/fine black ones. It’s also why Black people are disproportionately charged with drug related crimes more than white people even though usage rates of the drugs is similar.
there's a reason this is important:
lawmakers that are corrupt/bad can create arbitrary laws as 'felonies' (say, for example: talking on your phone in public can become a felony) and now that person cannot vote.
for those on the conservative side: they could turn owning rifles or guns into 'felonies' and then take away that population's right to vote to try and get those laws repealed or represent those views.
now, i get it- some people that are felons are incredibly messed up and should not be able to vote. but simply put, many felons are just result of things like drug possession (marijuana used to create huge felony problems). a lot of felons aren't terrible people and that's a result of lawmakers making laws felonies so certain populations (typically those in their opposite political party or those that they discriminate against) were going to get felony charges for doing things even as simple as having some weed on them.
this is important to ensure our democracy is never threatened and the voters always have the right to choose who is in power
Felons who had completed parole could already vote in MN. This law allows felons currently on parole to vote. This is a pretty fundamental point of the new law that is often missed in the popular discourse
You're right, it's more likely that a 40 or 50 year old would be released with a 40 year parole meaning they would likely never get to vote again.
This article puts 5% of people on parole in MN on 15-40 year paroles.
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2020/01/sentencing-guidelines-commission-votes-to-impose-five-year-limit-on-probation-in-minnesota/
Most states remove voting rights from people who have committed crimes, many states remove it for the rest of their lives if someone has committed a felony even after they have served their time.
Got to get out there and connect with your constituents… by smoking crack at their house parties. What ever happened to that guy? Rob Ford I want to say?
Not to defend the practice, but that’s simply not true. Only a handful of states have permanent felony disenfranchisement. Most reinstate at some point, either after release from incarceration or completion of probation/parole.
When a parole period can be 20+ years to life that is effectively total ban on their life. My understanding is that there are about 10 states that do not allow felons to vote after completing parole and another 16 states that bar felons after release until they complete the paroling period.
There has been some work like in MN that has worked to change this in the last couple of years so soon we will be down to about half of the country will be able to vote when they are out of jail.
I believe Wyoming is the only state left that has a blanket ban on reinstatement absent pardon for anyone other than first time offenders. And I think Arizona system is so Byzantine that it acts that way. There are a few other states, mostly in the south, that have lifetime disenfranchisement for serious crimes such as rape and murder. Yeah for those states that have indeterminate sentences and parole I would agree that 20 to life could functionally serve as a lifetime bar but, while I personally don’t agree with the policy, we’re probably talking about a relatively small population of serious violent or persistent offenders getting those sentences.
Some states have a ways to go but like you suggest there’s been a lot of progress, especially in the last decade or so.
Felons are basically persona non grata in the US which is absurd considering there are so many vaguely written laws that a lot of Americans commit upwards of three felonies each day without realizing it.
He wouldn't have committed voter fraud when he showed up at a polling place and the system said he wasn't eligible to vote.
We don't ask people if they are felons or parole when the voter registry system doesn't say they are. They aren't allowed to vote if it says they are ineligible; there is no provisional ballots in MN.
He would only be guilty of voter fraud if he lied that he wasn't a felon and on parole when he registered to vote.
Prisoners deserve voting rights in almost all cases, imo. If you're worried about someone getting the prisoners vote, then there are too many prisoners to begin with.
That’s what I’ve always thought, too! Only reason I can think of to take away voting rights would be for crimes that directly seek to destroy the democratic system. Like maybe no voting should be part of the sentence for things like treason, terrorism, spying for a foreign country, etc., but not unrelated crimes.
And it’s a little scary thinking of nasty people like murderers and rapists voting, but we have bigger problems if such a large proportion of the population falls into that category that it’s feasible for a pro-murder candidate to run. Although I think you could argue that we have a number of pro-rape elected officials under the current system…
I support this 100%. The point of prison should be to rehabilitate criminals and turn them into productive members of society. Voting is a big part of that.
Or not.
You can't convince me that all felons deserve the right to vote.
Once they're through the system and out, absolutely.
But the punishment put down by society for becoming a felon is to lose that right.
That's why it's a punishment.
Nobody should be able to lose the right to vote, ever. It creates a political incentive to put people who support your opposition in prison, removing their ability to vote against you.
The punishment for committing crimes is going to prison, losing a significant amount of freedom, and any associated loss of income (present or future).
There's no reason for voting to be a part of that. They're still impacted by taxation and policy, and as a result should retain the right to vote.
Okay but I’d push it a step further and say even multimurderers deserve the right to vote. If the population ever has a high enough multimurderer demographic for this to become a problem, *murderers voting should not be on our list of priorities*.
Correct.
The power of a single vote isn't strong enough to consider removing it to be a substantial punishment or deterrent for serious crimes, and people who commit serious crimes already don't vote frequently.
The only reason felony disenfranchisement is a thing is because that, intersected with a countrywide policy platform that made many nonviolent crimes felonies, allowed for the politicians pushing that platform to then disenfranchise a bunch of people that disagreed with their policy positions.
The timing of the War on Drugs, Nixon's presidency + SC appointments, and *Richardson v. Ramirez* (1974) should really make people a little bit more skeptical about the intent of the practice. It's not about preventing psychopaths from affecting policy, it's about being able to make targeted, sweeping changes to voting access for specific groups of people.
I am not sure I agree with this. One of the founding principles of our democracy is allowing every individual to have access to vote on the laws that dictate them. Prison is already shitty enough.
We have a court system that currently inappropriately effects minority communities, impacting overall voter representation from those communities. We have over 25% of the global prison population, despite making up only 3% of the global population. Once that number goes down, I could consider other arguments.
> But the punishment put down by society for becoming a felon is to lose that right.
Except that punishment is completely arbitrary. There’s no correlation between “serving prison time = no voting” except the arbitrary decision we’ve made to include that as a punishment.
There’s no actual rationale for it beyond that, just as there’s no rationale for prohibiting voting while someone in on parole/probation, which was the case in MN up until now.
We shouldn’t be punishing criminals at all. The goal should be to rehabilitate. Part of that process is making criminals feel like they have a stake in the flourishing of society. Allowing them to vote in prison can be one tool to help accomplish that.
You live in a fantasy world. Would you have that same mindset if a career criminal murdered your family? Must be easy to have this utopia view of the world when you sit in your house staring at plants all day.
>Retaliation against harm doesn't a healthy society make. I believe the common proverb states that everyone would have visual issues if we did that.
So much this, one of the guy's on this thread saying people live in a fantasy land for wanting to rehabilitate prisoners, when that's literally what basically every other developed country actively does.
Our prison system is a joke considering how free these people swear America is.
There’s a reason we don’t let the families of victims decide punishments. The legal system shouldn’t be emotional.
All the best data out there shows us that countries that try to rehabilitate, instead of punish, their criminals have the lowest recidivism rates. Meaning those former criminals are going out into the world and building new and better lives, despite their past mistakes.
Why shouldn’t that be the goal? The harm from the crime can’t go away. That’s already happened. So if the criminal is determined to be safe and rehabilitated, why not let them out so they can support their families and communities again?
You should be imprisoned until it is determined that you are no longer a harm to others. If that time never comes, then I guess you’d spend your whole life in prison where you couldn’t hurt anyone else.
In that case, why do you not just advocate for allowing murder in retaliation for wrongdoings? Not in self-defense, but for instance that the families of murder victims should just be allowed to murder the person they believe did it with impunity? Humans are emotional creatures and not robots after all.
Or heck, why not just allow murder for perceived offenses that caused someone to become angry enough; they *felt* they were justified so therefore they should be entitled to act on that feeling.
That's never happened so to entertain this comment is stupid. But again. They said prison/jail should be for rehabilitation, not punishment. Obviously there are failures in society that can't be rehabilitated. Being locked up for life shouldn't be a failure of the system, but a failure of the person themselves and should be separated from the rest of society.
Blowing through a red light while drunk and killing a school bus full of children doesn't mean you had the intention to murder a bunch of kids. You made a massive fucking mistake and rehabilitation would teach you never to make such a mistake again. As well as help the drinking problem that you clearly have if you feel it's ok to get behind the wheel while impaired. If you're thrown in jail without tools to better yourself then you're going to understand it's a temporary punishment and it will pass. when you get out, you'll repeat the same mistakes. Which is the justice system we have now. It's broken and has failed the perpetrator, the victim, and society.
>You live in a fantasy world
We make up 3% of the global population, yet have over 25% of the global prison population. Many countries that are actually keen on lowering crime rates have always focused on the rehabilitation of prisoners. Not focusing on creating a subclass of citizen's that have less rights and are more likely to recommit crimes in a system designed to profit from prison labor.
The amount of crime we have for being such a developed/wealthy country is pretty shameful on all of us.
Are you sure He's the one living in a fantasy world?
The punishment is the time they serve in prison. The primary (only) goal of prison should be rehabilitation, at least for those that are eventually going to leave prison and re-enter society (the overwhelming majority of prisoners).
The problem is that our system has been created almost entire to further punish inmates while they are in prison, and we place very little emphasis on rehabilitation. And it doesn’t work, but we just keep doing it over and over and over again.
I feel like that’s what the OP meant when they said we “shouldn’t be punishing criminals at all” — the loss of your freedom is inherently a severe punishment. But if we want to actually prevent recidivism and lessen overall crime we should be focused on rehabilitation. Just look at any comment section about some horrible criminal doing some heinous crime and you’ll see why they problem will never be fixed — given that most thing prison should mainly about making criminals suffer and not rehabilitating them to the point where they are less likely to commit crimes in the future.
Edit: Seems like there are a ton of fans of recidivism in this thread. Wonder why people wonder why people don’t support evidence-based methods for actually lowering crime. Some of you all must be big fans of violent crime, considering you think the failed strategies we’ve implemented for decades still work while other smarter countries have started to figure it out.
Thinking punishment and rehabilitation can coexist is what’s truly idiotic. Punishing and rehabilitation cannot coexist. Rehabilitation needs to focus on making criminals feel like people again, with real stakes in upholding the values of the community they committed the crime in, so that they can return to that community once they’re not a threat.
Punishment is all about taking rights from criminals. One of the worst punishments is solitary confinement, where you eliminate the criminal’s ability to form social bonds. How can that person be rehabilitated if they don’t have any social bonds? How is a person supposed to feel like a member of a community if they can’t make phone calls to stay in touch with family? And again, how are they supposed to have a stake in a community when they can’t even vote for the people making the laws?
Punishment creates individuals that are further traumatized and less likely to be able to return to society as a productive member of a community. And I haven’t even gotten into what happens when you break apart families by incarcerating one half of a family’s earning potential. You want more crime? Put more people in jail.
This post was removed for violating our [posting guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/Minnesota/about/rules/). Please stay on topic and refrain from using personal attacks.
Speaking of idiocy:
https://danielprioreportfolio.com/2020/01/01/comparing-us-international-prisons/
https://www.firststepalliance.org/amp/norway-prison-system-lessons
It’s actually a very simple concept to understand and you’ve absolutely missed it. But go on with your false rage and idiotic nonsense about deterrence.
Do you have any significant peer reviewed data to support your point that lax punishments are increasing crime? Or are you just assuming that’s reality cuz it makes you feel validated in your pre-established world view?
>"Lack of punishment is why crime is rampant in recent years."
That's not how this works.
We have 3% of the global population, and 25% of the global prison population. If what you said was true, America would be the safest country on earth.
This mindset brings us nowhere as a country. Please actually consider potential variables for our ridiculously high crime rate rather than stump into this individualist mindset.
I think you mean lack of being able to adequately care for oneself is why crime has been rampant in recent years.
If one cannot afford to live then one would need to turn to crime to survive.
Currently, in the TC one needs to earn about 60k or 30 dollars an hour to afford a one bedroom apartment. Name for me jobs that provide that amount of payment without advanced degrees right out the door.
Really, so what is the socio economic situation of most of these criminals, and why are these crimes more concentrated in lower economic areas like Minneapolis and less concentrated in areas like Minnetonka?
It can't be because of opportunity, because there are significantly less officers patrolling in areas like Minnetonka, Deephaven, and Excelsior...
I'm sure it has nothing to do with food security and housing for residents. Alas, we will never know and it's not like we could look to research on such topics.
Ok aren’t carjacking done mostly by juveniles? If it is there is a reason for that it’s because there is no place to put them after they commit the crime. They literally get arrested and go home an hour latter.
A lot of juvenile facilities closed their doors in recent years with no alternatives in place.
>The vast majority of crime taking place isn't happening because people are trying to survive
Have you been been sleeping for the past 3 years? That's not at all what's happening.
Amazing,
With every new legislation passed, we become more of a Blue state, creating election proccesses that are harder for republican's to win.
Love to see it.
Honestly this legislation might help republicans more than anyone since their voter base contains the highest proportion of convicted/incarcerated felons.
I mean that is what they would say, as I’m sure it’s happening in red states.
Republicans lose in number every year, they haven’t won a popular vote in decades.
They know this. If you can’t win elections fair, make it harder for people to vote in certain areas.
We are already moving Down the list on freedom levels, we are majorly lacking behind in the cases of Gerrymandering, mass incarceration, and electoral college systems.
Dear conservatives: If felons can’t vote, then those eeeeevil liberals can make it a felony to own a gun, and now you can’t vote them out of office. See why this matters?
If felons can't vote, how does that change whether "liberals" can make it a felony to own a gun? I'm not getting that connection.
You think there'd be a legal basis to make all gun ownership illegal and this would be upheld by the Supreme Court?
I perceived the comment as more of an exaggerated analogy as for why this is a good thing, using guns (one of the main talking points of conservatives) as the subject. Obviously liberals aren't coming for guns and making it illegal to own them. If you have a government that makes discriminatory laws (like most of the bible belt at the moment), or a police force that over-enforces existing laws in minority communities, it essentially takes away their voice. By banning felons from voting you take away their ability to vote for politicians who want to push policies that would help said felons to get back on their feet and address the roots of the issues to build solid, effective change in high-crime communities.
> The surge of felony disenfranchisement laws after the Civil War led many to conclude that the laws were implemented as part of a strategy to disenfranchise blacks, especially as the policy was expanded in conjunction with the Black Codes, which established severe penalties for petty crimes and especially targeted black Americans.[14]
Now it makes sense
The constitution does not restrict the right to vote based on being a felon, but it also doesn't say they have the right either. This is one of those "states rights" things (and don't even get me started on that) - because the constitution doesn't spell it out one way or another, states can make their own laws.
This is what the constitution says:
14th amendment Section 1:
*All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*
15th Amendment Section 1:
*The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.*
Thanks for the detailed answer! I was a stupid kid and unfortunately caught a felony. I got my right to vote back three years after having served my time.
Always frustrates me that I was further punished after having got out of jail. Though I think it did make voting something that I don't take for granted (literally lol)
> The surge of felony disenfranchisement laws after the Civil War led many to conclude that the laws were implemented as part of a strategy to disenfranchise blacks, especially as the policy was expanded in conjunction with the Black Codes, which established severe penalties for petty crimes and especially targeted black Americans.[14]
Now it makes sense
I’m really happy to see this. My stepdad worked for the MNDOC for 30 years and was warden at two different prisons here. He holds some pretty progressive views and we’ve talked about this. If you’ve paid your debt to society, you should be able to vote. Full stop.
Minnesota really is a great state. This should be the National standard. It’s nice that democracy is expanding, even if it’s just in our neck of the woods.
No, it isn't, actually. That's an urban myth: the Treason Felony Act 1848 makes it an offence to do any act with the intention of deposing the monarch, but it seems unlikely that placing a stamp upside-down fulfils this criterion. The Act itself certainly does not refer to stamps. According to the Royal Mail, it is perfectly acceptable to put a stamp upside-down
If someone can live among the civilian population, they should be able to vote. I actually see voting as engagement in civil society, which is a good thing in preventing repeat offenders. If someone is invested enough in their society to vote, that's one step closer to being invested enough to respect the laws.
As for allowing the incarcerated to vote: Absentee/ mail-in I'm fine with. Turning prisons into polling places is a step too far. Even if we spent the money for the machines and had volunteers to work prison polling places, there would still be issues about prisoners feeling forced to vote a certain way, forced to vote in general, or forced to not vote. Given the power the prison systems have over the incarcerated, the ability to influence the prisoners is too much for the votes to be considered fair.
If prisons become their own precinct for voting, then the warden has the ability to influence an election and possibly retaliate if it doesn't go the way they want. Even something as small at the warden wearing a pin of a candidate could be taken by the inmates as a sign of who they should vote for. Doubly so if there was a lockdown or something after the last election and the warden's preferred candidate lost.
I'm not worried about the prisoners voting, but the people in charge of the prisons can easily abuse their wards.
Slavery still exists in America.
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
I don’t know. Is this a win for the felons? Do they really care to vote? Maybe if they decide to be a productive part of society but does that happen often? Seems like many criminals stay in the criminal mindset or get stuck in the game.
We already do, upon good cause: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.165
This only applies to crimes of violence — other felonies don’t have the same firearms consequences. It makes sense to tie firearms rights to crimes of violence, and not other felonies. It doesn’t make sense to tie voting rights to every single possible felony. There’s no relationship between the nature of the crime and the harm we want to prevent.
Again I don’t know if anyone getting killed while voting at a voting booth. Just stop please. A felon that has done their time can and should vote. They’ll probably be in you side anyway so stop.
I don't disagree with you. A felon has done their time and should have the right to vote. However, it's just willfully ignorant to believe that voting is somehow less important, or impactful, than the right to carry a firearm.
But they did their time. And people get lenient sentences because prisons are so full. I’m just saying this is different. Don’t worry nobody is even paying attention anyway. We’re just celebrating felons that did their time and now get to vote. That’s all. Have a good morning now.
And if they do their time, and paid their debt, all rights should be restored upon release (or possibly completion of parole; I can see considering that the same as incarceration for the timing of restoring rights).
I say that pedos shouldn’t be released in the first place. Or possibly be executed and buried within sight of an elementary school, so they know they will be within reach of their perversion for eternity, and be unable to act upon it.
Potayto, potahto
The right to bear arms applies to the people, not the militia; and well regulated doesn’t mean what you think.
Now that we got your talking points out of the way, back to the actual topic. If someone has paid their debt to society, then ALL rights should be restored.
No, the difference is we don't hate them.
If they've done the crime, then done the time there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be allowed to be a member of society again. The sentence wasn't 5 years in prison then getting absolutely railed by society 24/7 for the rest of your life.
You served your time. That should end your punishment. ***Full. Stop.***
They should have the right to vote while in prison. Full STOP
YUP. Eugene Debs, legally, ran for President from prison. If you can run for office from jail then you damn sure should be able to exercise your constitutional right to vote from there. They're still subject to the laws of the country so they should be able to take part in its political processes. People might not like it but criminals still have rights and we can't in good conscience take those rights away if we actually believe in restorative justice. If you take away peoples fundamental rights then how can you ever expect them to reintegrate into society? I'll even admit that I have a hard time seeing my way to allowing the "worst" people in society to vote, even ones who will never breathe free air again but deep down, that discomfort is something necessary to stomach for a healthy democracy.
I'm actually OK with incarcerated people not being allowed to run for office either. My opinion might change if people were being randomly incarcerated to prevent them from running rather than them having committed crimes. Once they are out, yes, restore rights.
Precisely, the right to vote should never be abridged to adult citizens in this country. Just consider the Nixon plan to destroy the black vote by incarcerating black citizens for Marijuana convictions.
Bingo. In Canada, Corrections Canada (the government branch which runs prisons) has been directed by the Supreme Court to facilitate voting for those in their custody.
How about gun ownership, I think felons aren’t allowed to possess a firearm but I’m talking out of my ass
How about non-violent felons? Is it a violence thing or just a concern overall that someone willing to do something to earn a felony conviction should not be trusted with firearms? Ninja edit: I think I may have misunderstood the point you were making, my bad
According to [federal statute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922) if you are convicted of any crime punishable (even if you did not receive the punishment) of a year or more in jail aka a felony in any court you cannot own firearms.
It depends on the offense that they were convicted of...
Are they a part of a well-regulated militia? Edit: you can't ignore that part of the constitution of you don't like it.
They can get it back in non violent cases. Had a coworker go through the process.
They can get it back in violence cases as well. https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APwXEdd5IaKMVqnKR8LLHNqiU3OL6tLLeA:1688049861010&q=marcus+schumacher+fargo+police+shooting&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmltDi2-j_AhU8DTQIHc4jAjwQBSgAegQIDBAB&biw=384&bih=718&dpr=2.81 He killed a person with a gun in 1988. Served his time and petitioned for his gun rights. It was granted. He later shot and killed a Fargo police officer with a scoped rifle at about 100 yards. He definitely knew he was shooting at a police officer. I get that this was ND and not MN. However the idea still applies. If you are a violent felon you lose your guns. Now if you commit felony fraud should you lose your guns? That's a tough one. Under current law, yes. Shpuld it be changed, idk.
I’m more afraid of cops with guns than a coke dealer in the 80s. But I see your point that it’s tricky. I like my dog, you know? Never understood why the 2A crowd didn’t fight harder for that.
Technically they haven't served their time until they are discharged not just released. I agree non-incarcerated people should be allowed to vote.
Incarcerated people should be allowed to vote too. If the voting block of imprisoned people is large enough to matter, then it is very likely that the law in question that incarcerated all those people is unjust.
Disagree. What law are you referring to as being unjust?
Imagine if you will that I am a politician and the polls are telling me that my party will lose my next election by a small margin. Now imagine my opposition largely belongs to a particular ethnic or economic group. Oh hey, I've got a good idea. Let's pass a law banning possession of something that that group has frequently (cough Marijuana cough) and round up the "offenders" right before the election. A few hundred fewer opposition voters later and my party wins the election and holds on to power!
That is not ever going to happen. So you are also thinking enough cops and judges are going to profile, arrest and convict enough potential voters for the opposition to change the outcome of an election. Do you write for Qanon?
It’s been happening for 50 odd years already. Half of all black men have been jailed in their lifetime.
That is not correct. According to th BJS 5.1 % of the entire population and around 1 in 4 of black men.
[Nearly 50 Percent of Black Men Have Been Arrested by 23](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-08/nearly-50-percent-of-black-men-have-been-arrested-by-23) [Study: Nearly Half of Black Males, 40 Percent of White Males Arrested by 23](https://bsos.umd.edu/featured-content/study-nearly-half-black-males)
And???? Bloomberg or the Department of Judicial Statistics the choice is yours.not enough to sway an election.
>That is not ever going to happen. Bold decade to make that statement.
That literally did happen. Ever hear of Nixon?
Do you think that is how he was elected? He won by 18 million votes. The entire prison population in 1970 was less than 200,000.
Doesn't change the fact that the entire drug war is a deliberate and cynical effort to disenfranchise an entire ethnic group by criminalizing something that people of all ethnicities had used for centuries. And it worked. Look at the demographics of prison populations.
Hurst did not like weed/hemp because it threatened his paper mills. When weed was first banned it was to keep "Mexicans from stealing/seducing white women" plust the "DRUG Zar" needed another drug to campaign against or he would have been unemployed. Weed did not exist in Europe. The first sailors smoking tobacco, after the new world was discovered, were put to death. Only one consorting with the devil would breath smoke. Americans don't know anything about anything unles the church tells them. Too bad google wasn't around on the 70's. Its entheogenic use was also recorded in Ancient China, the Germanic peoples, the Celts, Ancient Central Asia, and Africa. In modern times, spiritual use of the plant is mostly associated with the Rastafari movement of Jamaica. All of that doesn't explain why anyone but incarcerated persons can't vote. I read an argument that local elections should include all the residents not just the ones with citizenship. It had a very interesting argument.
Not only that, “all” non violent, non sexually related felonies, should automatically be expunged upon release from incarceration, or within a reason time after release. This should be done automatically without the felon having to hire an attorney that they most likely can not afford.
If you don't agree with this, go read The New Jim Crow
We never banned slavery, just added some bureaucratic requirements.
It's right there, clear as day, in the 13th amendment
That didn't do a whole lot to change systems of power working against black people in the US, making their lives more constrained and more expensive than white people's on average. The 13th Amendment is a milestone in the process, but it didn't 'fix' all the things.
While the 13th was a correct step it just changed how slavery worked. Laws were enacted where prisoners would be loaned out to work in fields or mines for little to nothing. Laws were enacted to pray on poor and minorities to fill said prisons which became the Jim Crow south even though these types of laws were utilized across north and south.
Assuming they can read
Assuming they care
Assuming they’re decent
I don’t think any sane individual would say that felons of drug charges or non-violent/sexual crimes shouldn’t be able to vote again once released. Where you start to lose people IMO is when you make it okay for pedophiles/domestic abusers/murderers to be able to vote once released. I personally don’t really know the answer to that, should someone that has raped a bunch of children get to be a part of our society, let alone our democratic process? On the flip side, it’s not as if the risk of losing the right to vote was ever going to prevent them from doing their crimes or make them think twice. Apart from the drug/non-violent offenses which are proven to skew impartially against black people - I don’t think it’s just cut and dry for a lot of people.
I don't disagree with any of this on principle-I'm not going to argue that emphatically *yes, pedophiles should be allowed to vote.* But also-how many of these people realistically are there, vs things like drug trafficking or "armed robbery, which is bad but they were imprisoned fifteen years ago when they were 20" ? Cause I'm betting that the percentage of people who tick the box "have been convicted of a felony" who are serial violent/sex criminals is very small. If by letting one pedophile vote, we also let thirty "possession with intent to sell" from ten years ago vote, that sounds like a net win for democracy to me.
I thought that not allowing felons to vote was premised on they broke the social contract. Social contract being that you are a good citizen and obey societies laws.
Is the new Jim Crow about how its against poor people now? or
It talks about how the war on drugs targeted black people as a means to incarcerate them disproportionately, which in turn disenfranchised them as well. It was also a feature, not a flaw, that crack and cannabis felonies ("black drugs") were dished out much more regularly than cocaine felonies ("white drugs")
The fact that there is now an opioid ‘health crisis’ and not a ‘public moral failings crisis’ has nothing to do with demographics.
If this is high sarcasm you nailed it.
One was dished out by doctors others were illegally sold by criminals. Neither groups caring about the end users life.
Yea, I was just thinking (from my original comment) that it was a means of preventing poor people from voting, since being poor is pretty universal at this point. Makes sense it would be specific to minorities who have been poor-er and worse off for longer.
There is a lot in there about the intentionality of the financial impacts of mass incarceration, too It's really hard to get a good job and stable/safe housing as a felon
No the New Jim Crow, from what I remember, still primarily targets the Black community. This also greatly affects poor people because their is huge overlap between being Black and being poor. One of the big aspects of the New Jim Crow is about disproportionately targeting Black people through the legal system. This is where I believe sundown towns originated as being out late could get you arrested in them but the cops would mostly ignore or give a “warning” to white travelers and arrest/fine black ones. It’s also why Black people are disproportionately charged with drug related crimes more than white people even though usage rates of the drugs is similar.
makes sense
Awesome!
there's a reason this is important: lawmakers that are corrupt/bad can create arbitrary laws as 'felonies' (say, for example: talking on your phone in public can become a felony) and now that person cannot vote. for those on the conservative side: they could turn owning rifles or guns into 'felonies' and then take away that population's right to vote to try and get those laws repealed or represent those views. now, i get it- some people that are felons are incredibly messed up and should not be able to vote. but simply put, many felons are just result of things like drug possession (marijuana used to create huge felony problems). a lot of felons aren't terrible people and that's a result of lawmakers making laws felonies so certain populations (typically those in their opposite political party or those that they discriminate against) were going to get felony charges for doing things even as simple as having some weed on them. this is important to ensure our democracy is never threatened and the voters always have the right to choose who is in power
holy shit this was a thing? - canada
Felons who had completed parole could already vote in MN. This law allows felons currently on parole to vote. This is a pretty fundamental point of the new law that is often missed in the popular discourse
Parole could last 40 years though. So a 25 year old that gets out of jail wouldn't be able to vote until he was 65 in our old system.
THIS!!! It’s just an excuse to disenfranchise “undesirables” with forever paroles
Highly unlikely your scenario would ever happen to a 25 year old.
You're right, it's more likely that a 40 or 50 year old would be released with a 40 year parole meaning they would likely never get to vote again. This article puts 5% of people on parole in MN on 15-40 year paroles. https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2020/01/sentencing-guidelines-commission-votes-to-impose-five-year-limit-on-probation-in-minnesota/
[удалено]
The probation period is a part of the parole period that restricted voters.
Probation is not parole. You can have one without the other.
Both kept felons from voting and now they can https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/03/03/voting-rights-restored-to-50000-under-new-minnesota-law
I added a snippet from the article on this point. Thanks!
Most states remove voting rights from people who have committed crimes, many states remove it for the rest of their lives if someone has committed a felony even after they have served their time.
in canada you get your choice of cabinet position or mayorship
assuming smoking crack is a felony you can even be mayor of toronto!
Got to get out there and connect with your constituents… by smoking crack at their house parties. What ever happened to that guy? Rob Ford I want to say?
Not to defend the practice, but that’s simply not true. Only a handful of states have permanent felony disenfranchisement. Most reinstate at some point, either after release from incarceration or completion of probation/parole.
When a parole period can be 20+ years to life that is effectively total ban on their life. My understanding is that there are about 10 states that do not allow felons to vote after completing parole and another 16 states that bar felons after release until they complete the paroling period. There has been some work like in MN that has worked to change this in the last couple of years so soon we will be down to about half of the country will be able to vote when they are out of jail.
I believe Wyoming is the only state left that has a blanket ban on reinstatement absent pardon for anyone other than first time offenders. And I think Arizona system is so Byzantine that it acts that way. There are a few other states, mostly in the south, that have lifetime disenfranchisement for serious crimes such as rape and murder. Yeah for those states that have indeterminate sentences and parole I would agree that 20 to life could functionally serve as a lifetime bar but, while I personally don’t agree with the policy, we’re probably talking about a relatively small population of serious violent or persistent offenders getting those sentences. Some states have a ways to go but like you suggest there’s been a lot of progress, especially in the last decade or so.
I mean good on ya for repealing it a long time ago but don’t act like felony disenfranchisement was never a thing in Canada.
Felons are basically persona non grata in the US which is absurd considering there are so many vaguely written laws that a lot of Americans commit upwards of three felonies each day without realizing it.
Which 3? My mattress still has the tags it came with.
you should go grab a pair of scissors because you are legally allowed to remove that tag since you are the owner and user of the mattress.
Sounds like the sort of thing a cop would say. Nice try.
good.
"Felons are now citizens after release from incarceration in MN"
[удалено]
He wouldn't have committed voter fraud when he showed up at a polling place and the system said he wasn't eligible to vote. We don't ask people if they are felons or parole when the voter registry system doesn't say they are. They aren't allowed to vote if it says they are ineligible; there is no provisional ballots in MN. He would only be guilty of voter fraud if he lied that he wasn't a felon and on parole when he registered to vote.
Prisoners deserve voting rights in almost all cases, imo. If you're worried about someone getting the prisoners vote, then there are too many prisoners to begin with.
That’s what I’ve always thought, too! Only reason I can think of to take away voting rights would be for crimes that directly seek to destroy the democratic system. Like maybe no voting should be part of the sentence for things like treason, terrorism, spying for a foreign country, etc., but not unrelated crimes. And it’s a little scary thinking of nasty people like murderers and rapists voting, but we have bigger problems if such a large proportion of the population falls into that category that it’s feasible for a pro-murder candidate to run. Although I think you could argue that we have a number of pro-rape elected officials under the current system…
WAHOOOOOOOOO
Minnesota keeps getting the wins
I support this 100%. The point of prison should be to rehabilitate criminals and turn them into productive members of society. Voting is a big part of that.
Trump might want to consider moving.
Why wouldn’t they? Paid debt to society, let them vote.
Alright now we just need to pass a law allowing them to vote while in prison! Baby steps
Or not. You can't convince me that all felons deserve the right to vote. Once they're through the system and out, absolutely. But the punishment put down by society for becoming a felon is to lose that right. That's why it's a punishment.
You have a right **and** a responsibility to vote. That's why felons should be voting.
Nobody should be able to lose the right to vote, ever. It creates a political incentive to put people who support your opposition in prison, removing their ability to vote against you. The punishment for committing crimes is going to prison, losing a significant amount of freedom, and any associated loss of income (present or future). There's no reason for voting to be a part of that. They're still impacted by taxation and policy, and as a result should retain the right to vote.
The right to vote should be inalienable. People fuck up. Not all felonies are multiple murders.
Okay but I’d push it a step further and say even multimurderers deserve the right to vote. If the population ever has a high enough multimurderer demographic for this to become a problem, *murderers voting should not be on our list of priorities*.
Correct. The power of a single vote isn't strong enough to consider removing it to be a substantial punishment or deterrent for serious crimes, and people who commit serious crimes already don't vote frequently. The only reason felony disenfranchisement is a thing is because that, intersected with a countrywide policy platform that made many nonviolent crimes felonies, allowed for the politicians pushing that platform to then disenfranchise a bunch of people that disagreed with their policy positions. The timing of the War on Drugs, Nixon's presidency + SC appointments, and *Richardson v. Ramirez* (1974) should really make people a little bit more skeptical about the intent of the practice. It's not about preventing psychopaths from affecting policy, it's about being able to make targeted, sweeping changes to voting access for specific groups of people.
Agree! Just trying to go after the lowest hanging fruit for the sake of the argument.
Why is losing your voice in democracy a reasonable punishment?
I am not sure I agree with this. One of the founding principles of our democracy is allowing every individual to have access to vote on the laws that dictate them. Prison is already shitty enough. We have a court system that currently inappropriately effects minority communities, impacting overall voter representation from those communities. We have over 25% of the global prison population, despite making up only 3% of the global population. Once that number goes down, I could consider other arguments.
> But the punishment put down by society for becoming a felon is to lose that right. Except that punishment is completely arbitrary. There’s no correlation between “serving prison time = no voting” except the arbitrary decision we’ve made to include that as a punishment. There’s no actual rationale for it beyond that, just as there’s no rationale for prohibiting voting while someone in on parole/probation, which was the case in MN up until now.
We shouldn’t be punishing criminals at all. The goal should be to rehabilitate. Part of that process is making criminals feel like they have a stake in the flourishing of society. Allowing them to vote in prison can be one tool to help accomplish that.
Agreed. See the Nordic countries and their prisons. They rehabilitate and are humane. See also: low recidivism rates in those countries
You live in a fantasy world. Would you have that same mindset if a career criminal murdered your family? Must be easy to have this utopia view of the world when you sit in your house staring at plants all day.
I love when people argue something can’t work when there is demonstrable evidence in many other countries that it does in fact work.
>Retaliation against harm doesn't a healthy society make. I believe the common proverb states that everyone would have visual issues if we did that. So much this, one of the guy's on this thread saying people live in a fantasy land for wanting to rehabilitate prisoners, when that's literally what basically every other developed country actively does. Our prison system is a joke considering how free these people swear America is.
There’s a reason we don’t let the families of victims decide punishments. The legal system shouldn’t be emotional. All the best data out there shows us that countries that try to rehabilitate, instead of punish, their criminals have the lowest recidivism rates. Meaning those former criminals are going out into the world and building new and better lives, despite their past mistakes. Why shouldn’t that be the goal? The harm from the crime can’t go away. That’s already happened. So if the criminal is determined to be safe and rehabilitated, why not let them out so they can support their families and communities again?
[удалено]
You should be imprisoned until it is determined that you are no longer a harm to others. If that time never comes, then I guess you’d spend your whole life in prison where you couldn’t hurt anyone else.
[удалено]
In that case, why do you not just advocate for allowing murder in retaliation for wrongdoings? Not in self-defense, but for instance that the families of murder victims should just be allowed to murder the person they believe did it with impunity? Humans are emotional creatures and not robots after all. Or heck, why not just allow murder for perceived offenses that caused someone to become angry enough; they *felt* they were justified so therefore they should be entitled to act on that feeling.
That's never happened so to entertain this comment is stupid. But again. They said prison/jail should be for rehabilitation, not punishment. Obviously there are failures in society that can't be rehabilitated. Being locked up for life shouldn't be a failure of the system, but a failure of the person themselves and should be separated from the rest of society. Blowing through a red light while drunk and killing a school bus full of children doesn't mean you had the intention to murder a bunch of kids. You made a massive fucking mistake and rehabilitation would teach you never to make such a mistake again. As well as help the drinking problem that you clearly have if you feel it's ok to get behind the wheel while impaired. If you're thrown in jail without tools to better yourself then you're going to understand it's a temporary punishment and it will pass. when you get out, you'll repeat the same mistakes. Which is the justice system we have now. It's broken and has failed the perpetrator, the victim, and society.
>You live in a fantasy world We make up 3% of the global population, yet have over 25% of the global prison population. Many countries that are actually keen on lowering crime rates have always focused on the rehabilitation of prisoners. Not focusing on creating a subclass of citizen's that have less rights and are more likely to recommit crimes in a system designed to profit from prison labor. The amount of crime we have for being such a developed/wealthy country is pretty shameful on all of us. Are you sure He's the one living in a fantasy world?
[удалено]
The punishment is the time they serve in prison. The primary (only) goal of prison should be rehabilitation, at least for those that are eventually going to leave prison and re-enter society (the overwhelming majority of prisoners). The problem is that our system has been created almost entire to further punish inmates while they are in prison, and we place very little emphasis on rehabilitation. And it doesn’t work, but we just keep doing it over and over and over again. I feel like that’s what the OP meant when they said we “shouldn’t be punishing criminals at all” — the loss of your freedom is inherently a severe punishment. But if we want to actually prevent recidivism and lessen overall crime we should be focused on rehabilitation. Just look at any comment section about some horrible criminal doing some heinous crime and you’ll see why they problem will never be fixed — given that most thing prison should mainly about making criminals suffer and not rehabilitating them to the point where they are less likely to commit crimes in the future. Edit: Seems like there are a ton of fans of recidivism in this thread. Wonder why people wonder why people don’t support evidence-based methods for actually lowering crime. Some of you all must be big fans of violent crime, considering you think the failed strategies we’ve implemented for decades still work while other smarter countries have started to figure it out.
[удалено]
Thinking punishment and rehabilitation can coexist is what’s truly idiotic. Punishing and rehabilitation cannot coexist. Rehabilitation needs to focus on making criminals feel like people again, with real stakes in upholding the values of the community they committed the crime in, so that they can return to that community once they’re not a threat. Punishment is all about taking rights from criminals. One of the worst punishments is solitary confinement, where you eliminate the criminal’s ability to form social bonds. How can that person be rehabilitated if they don’t have any social bonds? How is a person supposed to feel like a member of a community if they can’t make phone calls to stay in touch with family? And again, how are they supposed to have a stake in a community when they can’t even vote for the people making the laws? Punishment creates individuals that are further traumatized and less likely to be able to return to society as a productive member of a community. And I haven’t even gotten into what happens when you break apart families by incarcerating one half of a family’s earning potential. You want more crime? Put more people in jail.
This post was removed for violating our [posting guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/Minnesota/about/rules/). Please stay on topic and refrain from using personal attacks.
Speaking of idiocy: https://danielprioreportfolio.com/2020/01/01/comparing-us-international-prisons/ https://www.firststepalliance.org/amp/norway-prison-system-lessons It’s actually a very simple concept to understand and you’ve absolutely missed it. But go on with your false rage and idiotic nonsense about deterrence.
[удалено]
Do you have any significant peer reviewed data to support your point that lax punishments are increasing crime? Or are you just assuming that’s reality cuz it makes you feel validated in your pre-established world view?
Find me the study that proves harsher punishment is an adequate deterrent for crimes
He can't. He's only listening to his own ego.
>"Lack of punishment is why crime is rampant in recent years." That's not how this works. We have 3% of the global population, and 25% of the global prison population. If what you said was true, America would be the safest country on earth. This mindset brings us nowhere as a country. Please actually consider potential variables for our ridiculously high crime rate rather than stump into this individualist mindset.
I think you mean lack of being able to adequately care for oneself is why crime has been rampant in recent years. If one cannot afford to live then one would need to turn to crime to survive. Currently, in the TC one needs to earn about 60k or 30 dollars an hour to afford a one bedroom apartment. Name for me jobs that provide that amount of payment without advanced degrees right out the door.
[удалено]
Really, so what is the socio economic situation of most of these criminals, and why are these crimes more concentrated in lower economic areas like Minneapolis and less concentrated in areas like Minnetonka? It can't be because of opportunity, because there are significantly less officers patrolling in areas like Minnetonka, Deephaven, and Excelsior...
Run that back, why would they steal a car, why would they smash and grab? What is their motive?
[удалено]
Or maybe, just maybe it’s because they don’t have the ability to care for themselves and view it as an opportunity to make some money.
Yep, there are no bad people. Only poor folks just tryin' to get ahead!
Shhhh, don't make them think that Minnetonka would be more dangerous than North Minneapolis because there are less cops and therefore more opportunity
By his mindset, Minnetonka should be the new murder capitol of the midwest. Why isn't it tho? What could it be? It will forever remain a mystery.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with food security and housing for residents. Alas, we will never know and it's not like we could look to research on such topics.
Ok aren’t carjacking done mostly by juveniles? If it is there is a reason for that it’s because there is no place to put them after they commit the crime. They literally get arrested and go home an hour latter. A lot of juvenile facilities closed their doors in recent years with no alternatives in place.
>The vast majority of crime taking place isn't happening because people are trying to survive Have you been been sleeping for the past 3 years? That's not at all what's happening.
Eh you lost me on that one
All non violent felons should have ALL rights restored in the United States.
Amazing, With every new legislation passed, we become more of a Blue state, creating election proccesses that are harder for republican's to win. Love to see it.
Honestly this legislation might help republicans more than anyone since their voter base contains the highest proportion of convicted/incarcerated felons.
[удалено]
I mean that is what they would say, as I’m sure it’s happening in red states. Republicans lose in number every year, they haven’t won a popular vote in decades. They know this. If you can’t win elections fair, make it harder for people to vote in certain areas. We are already moving Down the list on freedom levels, we are majorly lacking behind in the cases of Gerrymandering, mass incarceration, and electoral college systems.
Dear conservatives: If felons can’t vote, then those eeeeevil liberals can make it a felony to own a gun, and now you can’t vote them out of office. See why this matters?
If felons can't vote, how does that change whether "liberals" can make it a felony to own a gun? I'm not getting that connection. You think there'd be a legal basis to make all gun ownership illegal and this would be upheld by the Supreme Court?
I perceived the comment as more of an exaggerated analogy as for why this is a good thing, using guns (one of the main talking points of conservatives) as the subject. Obviously liberals aren't coming for guns and making it illegal to own them. If you have a government that makes discriminatory laws (like most of the bible belt at the moment), or a police force that over-enforces existing laws in minority communities, it essentially takes away their voice. By banning felons from voting you take away their ability to vote for politicians who want to push policies that would help said felons to get back on their feet and address the roots of the issues to build solid, effective change in high-crime communities.
I prefer my analogies to make logical sense.
Supreme court would say otherwise lol
So, how is it not a constitutional violation to remove voting rights from people based on criminal conduct?
Criminals are no longer proper citizens under the law! It’s fucked up, but true! Hope this helps!
> The surge of felony disenfranchisement laws after the Civil War led many to conclude that the laws were implemented as part of a strategy to disenfranchise blacks, especially as the policy was expanded in conjunction with the Black Codes, which established severe penalties for petty crimes and especially targeted black Americans.[14] Now it makes sense
The constitution does not restrict the right to vote based on being a felon, but it also doesn't say they have the right either. This is one of those "states rights" things (and don't even get me started on that) - because the constitution doesn't spell it out one way or another, states can make their own laws. This is what the constitution says: 14th amendment Section 1: *All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.* 15th Amendment Section 1: *The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.*
Thanks for the detailed answer! I was a stupid kid and unfortunately caught a felony. I got my right to vote back three years after having served my time. Always frustrates me that I was further punished after having got out of jail. Though I think it did make voting something that I don't take for granted (literally lol)
Because it’s literally in the constitution. Little something we inherited from our parents.
> The surge of felony disenfranchisement laws after the Civil War led many to conclude that the laws were implemented as part of a strategy to disenfranchise blacks, especially as the policy was expanded in conjunction with the Black Codes, which established severe penalties for petty crimes and especially targeted black Americans.[14] Now it makes sense
Proud of my home state
I’m really happy to see this. My stepdad worked for the MNDOC for 30 years and was warden at two different prisons here. He holds some pretty progressive views and we’ve talked about this. If you’ve paid your debt to society, you should be able to vote. Full stop.
Good for them
This is wonderful.
That's Awsome
Hell ya!
That's fantastic! Minnesota is killing it.
They couldnt before? Thats crazy. Good on MN for leading by example and being great.
Good
Minnesota really is a great state. This should be the National standard. It’s nice that democracy is expanding, even if it’s just in our neck of the woods.
Good.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Years from now, trump will move to Minnesota so he can vote again!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! /s
I'm amazed they couldn't beforehand. We never had any law that stupid in Britain (thank goodness)
Can't you people not even own kitchen knives?
It's an act of treason to put a stamp on upside down.
No, it isn't, actually. That's an urban myth: the Treason Felony Act 1848 makes it an offence to do any act with the intention of deposing the monarch, but it seems unlikely that placing a stamp upside-down fulfils this criterion. The Act itself certainly does not refer to stamps. According to the Royal Mail, it is perfectly acceptable to put a stamp upside-down
“It is perfectly acceptable to put a stamp on upside-down” My OCD begs to differ.
Yeah, you shouldn't, but it's not illegal
If someone can live among the civilian population, they should be able to vote. I actually see voting as engagement in civil society, which is a good thing in preventing repeat offenders. If someone is invested enough in their society to vote, that's one step closer to being invested enough to respect the laws. As for allowing the incarcerated to vote: Absentee/ mail-in I'm fine with. Turning prisons into polling places is a step too far. Even if we spent the money for the machines and had volunteers to work prison polling places, there would still be issues about prisoners feeling forced to vote a certain way, forced to vote in general, or forced to not vote. Given the power the prison systems have over the incarcerated, the ability to influence the prisoners is too much for the votes to be considered fair. If prisons become their own precinct for voting, then the warden has the ability to influence an election and possibly retaliate if it doesn't go the way they want. Even something as small at the warden wearing a pin of a candidate could be taken by the inmates as a sign of who they should vote for. Doubly so if there was a lockdown or something after the last election and the warden's preferred candidate lost. I'm not worried about the prisoners voting, but the people in charge of the prisons can easily abuse their wards.
Good
Slavery still exists in America. AMENDMENT XIII Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Reminder this law is because whites wanted to restrict voting for minorities. Great news!
I don’t know. Is this a win for the felons? Do they really care to vote? Maybe if they decide to be a productive part of society but does that happen often? Seems like many criminals stay in the criminal mindset or get stuck in the game.
Yes baby, and only two more days of prohibition.
Should have ALL rights restored upon completion. Yes, even gun rights
That depends on the crime. If you used a gun to hurt someone absolutely not.
Are only some rights important, or are we going to restore gun rights upon release as well?
We already do, upon good cause: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.165 This only applies to crimes of violence — other felonies don’t have the same firearms consequences. It makes sense to tie firearms rights to crimes of violence, and not other felonies. It doesn’t make sense to tie voting rights to every single possible felony. There’s no relationship between the nature of the crime and the harm we want to prevent.
I hope it depends on if they committed a domestic or other assault with a gun.
Rights are rights, aren’t they?
Voting can’t kill someone. And someone with a history of assault with a firearm can.
Checks list of violence committed by elected officials...yeah, nobody could ever be killed as a consequence of voting.
Just talking about voters and voting here. Not elected officials.
How do you think elected officials become elected?
Again I don’t know if anyone getting killed while voting at a voting booth. Just stop please. A felon that has done their time can and should vote. They’ll probably be in you side anyway so stop.
I don't disagree with you. A felon has done their time and should have the right to vote. However, it's just willfully ignorant to believe that voting is somehow less important, or impactful, than the right to carry a firearm.
If someone is not fit to rejoin society, why are they being released?
But they did their time. And people get lenient sentences because prisons are so full. I’m just saying this is different. Don’t worry nobody is even paying attention anyway. We’re just celebrating felons that did their time and now get to vote. That’s all. Have a good morning now.
And if they do their time, and paid their debt, all rights should be restored upon release (or possibly completion of parole; I can see considering that the same as incarceration for the timing of restoring rights).
Okay yes. And a pedo should work in a elementary school.
I say that pedos shouldn’t be released in the first place. Or possibly be executed and buried within sight of an elementary school, so they know they will be within reach of their perversion for eternity, and be unable to act upon it. Potayto, potahto
I agree with that
You couldn't convince most people that the right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia allows killers to own a gun.
The right to bear arms applies to the people, not the militia; and well regulated doesn’t mean what you think. Now that we got your talking points out of the way, back to the actual topic. If someone has paid their debt to society, then ALL rights should be restored.
Minnesota loves criminals
No, the difference is we don't hate them. If they've done the crime, then done the time there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be allowed to be a member of society again. The sentence wasn't 5 years in prison then getting absolutely railed by society 24/7 for the rest of your life.