And the persons who suffered under Jim Crow suffered because of their color not because of laws they broke.


If Charlie Manson, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Tim McVeigh and Jeffrey Dahmer were alive I believe they lost their right to participate in civil society.

Therefore a prohibition on voting while incarcerated disproportionately affects people of color.

And not to reward criminals who have committed capital offenses that have robbed victims of their lives or committed grave offenses against them.

...itself no easy goal...

does nothing for the millions already sentenced with disparity.

Sirhan Sirhan forfeited his right to vote when he shot and killed Robert Kennedy and James Alex Fields Jr. forfeited his right to vote when he weaponized his car and ran over and killed Heather Heyer

Prisoners forfeit certain rights when they break the law and are incarcerated . They certainly forfeit their Second and Fourth Amendment rights. It's a matter of drawing lines.

He wasn't a citizen.

But to your actual point here, whether someone when breaking (at least certain) laws forfeits their right to vote... well that may be DemocratSinceBirth's decree, but whether it's true or not depends on what state you live in and what the legislators choose to do. It's not an inherent or constitutional truth.

But I agree that, as you say...

Society has deemed people who commit crimes give up certain rights. We cook prisoners to death:

I just don't see the rationale for doing it. The standard of "it isn't cruel" is an awfully low bar.

We don't have to let convicts make phone calls. (In fact, there used to be no phones!). We don't have to give them access to anything to drink except water. But what would be the rationale for prohibiting these things?

For instance I consider making prisoners eat the same slop they are served every day and being forced to live in cells that reach one hundred degrees cruel and unusual punishment and privations of rights. I don't consider not allowing some prisoners to vote a privation. Others disagree, that's okay.

They have lost their humanity. they are monsters.

....however, you're assuming that all criminals are men, given who you named specifically.

That's where imho your analogizing it to criminal status falls apart. I just provided a list of miscreants who I believed to be especially awful. My list wasn't intended to be all inclusive. I should have added Aileen Wuornos. She was pretty darn awful.

to appeal to Black voters? Kind of a jaundiced view of POC.

Making non-whites the face of crime and welfare does them no favors.

White state,

Just because some non-whites get caught up in our flawed justice system and are on welfare doesn't mean all or most of them are.

And also Puerto Rico.

Yes.

Haven't they done untold damage to families and communities by stealing life savings or causing someone to lose their home? Will we include bank CEO'S, Medicare scammers, or the likes of the Sackler family?

How about we just stick to felony crimes. But first decriminalize cannabis!!

People who have cannabis for their own consumption shouldn't be in the hoosegow in the first place. We do them and most non-violent offenders no favors by putting them in the same basket with truly horrible and dangerous people like murderers, terrorists, and rapists.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

It's possible to believe that our criminal justice system is broken and that certain members of the incarcerated can be deprived of certain rights. I don't believe anybody would argue prisoners maintain their 2nd Amendment rights.

What is the obvious reason to take away their right to vote?

Would you like to take away their 1st amendment right to express themselves? Their right to not be discriminated against based on race? Their protections from cruel and unusual punishment? If not, what makes the right to vote more expendable?

Some interesting perspective at https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/vermont-is-one-of-two-us-states-that-let-incarcerated-citizens-vote/Content?oid=22484635

Is shipping African American prisoners to Mississippi:



https://vtdigger.org/2018/09/19/vermont-officially-inks-deal-send-state-prisoners-mississippi/


and incarcerating them at ten times the rates of whites:


https://www.vpr.org/post/why-are-there-so-many-african-americans-incarcerated-vermont#stream/0

not a violation of their 8th and 14th Amendment rights?


If you want to allow prisoners in Vermont to maintain a degree of agency they certainly should have the right not to be imprisoned fifteen hundred miles from their friends, loved ones and families. And if being shipped fifteen hundred miles from your friends, loved ones and families isn't cruel and unusual punishment I don't know what is. Prisoners suffer a lot worse privations than not be able to vote. It doesn't take much of an imagination to imagine them.

But I don't see any way that justifies taking away their right to vote. Just saying that something else is even worse, somehow makes it okay?

It wouldn't be a fair process for any inmates voting. The wardens, etc. would have full control and the process would be corrupt.

have to be in private.

So I highly doubt it would be done correctly behind bars.

more votes (because that's where the republican /privately owned prison "votes" would end up... in the R column).

Please understand that you have no objection to murderers and thieves voting.

You only have an objection to the ones voting who got caught or confessed.

Incidentally, the majority of criminal convictions are obtained by confession.

So, it's mainly the honest murderers you think shouldn't vote.

Next time I hope Bernie or any of our other candidates think twice before getting suckered into answering a question that could be a fatal mistake to their chances.

I would have answered it depends on the severity of the crime but non-violent offenders who have paid their debt to society should certainly have their right to vote restored.

If Bernie were to win the primary, the Right Wing will have a field day with his answer. I wish he would have just declined to answer it or answered it in the way you suggested.

...because it's what he believes. (What a concept!)

BTW, it also happens to be the law in Vermont.

I said Bernie's answer was correct because they asked what he believed, and he said what he believed. That, in itself, was not a commentary on whether or not letting convicts vote is a good idea. (I do think it's a good idea, but that's besides the point here.) It was typed in response to someone who said that Bernie should have answered the question differently. I prefer someone actually answer a question honestly, even if the position is unpopular. That was my point there.

Then, since Bernie is from Vermont, I also mentioned that, in fact, convicts do have the right to vote in Vermont. I don't know how you got from there that I would think "Vermont was an exemplar or model for the nation, if not the entire world." I mean, in that post, I didn't even say whether or not I thought it was a good idea, much less that it or other aspects of the Vermont penal system or other aspects of Vermont law or anything else about Vermont should be models for the planet. Geez! All I said there was that Vermont permits it, and that Bernie from Vermont gave what was, for him, an honest answer, and one that is not at odds with the people/government of his state.

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Even if I did--which I did not--it would only have been on the one, specific policy we were talking about. Not the entire penal system, nor the fixation on maple syrup, nor anything else. I don't know how you manage to read SO much more into that short post than what I typed.

Again, my mentioning of VT in that post was to show that the state's position was consistent with (VT resident) Sanders' position. This is why I mentioned VT in that post. Nothing there even about the policy being good or bad, much less that VT should be a model. Even when I called it the right answer for Sanders to give, I said that that was because--whether you agree with the policy or not--it was what he believes. Therefore it is the right answer for him. I don't think I can make it any more clear than this.

Other posts have discussed reasons I think it's good policy myself. But this particular post was strictly about how Bernie answered the question.

they be allowed to vote? For those who think everyone should be allowed to vote.

And why do African American prisoners in Vermont forfeit their 8th Amendment right and be shipped ro the Deep South, some fifteen hundred miles from their families and loved ones?

https://vtdigger.org/2018/09/19/vermont-officially-inks-deal-send-state-prisoners-mississippi/


I assure you most prisoners in Vermont would rather forfeit their right to vote than be shipped to Mississippi:

And VT sends prisoners of all races across state lines not just African Americans (it certainly sounds more exciting when you falsely frame it that way though).

I’m not supporting Bernie but as US Senator the only thing he could do is suggest and support changing the policy, he has no say in how it’s currently set up.

I have no problem with people being able to vote, I encourage more people to vote. Sorry that’s the end of it for me, we disagree it appears.

It’s a COUNTRY where African American prison populations far outweigh the actual populations represented in the general public.

This is a nationwide issue. https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2018/02/the-race-gap-in-u-s-prisons-is-glaring-and-poverty-is-making-it-worse/

I’m not from, nor do I currently live in Vermont. I do not support Senator Sanders in the primary, but on this issue he is correct IMO.

What part of Vermont has twice the race of black incarceration than the rest of the country* don't you understand?









*https://www.vpr.org/post/why-are-there-so-many-african-americans-incarcerated-vermont#stream/0

It is literally an issue EVERYWHERE in the US.

But the data indicates it's even worse in Vermont:

Then maybe we can address the issue in VT specifically.

They're capital offenders. I would argue capital offenders don't lose their right to live while incarcerated but they do lose their right to vote.

that they forfeit that right when they commit the crime. Once they serve their time, they should be able to vote again.

My secondary reason is that, while in prison, they would almost certainly be susceptible to bribery or coercion. I can see the guards telling them how to vote.

It makes sense to address those first. I rather lose my right to vote than to bake in a un-air conditioned tropical or desert cell in Florida and California than lose my right to vote and at the risk of being presumptuous I would presume most prisoners agree with me.

I'm totally with you on that.

Says who? That's the question. Nothing in the constitution says so. There's no inherent logical reason to do it (unlike taking away their guns). The laws in some states even run counter to this. So where does this apparently unquestioning certainty come from?

I think of the right to vote as a freedom. JMHO, obviously yours is not the same. I can see some gray area here, but I don't really see this as a winning issue.

all voting needs to happen in a way where we can have some confidence that it is done properly.

this is why both parties have observers at all precincts, and this would include in prisons.

voting in prisons presents additional practical challenges, and these need to be addressed, but that's not a reason to give up and simply deny the right to vote to millions of people.


oh, and, by the way, it's usually republicans who are adamantly opposed to letting felons vote. gee, i wonder why....

It’s still severely lopsided. As someone who supports it, I fully understand that criminal justice reform and a change in mindset across the country must take place first. These individual policy proposals outside of deep discussion about comprehensive reform is just red meat for a small group of the electorate.

People love to talk about rights and empathy and redemption but find it difficult to change the way they think on specific issues for a variety of reasons.

It's very easy to feel that the Green River Killer or the Murrah bombers should lose all the rights and privileges we can take from them.

The problem is that they are still citizens, and still owed the rights of citizenship and overall human rights. We don't do exile here, so there's no way to ship them off to a desert island and forget about them. Their freedoms are restricted for reasons of public safety, punishment, and rehabilitation-- how does the right to vote fit into that? Besides, are there really that many such monsters in prison?

And, since it's largely states who set the standards for voting, how do you figure the residence of a gang banger who floated around for years with no permanent address and was convicted in Maine, but sent to a private prison in Georgia?

We started out by offering the vote to anyone who was a white, male landowner. Then we expanded it to white male non-landowners, and then to black men,and finally to women of all races. We even allowed immigrants to vote until around 1936.

Why is so important to further restrict it now?

I think this should be obvious, and to suggest otherwise is political malpractice (at least in this country).

Imagine, in the GE, advocating for the voting rights of people like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Robert Hanssen, Ted Kaczynski, Bernie Madoff, Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nassar, Nikolas Cruz, and so on.

If you have to spend time explaining how those committing capital offenses (and what those do and do not entail) are not eligible, you've already lost the argument.

Even in the primaries, I wonder how it would play in South Carolina (especially African Americans) when Bernie suggests that Susan Smith and Dylann Roof are being disenfranchised. How about John Orr and Scott Peterson in California?