frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Do felons and current prisoners deserve to have the right to vote?

Debate Information

I'm not going to post my arguments for this yet, but feel free to do yours. I should do mine relatively soon.
  1. Live Poll

    Do felons deserve the right to vote?

    13 votes
    1. Yes
      53.85%
    2. No
      38.46%
    3. Only non-violent felons
        7.69%
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    I certainly think so , why should we deny them them the right to vote? They are serving time and this is punishment enough , some may be in prison for minor crimes others more serious if of sound mind they should be allowed vote.

    One could ask should drug addicts , alcoholics , depressives be allowed vote as mostly they are not in their right minds but if we go down this road where does it stop? 
    piloteerqwerrty
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    I think "deranged type" murderers, terrorists (including domestic), child molesters (because they are not in their "right minds"), serial rapists, (same reason), and tax evaders (because they did crimes against the nation … actually ANYONE who does crimes against this nation!) …. should ALL lose their right to vote.
  • all4acttall4actt 304 Pts   -  
    Part of being imprisoned is the loss of all your rights of freedom.  This is part of the punishment. So they should not get the right to vote.

    On that note I believe that people who commit non-violent felonies should be allowed to vote once they have completed all of their release requirements, ie. Parole, probation, drug deversion programs, fines, retrobution payments or whatever other requirments that the courts  require from them. 

  • GeoLibCogScientistGeoLibCogScientist 128 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    I think they ought to still be able to vote.

    1) If people are worried they would change the law to decriminalize the law they broke, keep in mind the vast majority of people think most of those crimes should stay crimes. I doubt 2 million adults who are each in there for various reasons, would be enough to sway any election result to get serious crimes legalized(certainly ones, where most of us agree, should be legalized though, but that's a good thing, see number 3). For the most part, people agree on what constitutes a major crime to probably a 3/4 or more majority. I mean, how are we going to have a majority of people claim murder or something shouldn't be illegal? There's no way that ~2 million will suddenly help in actually decriminalizing murder or some major crime.
    2) Having anyone lose their right to vote simply opens up doors for the state to argue more reasons someone should. The more reasons there are a higher amount of people who are deemed ineligible to vote even though they may not actually be guilty of what the state claims disqualifies them the vote can lead to a situation where more and more people are unjustly denied the vote. Keep in mind, plenty of people in prison are there wrongfully. For any criteria we set that disqualifies someone the vote, say we did mental health, the state can be just as easily wrong about.
    3) In the case of unjust laws, which the majority of Americans want to decriminalize marijuana, and I'm sure many would agree that shouldn't be something people are jailed for, then to imprison people for it essentially makes it harder to end tyrannical laws. Should states start making more unjust laws against things, it serves as a gateway to a tyrannical state in that they can help keep something unjustly illegal by simply locking people up, as they wouldn't be able to vote to legalize it. 
    qwerrty
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    I would state that criminals should not have the right to vote as a result of presidence.

    First and foremost a criminals personality is the cause and result of a crime.

    2. This type of personality favors laws that are conducive to their personality type.

    This would cause a voting base that could influence and enact laws that are immoral to leverage behaviours that would otherwise be rightly punished.

    A felon is a criminal who has committed a grieveous offense of law.

    The committed offense general falls under very specific violations.

    If we're talking about someone who got sentenced and is a felon because he was involved in a self-defense case and lost where there was a legitimate act of self-defense it still can't be considered because the person was charged and sentenced.

    Considering one vote doesn't leverage a voting base that doesn't exist, the voting base of eligible voters I think is more of a problem.

    I think people should undergo a psychological evaluation before they have a right to vote for a law.

    The problem with that is lobbyists would line up, particularly the people who would be deemed psychologically deranged, to avoid getting punished.

    I think society needs an overhaul. Jesus Christ is going to do that soon.

    The problem with felons is, what reason would they vote? Does a criminal really care about legality and moral issues? 

    Jesus is Lord.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    There are 329 million U.S. citizens.

    And not all of those U.S. citizens, are of the legal age to vote.

    And I believe, that there are roughly 30 million citizens who are recreational Marijuana user's?

    So when, I see a Poll that appears to be trying to coax or persuade, or influence the overall publics perception, about a marijuana users, marijuana use, I call it what it is, it's a pandering to the public, "Perception Poll."


    "3) In the case of unjust laws, which the majority of Americans want to decriminalize marijuana, and I'm sure many would agree that shouldn't be something people are jailed for, then to imprison people for it essentially makes it harder to end tyrannical laws. Should states start making more unjust laws against things, it serves as a gateway to a tyrannical state in that they can help keep something unjustly illegal by simply locking people up, as they wouldn't be able to vote to legalize it."

     
    If certain political representatives had more self confidence in their individual political philosophies, via how they take care of their constituents?

    "Do felons and current prisoners deserve to have the right to vote?"


    Watching certain politicians play with their words, and campaign to the overall public, about giving felons and prisoners, and ex felons, the ability to vote, then you have politicians, who are a pandering more, than they are properly doing their own political duties?
  • Felons and those detained have an inalienable constitutional right to vote in general public, on things public, what to eat for lunch, what should be worn as clothing etc. this right it is not transferable to many places in politics as the convicted are basically a part of the judicial system  the punishment is not cruel, They created, fabricated customers of a judicial system. The additional problem in word felon, it does not ever insure prosecuted, nor found guilty for the felony crime in which they are held by accusations so the question itself has flaw of honesty. which can direct attention to other public problems rotating around lies. Right now the greatest unpunished crime globally as felony is problem of perjury, lie in court or official document by united state. It is the hardest crime to establish in court continually goes unpunished for its complex understanding. Legal precedent set by written law suggests that by re-writing law's as an unconstitutional crime they are then more likely to be investigated with success as a target of revenue, money is described to be maid in advance of the trail. The burden of guilt to crime can then be lessened enough to influence pay of a greater rate for the higher arrests and punishment that can take place based on the success of convictions punished for known crimes like felony perjury.   

    There is no legally precedented that a woman President is not complex perjury only law saying a discrimination might occur, a woman as a witness can not in truth speak on behalf of all men without using her opinion as the basic principle of the legal testimony. First lady taking on a whole new legal address outside the norm of wife itself a rather large legal precedent. However, she! A woman can in truth speak on behalf of all other woman under the same condition, without this use of opinion and interpretations on truth. The lie had been cleverly hidden by circumstance for some time simply by the creation of unconstitutional law, though not an act of intelligent deception only accidental good intention, writing law basically saying unless you are intelligent, smart, or cunning enough to establish the crime in a court law, all people will be placed in danger of losing vote. This in turn meant the crime must publicly be left to run its course in which damage was in big enough scale that a justification to stop the perjury can be made openly as common defense, the use of perjury increased in written law. The introduction of nothing more then truth outside the court of law now reflects a common cause, Presadera. A woman President is in truth Presadera by truth and her united state with all woman and girl, born female, the fact as a witness held with nothing but truth and honoris never telling a lie on the understanding of basic female principle as a perjury crime in a court of law.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    Satirical hyperbole: Let's totally give voting rights to pedo rapists!
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Satirical hyperbole: Let's totally give voting rights to pedo rapists!
    Only when they are convicted of a Green Sexual Assault that is not sexual biased.
  • SharkySharky 101 Pts   -  
    If you're going to give felons- people who don't obey our laws- the right to vote- choosing the people who make and enforce our laws- then you may as well allow pedophiles to teach in elementary schools, allow terrorists to build and operate training camps throughout the country, allow ex-cons to buy guns and give drug dealers access to lists of people treated for substance abuse.

    If we consider it necessary to restrict Second Amendment rights to law-abiding citizens and to certain classes of arms- and we do- then we should consider it necessary to restrict voting rights to people who have proven themselves to lead their lives as responsible citizens.  
    GeoLibCogScientistPlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • GeoLibCogScientistGeoLibCogScientist 128 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @Sharky

    That attitude would make it much more difficult to get unjust laws appealed and undone. , we have only 2 million people in jail(not all of which are felons), versus 320 million+ other people who aren't a felon. How in the world are 2 million going to change something that everyone clearly thinks should be illegal? Do you really think almost half of people think murder/theft/scamming should be legal and that a mere 2 million votes will sway that to being legal?

    I've not seen a more fallacious comment in my life. If I could I would react with a fallacious react twice.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5947 Pts   -  
    Even more so than everyone else. If the society has turned its back on them, whether it being their fault or not, then their interests being represented in that society become only more important.
    CYDdharta
  • @Sharky ;
    GeoLibCogScientist 

    Felons have a right to vote it is convicted felons who are under restriction. A presumption of innocence does not mean ignorance as a united state simply benefit of doubt.
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @GeoLibCogScientist

    There are 329 million U.S. citizens.

    And not all of those U.S. citizens, are of the legal age to vote.

    And I believe, that there are roughly 30 million citizens who are recreational Marijuana user's?

    So when, I see a Poll that appears to be trying to coax or persuade, or influence the overall publics perception, about a marijuana users, marijuana use, I call it what it is, it's a pandering to the public, "Perception Poll."


    "3) In the case of unjust laws, which the majority of Americans want to decriminalize marijuana, and I'm sure many would agree that shouldn't be something people are jailed for, then to imprison people for it essentially makes it harder to end tyrannical laws. Should states start making more unjust laws against things, it serves as a gateway to a tyrannical state in that they can help keep something unjustly illegal by simply locking people up, as they wouldn't be able to vote to legalize it."

     
    If certain political representatives had more self confidence in their individual political philosophies, via how they take care of their constituents?

    "Do felons and current prisoners deserve to have the right to vote?"


    Watching certain politicians play with their words, and campaign to the overall public, about giving felons and prisoners, and ex felons, the ability to vote, then you have politicians, who are a pandering more, than they are properly doing their own political duties? 


  • @TKDB
    TKDB said:
     
    If certain political representatives had more self confidence in their individual political philosophies, via how they take care of their constituents?

    I feel like this isn't a complete sentence/question. This sounds like an "If-then" statement, but there's no "then" portion of the statement. Please add it because I have no idea what your point is without it. So, for example, if you were going to say the following, let me know:

    "If certain political representative had more self-confidence in their individual political philosophies, via how they take care of their constituents, then shouldn't they be able to legalize these unjust laws you spoke of?"
    (Bolded part I added for it to be a complete sentence/question).

    If that is what you meant to ask, let me know so I can respond to whatever your point is.



    Watching certain politicians play with their words, and campaign to the overall public, about giving felons and prisoners, and ex felons, the ability to vote, then you have politicians, who are a pandering more, than they are properly doing their own political duties?

    The same problem is here that there was previously. Either that or you should switch the words "they" and "are".

    Without some sort of correction of your statements, I can't properly respond. Grammar is important, as I pointed out here. In this case, I can't even understand what you're getting at. Sometimes grammar mistakes can be overlooked, but this is not a situation where it can be. This is almost as bad as John_C's continual grammar mistakes. Due to he just continually confuses me with his grammar, I've found a need to mute.

    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • If both of you are purposely doing this to show me how bad Debra AI is at rating grammar, you've convinced me okay? Lol. I am convinced Debra doesn't know how to properly rate grammar. Your current comment I'd personally rate at 50% or something for grammar, whereas Debra says it's 93% correct, which is laughable.
    Plaffelvohfen
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5947 Pts   -  

    1) If people are worried they would change the law to decriminalize the law they broke, keep in mind the vast majority of people think most of those crimes should stay crimes. I doubt 2 million adults who are each in there for various reasons, would be enough to sway any election result to get serious crimes legalized(certainly ones, where most of us agree, should be legalized though, but that's a good thing, see number 3). For the most part, people agree on what constitutes a major crime to probably a 3/4 or more majority. I mean, how are we going to have a majority of people claim murder or something shouldn't be illegal? There's no way that ~2 million will suddenly help in actually decriminalizing murder or some major crime.
    They cannot even attempt to do that in practice, since such views are not represented in the political space at all. No politician will ever dare to run on decriminalisation of murder, for example; such a position is a suicide in politics.

    For all intents and purposes, a sentenced criminal is going to vote with the same things in mind, as anyone else. And if anything, criminals are more likely to want liberalisation of law, since they by nature tend to be free spirits - and liberalisation of law is a good thing. Who is a criminal more likely to vote for: a libertarian running on cutting down governmental spending and reducing the amount of regulations, or a socialist who wants the laws to become harsher than ever?

    Australia was mostly settled by some of the worst criminals the West could find, and as a result it is one of the freest countries in the world. There is no excuse for what those people did, but there is no denying that some of the political positions the average criminal is likely to have are good - even if they have those positions for wrong reasons.
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @GeoLibCogScientist

    (If certain political representatives had more self confidence in their individual political philosophies, via how they take care of their constituents?)

    (Watching certain politicians play with their words, and campaign to the overall public, about giving felons and prisoners, and ex felons, the ability to vote, then you have politicians, who are a pandering more, than they are properly doing their own political duties?)


    Let me spell it out for you:

    You have citizens, some of who, are Political Representatives, or up and coming citizens, who hope to become political representatives, OK? 

    And some of these Politicians like to pander, to the public, who act like, some of the citizens, who are in prison, were wrongly imprisoned, because some of the laws, discriminated against various cultures in the United States?

    "Do felons and current prisoners deserve to have the right to vote."


    So why should felons and current prisoners deserve the right to vote, if they raped, murdered, sexually assaulted, kidnapped, abducted, and so on CRIME wise, deserve, the right to vote?

    Unless the individual political representatives campaign message isn't strong enough, to get the votes, that they are hoping for?

    So pander to their pro criminal, and offender, constituents crowds, in hopes of garnering their votes? 



    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5947 Pts   -  
    @TKDB

    Why does anyone "deserve" to vote at all? What determines who "deserves" to vote and who "does not"? Posing the very question is deeply antithetic to the spirit of the Constitution, the primary idea of which is egalitarian treatment of citizens. If some citizens are not allowed to vote because they are deemed not "deserving", then you have already parted with republican-democratic ideas and embraced authoritarianism instead.

    Why do you "deserve" to vote? You have pretty horrible, anti-American views. Why should you be given a vote? 

    I am not saying you should not, but it is what follows from your words.
    CYDdharta
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @MayCaesar

    Your words according to you:

    "Why do you "deserve" to vote?"

    (I'm pro United States, I'm pro legalized immigrant, and, I'm pro law abiding.)

    (I'm against the Illegal immigrants, or aliens, who have been in the US illegally, since 1987.)

    (Their law breaking, doesn't deserve, to be rewarded via Amnesty.)

    (You don't steal freedom, by tresspassing into a country illegally, being, that that's illegal immigrant, or illegal alien, thinking.)

    (I've watched countless videos on YouTube, about how some of the illegal immigrants, are tresspassing into the US through the southern border.
    Some transporting illegal drugs, with another illegal immigrant, armed with am AK-47.)

    (The horror stories, of those families who live on the border, having their homes robbed, and property stolen.)

    (Along with reports of rape, and sexual assaults, being committed by some of the illegal immigrants, as they tresspass into the United States illegally.)

    (I think that the 300 Sanctuary Cities, are maybe, pandering, to those businesses, that utilize the illegal aliens, for their cheap labor.
    And pandering, to the illegal immigrants, or aliens, at the cost of endangering the lives of the US citizens, who have to live with the illegal aliens, who are living in the same cities, with those same law abiding citizens.)

    (I'm pro unborn baby, and pro adoption, in the face of abortion, outside, the situations of rape or incest.)

    (I've seen pro baby supporters, protesting Abortion clinics, from public sidewalks.)

    (I've also seen pro baby supporters, protesting in DC, during the March For Our Lives Rally, event back in 2018)

    (I'm pro family, pro kids, toddlers, and teenagers, in the face of marijuana use, and abuse, legalized, and illegal.)

    (I've seen teenagers smoking marijuana while they were babysitting toddlers, outside of an apartment complex.)

    (So I've seen teenagers, being anti law, with their public marijuana use.)

    So what anti American views, are you trying to paint me with?

    "You have pretty horrible, anti-American views. Why should you be given a vote?"

    "I am not saying you should not, but it is what follows from your words."



    @MayCaesar

    What views, are you trying to paint, me with? 


  • @TKDB

    I mean, anyone could claim any politician in the past who promoted the voting rights of a group who didn't have the right to vote was just "pandering". I'm sure people thought that of the democratic party when they extended the vote in the 1800s to people unpropertied, or the politicians who supported expanding the vote to women in the early 1900s.

    Of course, today, we would be quick to think: "There's a huge difference between that and supporting the right of felons to vote". Sure, but we are also looking back at this with a 21st-century lens. And even if the politician is pandering, as you say, which is likely given they are interested in winning elections, I don't think it matters. If it means we get something good done, then let the pandering happen. Regardless of the intent, giving the right to vote to felons is a good  thing to me, for the reasons I've already stated in other comments. 
    CYDdharta
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @GeoLibCogScientist

    "Of course, today, we would be quick to think: "There's a huge difference between that and supporting the right of felons to vote". Sure, but we are also looking back at this with a 21st-century lens. And even if the politician is pandering, as you say, which is likely given they are interested in winning elections, I don't think it matters."

    Sure it matters, if a Politician, has to pander, then they, are a weak political representative, and the public overall deserves better than a weak Politician groveling to those constituents. 

    "If it means we get something good done, then let the pandering happen."

    "Regardless of the intent, giving the right to vote to felons is a good. thing to me, for the reasons I've already stated in other comments."

    A felon who has raped, killed, or robbed someone, doesn't deserve to vote.

    Because when you give a rapist, a murderer, or a common criminal, the right to vote, the public overall is getting compromised.

    So your argument, is extremely porous. 
  • SharkySharky 101 Pts   -  
    @GeoLibCogScientist

    You asked, "How in the world are 2 million going to change something that everyone clearly thinks should be illegal?"

    You can't be serious, or can you?. , :) were you paying any attention during the 2000 election? How many felons would it have taken to throw the election to Gore? Were you aware that 1,099 voting felons handed Al Franken his Senate seat in 2008? Why do you think it is that only Democrats want to give felons- even incarcerated ones- the right to vote? If you want to believe that my position is fallacious, that's your right. You're wrong but it IS your right.

    First off, I never said that felons voting would result in things that "everyone clearly thinks should be illegal" being legalized. If you're going to attempt to interpret peoples' writings, you should err on the side of caution and refrain from conjuring up beliefs that they never expressed.

    In a country as deeply and evenly divided as ours, I don't care to give felons the opportunity to tip the balance. Since a handful of battleground states decide our national elections and those states are split nearly 50/50, giving felons voting rights would almost certainly mean that we'd be giving them the power to elect our Presidents. We would have to be collectively insane to allow that. The point I'm making is that people who have proven themselves incapable of obeying the laws that protect all of us should have no say in what those laws are, how they're made or whether they're enforced. 

    Do you support allowing prison inmates to elect their own guards and wardens? 
    PlaffelvohfenGeoLibCogScientistCYDdharta
  • @Sharky

    I don't see why you'd be concerned so much over which party wins unless you legit believe it's a two-party system rather than one party masquerading as two.

    Regardless who would have won in 2000, it was going to be someone backed up by wealthy elites. Do you think there would have been much of a difference if Gore was president rather than Bush?

    Anyways, this seems even more messed up. So a reason you want to debar people from voting is just to prevent one person from becoming president over another? You don't realize how messed up that sounds?

    At any rate, why do you suppose we have the most prisoners for capita of any nation? Do you really think we have more crime than nations which have terrorists, China, or Russia? There's a clear problem in our justice system. As I pointed out previously, the government can just start locking people up in order to prevent them from voting. They're more than likely already doing that. In our country, many people cannot afford a lawyer. If they're accused of a crime, I have doubts they're even able to properly defend themselves. Public attorneys are also far too busy to give devoted time to their clients as well.

    Perhaps we can keep the vote from prisoners in a fantasy world where we had a better justice system and not the broken one we do, but until then, it's very concerning the government can decide to just lock anyone up and they can't vote anymore. 
    CYDdharta
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    I would say people in prison forfeit the right to vote for as long as they're in prison.

    Don't see why they should get an opinion on how the country uses our tax dollars, when they aren't paying taxes and we've had to spend extra to keep society safe.  They have not shown good judgement, so I don't believe they should get an opinion in elections.

    2 million votes is a lot to give to someone who may pander to the incarcerated.  A small amount of pandering will probably not change who the general populace votes for, but it may for those 2 million.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch