Let the Incarcerated Vote • Hacker News Board

Re: Let the Incarcerated Vote

#21

Post by sdenton4 » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 9:24 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #9

Not my problem, but I'm torn on my opinion. On the one hand, seems like an interesting idea. On the other, the US is known as being too quick to incarcerate people. Rather than spend energy arguing about letting incarcerated people vote, it seems more useful to make sure that nobody is being locked up for victimless crimes and taking a harder look at why anyone is being locked up for non-violent crimes. It seems pote…

The removal of the right to vote is part of the systematic disenfranchisement of Black people in the US. Many states still have laws permanently removing the right to vote from people with felony convictions.

Recent shenanigans in Florida pretty clearly lay out what's at stake here. Enough people are put through the criminal justice system that they would be a significant voting block... if they have the right to vote. And since they can't vote, politicians have literally no interest in ensuring that prisons are handled humanely.

It's also worth considering that many violent offenders get put away when they're basically still kids, and become totally different people as adults. The mythical Charles Manson interest group is vanishingly small, and easily outweighed by basically every other voter.

Finally, the restoration of voting rights for felons was delivered by a ballot initiative led by formerly incarcerated people. They most definitely did not consider it a waste of energy! The Planet Money podcast just had an excellent episode on the issue, with interviews with a couple of the people who made it happen: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/927846676/who-gets-to-vote-in...

Re: Let the Incarcerated Vote

#22

Post by eznzt » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 9:29 AM UTC

geowwy wrote: post #10

This is a distraction. Prison needs to be abolished. Let's concentrate on that instead.

And what do we do with people who are just too dangerous to keep about?

Re: Let the Incarcerated Vote

#23

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 9:29 AM UTC

mercer wrote: post #15

s9w wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What points to them being the same person?

While it might be a stretch, both 88 and 38 are associated with, among other things, of course, white supremacy.

[deleted]

Re: Let the Incarcerated Vote

#24

Post by the-dude » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 9:31 AM UTC

iso947 wrote: post #20

the-dude wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a handful of examples where this worked well?

Not abolished entirely, but every western country has a better prison system than US Here’s a handful of examples of reducing prison intake https://www.mic.com/articles/109138/sweden-has-done-for-its-... https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/youth-offenders_balancing-punis... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/12/why-are-there-...

That is a different claim entirely. I am from NL btw : "better" systems have their own set of problems.

Re: Let the Incarcerated Vote

#25

Post by m0zg » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 9:36 AM UTC

What if they vote predominantly republican? Would The Atlantic still argue in favor?

Re: Let the Incarcerated Vote

#26

Post by yokaze » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 9:36 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #9

Not my problem, but I'm torn on my opinion. On the one hand, seems like an interesting idea. On the other, the US is known as being too quick to incarcerate people. Rather than spend energy arguing about letting incarcerated people vote, it seems more useful to make sure that nobody is being locked up for victimless crimes and taking a harder look at why anyone is being locked up for non-violent crimes. It seems pote…

> Rather than spend energy arguing about letting incarcerated people vote, it seems more useful to make sure that nobody is being locked up for victimless crimes and taking a harder look at why anyone is being locked up for non-violent crimes.

They are orthogonal problems. Solving one doesn't solve the other.

And disenfranchisement is creating problems as shown in the article, while it tries to solve a problem, which is practically non-existent thanks to representative democracy.

First off, trying to delineate between who is allowed to vote and who except on most general rules (e.g. citizens over X years) is more likely than not to be used and abused to shape the electorate. The details are well documented, as in the article.

On the other hand, what does excluding criminals trying to solve? You don't want them to decide what will happen in the country, but that is why there is a representative democracy. They are only allowed to vote for one of their "betters", which will take the decisions. (The classism was to my knowledge partly intentional in design). And their numbers are low enough, that they won't be able to chose a representation, which overrules the non-incarcerated

> Some people should not have a voice in society - like raping murderers.

But people running a business making millions addicted to opioids? It is not complicated to condemn criminals, but it is complicated to set up a system, which doesn't use that wish for retribution to distort the electorate. And to what end? What objective problem does it solve?

Re: Let the Incarcerated Vote

#27

Post by xupybd » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 9:39 AM UTC

fmajid wrote: post #17

I don't like the idea much, but it would reduce the incentive for some to jail Black men as the only still legal way to disenfranchise them.

I don't think people are looking for a legal way to disenfranchise black men. It's an unfortunate results of a racist past.

That's not to say it's no fixable or worth fixing. It's just a very different cause.

Re: Let the Incarcerated Vote

#28

Post by mcny » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 9:43 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #9

Not my problem, but I'm torn on my opinion. On the one hand, seems like an interesting idea. On the other, the US is known as being too quick to incarcerate people. Rather than spend energy arguing about letting incarcerated people vote, it seems more useful to make sure that nobody is being locked up for victimless crimes and taking a harder look at why anyone is being locked up for non-violent crimes. It seems pote…

> Some people should not have a voice in society - like raping murderers.

But why? If murderers should be disenfranchised then why not jaywalkers? People who leave the shopping carts in the middle of a parking lot? I would like to see people who have car alarms but don't shut them off for over five minutes be disenfranchised as well. Where does this end?

Re: Let the Incarcerated Vote

#29

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 9:45 AM UTC

yokaze wrote: post #26

roenxi wrote: post #9

Not my problem, but I'm torn on my opinion. On the one hand, seems like an interesting idea. On the other, the US is known as being too quick to incarcerate people. Rather than spend energy arguing about letting incarcerated people vote, it seems more useful to make sure that nobody is being locked up for victimless crimes and taking a harder look at why anyone is being locked up for non-violent crimes. It seems pote…

> Rather than spend energy arguing about letting incarcerated people vote, it seems more useful to make sure that nobody is being locked up for victimless crimes and taking a harder look at why anyone is being locked up for non-violent crimes. They are orthogonal problems. Solving one doesn't solve the other. And disenfranchisement is creating problems as shown in the article, while it tries to solve a problem, which…

> > Rather than spend energy arguing about letting incarcerated people vote, it seems more useful to make sure that nobody is being locked up for victimless crimes and taking a harder look at why anyone is being locked up for non-violent crimes.

> They are orthogonal problems. Solving one doesn't solve the other.

I disagree. If incarcerating people weren't an effective method of both denying people you don't like a vote and stealing their voting power for the people in your state that you aren't excluding through incarceration, there'd be a lot less incentive for mass incarceration.

Of course, that's an argument for making voting for the incarcerated the first focus, since it naturally makes it easier to solve the other problem.

Re: Let the Incarcerated Vote

#30

Post by yardstick » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 9:49 AM UTC

abakus wrote: post #2

No, just no.

The laws don’t always follow with the times. In the past things like homosexual acts were criminal acts. Is it fair to disenfranchise people because of this? Likewise is it fair to disenfranchise people who were locked up for minor/petty drugs use which is now legal in various states?

It’s not something easy to agree with, I sometimes have a hard time agreeing with it for especially severe criminals, but being able to vote regardless of criminal history is key to preventing a dictatorship emerging and passing laws to lock up people they disagree with/supress dissidents/ensure only their supporters can vote. Yes I realise this seems all very rhetorical. Until it isn’t.

Sure, you could just wait for the people to revolt against the dictator, but why not put systems in place to avoid it in the first place?