Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bloomberg pays off $20m debts of 31,000 felons so they can vote in Florida

dailymail.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: Bloomberg pays off $20m debts of 31,000 felons so they can vote in Florida

#61

Post by tssva »

mattzito wrote: post #35
yostrovs wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As there are rights and privileges, there are also responsibilities. One is to maintain yourself within the bounds of the law. Seems like if you're not willing to take responsibility for your actions then you don't get to tell others what to do through voting.

Isn't the theoretical point of prison to rehabilitate? We want to take people who have wronged others and get them to take responsibility for their actions and make them productive members of society. Removing voting rights permanently certainly can't increase the engagement of criminals, enough that the voters of florida voted to enfranchise felons.

Until recently voting rights were actually removed permanently in FL for felons. Now voting rights can be restored if people who have wronged others take responsibility for their actions. Part of taking responsibility for your actions is completing the court determined punishment for your crime. This can include fines and making financial restitution to those who have harmed through your actions.

Re: Bloomberg pays off $20m debts of 31,000 felons so they can vote in Florida

#62

Post by Daishiman »

tssva wrote: post #61
mattzito wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the theoretical point of prison to rehabilitate? We want to take people who have wronged others and get them to take responsibility for their actions and make them productive members of society. Removing voting rights permanently certainly can't increase the engagement of criminals, enough that the voters of florida voted to enfranchise felons.

Until recently voting rights were actually removed permanently in FL for felons. Now voting rights can be restored if people who have wronged others take responsibility for their actions. Part of taking responsibility for your actions is completing the court determined punishment for your crime. This can include fines and making financial restitution to those who have harmed through your actions.

I'm sorry but by the standards of most civilized western nations it's still an abomination that your voting rights are tied to financial obligations.

Re: Bloomberg pays off $20m debts of 31,000 felons so they can vote in Florida

#63

Post by Daishiman »

rbecker wrote: post #41
g8oz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A distinction without a difference.

There's a big difference between a fine and a debt. The purpose of each is different, and fines can be set proportional to the persons wealth.

But they don't, the system is incredibly unjust and this likely rights more wrongs than the status quo.

Re: Bloomberg pays off $20m debts of 31,000 felons so they can vote in Florida

#64

Post by matt_the_bass »

Daishiman wrote: post #6

The original fact that you can't be in debt to vote is quite abhorrent. In other times this would be quite the scandal. Given that right the Florida government is actively engaging in voter suppression though...

That’s not true. Many “rich” people are in debt yet they can vote. If I’m underwater on my mortgage and have negative net worth, I can still vote.

What’s abhorrent is certain debts prohibit voting.

Re: Bloomberg pays off $20m debts of 31,000 felons so they can vote in Florida

#65

Post by athriren »

yostrovs wrote: post #43
f-securus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if some laws are selectively enforced and don’t have a logical reason for even existing? Is it morally okay to ignore those laws until logic and sense prevails? I think it is ironic how some Americans cry ‘freedom’ over wearing masks or taxes but don’t skip a beat in dictating how somebody else treats their own body. What I’m saying is not all laws are just and being a Felon doesn’t diminish the person’s reasoni…

In theory, yes. But the people he's paying for have real crimes on their records, like assault and robbery. The only thing he takes into account is race. If black or latino, he pays. If you're not, you still don't get to vote.

this is patently false, frcc assistance is race blind and you only have to be covered by the ballot initiative to qualify. i would be very interested to learn where you have (falsely) heard there is some race based test for assistance that has led you to repeat this (false) claim.

i would add the ballot initiative did not require fines and fees to be paid and this was tacked on by the legislature for the express purpose of continuing to prevent as many of these people as possible from voting.

Re: Bloomberg pays off $20m debts of 31,000 felons so they can vote in Florida

#67

Post by jokethrowaway »

newen wrote: post #56
gridlockd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In reality they aren't KKK members though. Instead they are disproportionately black and other minorities. They are overwhelmingly felons. The disenfranchisement rate is highest among blacks at 7.8%, so 92.2% of blacks, so the overwhelming majority, is not affected by this at all. What makes you think the majority of blacks would welcome the enfranchisement of criminals that happen to share their skin color? After…

Given: 1) a system in which either party A or party B win by small margins, and 2) a group of people who votes overwhelmingly for party B. Let's think of options to increase election win probabilities for party A. One option: legislate laws and bring about a justice system in which that group of people are disproportionately imprisoned/fined/etc and made to lose voting rights. Unsurprising result: party A has higher…

What's systematic in the justice system that disproportionately imprison a specific group of people?

As a black person who has been stopped more often than my white peers because I look like an immigrant (in Europe though), systemic racism is just marketing, there's no systemic racism enshrined in law in any Western society.

Sure, some individual may be racist, even if it's hard to say whether someone is racist or he's just afraid of the statistics, which prove some groups indeed harm police officers and other citizens in disproportionately high numbers.

Things would be definitely better for everyone (minus the cartels, I guess) if it wasn't for the war on drugs, which makes poor people into criminals. And things would be much better if some groups weren't specifically targeted in the 60s and given benefits that incentivised fatherlessness and broke the family structure. It's a huge topic, so you can look up Thomas Sowell on this.

Post reply on HN