Allow Me To Digress for a moment.
It recently came to my attention that in some states convicted felons are not allowed to vote. Voting is a civil right and you forfeit certain rights, temporarily anyway, when convicted of a serious crime. Some state disenfranchise convicted felons. This means that they are not allowed to vote even after they have finished serving their sentence. Now I understand that there is some case law that supports this (I am not a lawyer, nor do i play one on TV). But somehow, this doesn't seem fair to me.
So why are these same convicted felons allowed to buy real estate? Is the right to purchase real estate an unalienable right? Is the right to buy real estate a civil right? Why should convicted felons enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Maybe someone can explain.
Have A Great Day
Leander
Voting affects the lives of others. What if you had 51% of the population being convicted felons? Would you want the felons to vote and be able to vote in a crook?
To me, there should be serious restrictions on who is allowed to vote since it does affect everyone.
And yes, pursuit of property is an inalienable right. I think that is a basic part of the Declaration of Independence.
Hi Leander. If ex-cons looked like that, they could do anything they want to me!!:)
Anyway, of course they should be allowed to vote. They have done their time.
Ken
The basic and unalienable rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence (not granted by it, but outlined in it) are the rights to Life, Liberty and Property. There is no Constitutional right to vote. There are circumstances under which one can't be denied the ability to vote... but no right to vote.
Of course, the rights to life, liberty and property can be removed under certain circumstances, as can the ability to vote. But the bar is much lower for removing abilities than it is for removing rights.
Tim - Thanks for your comments. I think that you have a faulty conclusion that all convicted felons stick together. Crooks just like the rest of us would vote for things or people that have their best interest at hand. What about those convicted of white collar crimes that go on to lead fortune 500 companies. It's ok for them to vote, but not someone who has a 3 strikes conviction for a lesser crime? If 51% of the population were convicted felons, then the majority would rule. Isn't that what's supposed to happen?
Once you have served your time then you should be able to vote for sure and really why not during. What if you were wrongfully convicted you have no say for the rest of your life on how the government should be run?
Morning Lander,
Once a person has paid the price for their crime they should not be saddled with lingering consequences. That's how I feel anyway.
didn't the writers of the constitution commit a fellony of high treason in founding this country they would have bean executed had we lost the revolutionary war, george washinton was a fellon, benjamin franklin, paul reveerre, and all 52 people who signed the decloration of independence all fellons in the eyes of governmental standard they broke what was the law of there time i don't jusify all fellons but somw laws are rediculas hunting on fedral lands with out a licence felony, becouse some activist rased a stink. there is too much government in this country and most of the politishons are crooked and should be fellons. our very own presedent should be a fellon torture at guantanamo bay, hostle take over of another country, mass murder, billions of dollars in property dammage, our current recession the list is neer to endless but you think its wrong that someone convicted of a fellony shouldn't be able to by a house. on the news a few years ago in oregon a man was jogging in a park and found a man molesting a 11 year old girl and beat the piss out of him the man struggled to flea and somewhere in the fight sustained seriuose injury and hospitalization... the man was found guilty of child sex abuse and served 24 months in prison the man who should be considered a hero was convicted of assult for his "lack of restraint and blaitnent dis regard for the other mans safty and or life" he was sentanced to 60 months in prison!!!!! who recently couldn't get an apartment or finance a home due to poor credit as a result of his prison term and his fellony conviction so i for one think that more people should go on the facts rather than the grey ares and there should be alot less public screwtiny aboute fellonys people make mistakes and when the debt to society has bean paid they should be free to go aboute life just as the rest of us. the punishment should be equil to the crime. murder or rape execution, kill in self defence or accited suitable punishment for the crime ect.. but why should they live a sub standard life becouse of it. Usualy the ony diferance between you and a fellon is they got caught. ever drink and drive?? fellony..... ever open someone elces mail by accident?? fellony.......
James,
Don't get you knickers in a bunch. The comments written by me were written tongue in cheek. If you were a regular reader of my blog, you would know that I believe firmly that convicted felons don't deserve all of the disparate treatment they receive after serving their sentences. Even though you personally insulted me, I will leave your comments. This is a free country and I don't believe in censorship.
Make This Year Your Best Year Ever
Leander
In addition to being able to own property as part of your argument, what about the right to own fire arms. This is also denied to convicted felons. If they have indeed paid for their crimes, and they can vote, they should also be able to own a fire arm by the same argument.