Why are felons denied the right to vote?

[Xhin]

Doesn't this give too much power to the judicial system? They make laws determining what counts as a felony, thereby making laws to determine who can and cannot vote them out of office.

[Edward]

Doesn't this give too much power to the judicial system? They make laws determining what counts as a felony, thereby making laws to determine who can and cannot vote them out of office.

FYI: The "judicial system" doesn't make laws.

[Gary4Liberty]

FYI: The "judicial system" doesn't make laws.

They arent supposed to make laws but essentially they do make laws when they 'interpret' what the law says.

[Bruno]

I don't think they should be denied.

[No Free Beer]

I don't think they should be denied.

They give up their rights when they do something stupid.

But, obviously it matters how stupid the law was/is as well...

[pcosmar]

They give up their rights when they do something stupid.

But, obviously it matters how stupid the law was/is as well...

NO ONE gives up rights.

They are denied. They are taken.
And many who have been convicted are guilty of nothing but having shitty representation.

[No Free Beer]

NO ONE gives up rights.

They are denied. They are taken.
And many who have been convicted are guilty of nothing but having shitty representation.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

If you break a law that we all would agree is just, like murder, you FORFEIT your rights.

Plain and simple.

[pcosmar]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

If you break a law that we all would agree is just, like murder, you FORFEIT your rights.

Plain and simple.

Murder,, yes.
If you actually did it.

There is a large percentage of the population that are convicted of Crimes where NO CRIME actually took place.
There are a huge number that are falsely convicted.

And most people, can be rehabilitated. (it the attempt was made)
There are relatively few incurable sociopaths in prisons. Most of them are working for the State.

All that said,, most states restore voting rights. Either automatically or by request.
Jury and 2nd amendment rights are another thing.

[newbitech]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

If you break a law that we all would agree is just, like murder, you FORFEIT your rights.

Plain and simple.

So make sure you go around and get UNANIMOUS consent from everyone in the country before passing judgement on me! I actually like this idea, too bad it will never reflect reality.

You ever wonder why there are different "types" of murder according to the law? How do you propose correcting the problem out of curiosity?

I for one believe that the constitution already protects people who have repaid their moral debt to society.

You see, not only should we have UNANIMOUS consent like you said, "a law that we agree is just, like murder" for judging what is morally and criminally wrong, we should also have UNANIMOUS consent as to what the punishment should be. The law is more than just a standard for passing UNANIMOUS judgement, is also is a standard for the penalty or punishment.

We may all agree an eye for an eye, meaning a murderer should be put to death, but we may not all agree on the motivation behind one person killing another. For instance, if we learn that someone's motivation for killing another human being was revenge because the person that was killed caused the killers love one to be in a vegetative state for the rest of their lives because of driving under the influence, then how can we justify putting the killer to death? Is our motivation for UNANIMOUS consent that the punishment for murder is death? Or is our motivation an eye for an eye?

If you come in to this world with rights, those rights come from within. Your rights cannot be taken away, only oppressed by another human being. Under no condition can another human being take away those rights. Another human being can remove protection of your rights, but another human being cannot set in place mechanisms to trigger the individual to remove those rights. You can also remove the protection of your own rights, but as long as you are alive and capable of moving around, you will exercise your rights, even on a very limited and oppressed level.

One easy way to see this is the criminal who committed a serious criminal offense short of murder, for instance, stealing. That person will still eat to survive.

The very idea that you or any other human being can deprive me of my rights or set up a condition to where I would somehow voluntarily give up my rights is impossible.

Bottom line, my rights do not come to me under the condition that I obey man's law. So unless you are talking about protection of my rights, no even a cold blooded murderer is incapable of forfeiting her/his rights.

To me what is plain and simple it that the constitution EXPLICITLY protects the rights of criminal offenders.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

In the spirit of the constitution, protection of the rights of offenders is not something that can be taken away or forfeited.

[tod evans]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

If you break a law that we all would agree is just, like murder, you FORFEIT your rights.

Plain and simple.

Forfeiture is the involuntary relinquishment of property.

When a government takes away the "rights" of a citizen it is not forfeiture no matter if the legislative, executive or judicial branch is the culprit.
A right belongs to a free man, if society wants to strip the rights of certain free men then that legislation should be put to a vote of the people NOT a vote of politicians.

I can only offer a layman's opinion on why a felon isn't permitted a vote; The officials who charge/convict/sentence a man to prison do not want that man to have the authority to vote them out of office.