Every time it’s time to go to the polls, this question comes to my mind–should those with criminal convictions/those who are incarcerated be allowed to vote? I know it’s different state to state–in Alabama, where I resided from 10/02-3/05, priorly convicted felons must petition the court to have their right to vote reinstated. In Michigan, this is what the state has to say (from michigan.gov/vote)
MCL 168.492a reads: “A person confined in a jail, who is otherwise a qualified elector, prior to trial or sentence may, upon request, register under section 504. The person shall be deemed a resident of the city, township, and address at which he resided before confinement. A person while confined in a jail after being convicted and sentenced shall not be eligible to register.”
MCL 168.758b reads: “A person who, in a court of this or another state or in a federal court, has been legally convicted and sentenced for a crime for which the penalty imposed is confinement in jail or prison shall not vote, offer to vote, attempt to vote, or be permitted to vote at an election while confined.”
Given the above restrictions, a Michigan resident confined in jail or prison that is awaiting arraignment or trial is eligible to register and vote. A Michigan resident who is serving a sentence in jail or prison after conviction cannot register or vote during his or her period of confinement. After a Michigan resident who is serving a sentence in jail or prison is released, he or she is free to participate in elections without restriction.
I’m interested in what the restrictions are, if any, in your neck of the woods, and how you feel about it.
especially now with so many in prison because they were GASP.. smoking pot or GASP protesting a Trident Sub site.
I use to not care about prisoner rights… untill I grew up and realized that human rights are HUMAN RIGHTS.. doesn’t matter if you are straight, gay, white, black, politician or a criminal.
Plus I think prisoners have much to offer as far as basic human rights… because they KNOW. I think all voices should be heard. Also it would provide them with some sense of empowerment… I think if you take a person’s rights, voice away… then what do they have to workd towards??
Yes. Let each vote be counted. Let ALL voices be heard.
Thanks for the comment. I have strong convictions on this subject, but very much want to hear what the community thinks without coloring things with my thoughts on the front end.
So much can cloud this.. because many of us have been victims of criminals. Its natural to want to strip them of any power, rights. To make them pay. But I see taking power away from others as a form of rape and continuation of violence. It won’t prevent more crimes and actually I think creates the same situation which caused someone to chose crime…
So many clouds…
My son’s own dental needs were put off, on a waiting list, prisoners dental needs came before his… which truly angered me. But I learned that it wasn’t the prisoner’s fault… it was a faulty and broken red tape nightmare.
Do I want rapists voting about women’s rights?? Not really but hell… what’s the difference nowadays between a rapist and a End of Times, Rapturist Wife?
Do I want the man who killed 3 friends of mine ever behind the wheel of a car again? No. But he should be able to vote… he should have a voice. Even those who have silenced the voices of our loved ones forever…
Anyways, thanks for hearing me out.
You have a very good point–it gets cloudy. The thing is this–if you start to tell some people they can’t vote based on whatever it is they were convicted for, where do you draw the line? Obviously, you can’t pick and choose what they can vote on–they can or they can’t.
Saying that someone has “given up” many of their rights while they are serving time, I can see that. Once they have “paid thier dues”, though…you have to draw the line somewhere, you have to empower them to make a positive change in their lives if you expect them to make a change.
Very true indeed. I hope I didn’t sound like I would say what they could and could not vote for… I was trying to make a point that we truly can’t do that. Again, it’s an all or nothing. I’d like to err on the side of all… give em a voice. I think that is the most basic way to help empower people.
Great diary and great food for thought. Thanks
Hola wolverine writer, good to see you delurked around the pond today. Very thought-provoking diary, one that raises all kinds of thoughts in my head.
First, after doing the research for today’s UN10 diary, I learned a ton about the criminal justice system and how it’s broken in many ways. Not completely broken, but enough to raise serious questions about its implementation here in the States.
That being said, I think it matters how someone views the system. Is its purpose to serve as a bunch of cages? or a path towards rehabilitation? If it’s the latter, which probably squares more with my view, then I think anyone convicted of a crime should be eligible to vote after they have completed their sentence.
I’m reminded of Les Miserables and how the main character was unable to re-enter society fully after serving time for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. The part that makes this particular subject you raised complicated is that sometimes it’s not a loaf of bread.
Anywho, done with the rambling, hope you’re doing well.
Yes, slapping criminals down so they can never get to their feet…
These criminals have families also. There children see how no matter how hard you try to do right… you’ll be slapped down. So why bother? Crime is easier than.. because at least it has the chance of rewarding you and bringing food to the table… whereas it’s hard for released people to find a job, keep a job… and they can’t even vote to stop a warmongering buffon become president.
Why bother?
Hola, Man Eegee. Thanks for chiming in.
The biggest thing in my book is that you have to give people a chance to make a difference, to be a part of society again. So many things are stacked against convicted criminals, from the inability to land a job to the way they are treated by those around them. Taking away the right to express yourself, the right to cast your vote based on past mistakes doesn’t seem to me to be a positive thing. I see nothing but a continuation of the degradation, another brick in the wall separating them from a “normal” life.
Make no mistake, incarceration in this country is just that–incarceration. Not that people can’t improve themselves while incarcerated–but you better believe people have to really WANT to do it. Take someone who is messed up in several ways, then closet them with the most…challenging…segment of society, add in some abuse from those running the place day to day and its easy to understand people coming out a lot worse than they went in. To quote Johnny Depp’s character in Blow: “I went in with a degree in Marijuana. I came out with a PhD in Cocaine” (Loose quote, might not be quite right, but you get the picture).
what’s the wife think about Smokin Joe Lieberman?
She’s not paying much attention to him at this point.
In California you can register to vote if you are “not in prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony” I don’t know how it works if you’re registered, in custody but not convited of a felony on election day.
I’d like to hear more from those who think only prisoners convicted of misdemeanors or those who’ve served their time should be allowed to vote. What is the reason for excluding convicted felons or those currently incarcerated? I think no matter how heinous the crime, people should be allowed to vote. I wish everyone whould vote.
You and DJ made some good points. I can see the argument that all people should have a voice. On the other hand, I kind of feel that prisoners are forgoing their participation in society when they are incarcerated. Leaving aside the fact that people are often jailed wrongly or for non-violent crimes, I don’t really think that violent criminals should be allowed to vote on who should be leading the people. They have shown a disdain for communal living and therefore should not have a voice in it. However, once one has served one’s time, I agree with WW that every effort should be made to welcome them back into society and reinstate their vote.
But, as has been said, these are some muddy waters. Whether we are rehabilitating people or creating more hardened and knowledgable criminals is an issue that needs to be addressed. While most people agree that the former should be welcomed back, the reality is that we are more likely creating the latter.
Good food for thought Kamakyha, thanks.
My selfish, evil wish…on who could and could not vote… would be no more end of times, white supremacists, zealot types. Their vote truly harms me and mine. 😉
They have little regard for human rights, they hold utter contempt for life and they hold no worth for the environment.
I think they do more damage vote-wise than any felon could.
But… I gotta go with all voices… even though right now the majority of the voices call me an enemy.
LOL…I can sympathise with not allowing zealots to vote!
It is this argument (and Lil’s) that does make me rethink the issue. It probably would be easier just to say every person over 18 has the right to vote and it certainly would be more “just” than what we are doing today.
I see your point too. What should be the consequences of seriously anti-social behavior? That’s certainly debatable. But I can’t leave aside that thousands of people are imprisoned unjustly, either on false convictions or unfair sentencing. Given how rotten, unfair and racist are the affairs of crime and punishment in America, it just doesn’t add up to me to deny voting to inmates. The way I look at it, especially these days when most people don’t bother to register or vote, we should be encouraging it instead of alienating people even more.
That was why I put in the caveat about the unfairly incarcerated. I was speaking from a purely ethical standpoint and not one vased entirely in reality! :>)
I certainly don’t see any reason why non-violent criminals shouldn’t have the right to vote, incarcerated or not. I can make an argument against violent criminals while incarcerated.
Now if we really want to open up a can of worms, we can switch convicted criminals to immigrants (legal or otherwise). :>)
Immigrants? That would be another diary that I’d like to read!
have been incarcerated the right to vote is this: How do you decide who gets denied? I fiercly believe all people should be allowed to vote–it’s not like letting someone like Ted Bundy vote is going to get some crazy proposals on the ballot, or get some nutball elected. (Well, the nutball thing could always happen…)
My point is that there is no realistic, “fair” way to draw the line, other than to allow those who have been incarcerated to vote–or not. Someone with a DUI is really no different than someone who plowed into a schoolbus full of kids while drunk–they just got lucky and didn’t hit anybody. No different than anyone who has ever driven with that level of alcohol in their blood, convicted or not, for that matter.
Felony convictions get handed out for non-violent crimes much more often than they do for violent crimes. If you’re judging someone’s worth, or someone’s right to vote based on the “level” of the offense, how is it possible to do that fairly or arbitrarily? There is no way. With the system set up like it is, there is no way to truly judge the seriousness of the offence based on whether they were convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. With all the plea bargaining that goes on and the inconsistancy of what is considered a felony from state to state it just isn’t possible.
informed voters you’ve ever seen in your life? Go into the prisons, register the population, and allow them to vote. They have the time and inclination to try and make their world a better place. I could be wrong, but I’m willing to bet the house that voter turnout would be over 90%.
Would it really be a threat to society to do such a thing? I think not. Considering the percentage of people in this country who do some time behind bars, and the way the prison population crosses the race and income lines, I don’t see a problem with it. If anything we might get a little better look at some of the minority issues, as they are (largely unjustly) over represented in the prison population.
Empower them. Give them a chance to have a say in the world. Give them hope that they too can make a difference. I can envision a lot worse things than candidates doing a Q&A at San Quentin.
Well said WW and I think you’re right. Why shouldn’t they have their say? They should have a freaking chance. Low voter turnout is the reason we have these assholes in Washington running this country into the ground (well it’s both cause and effect in a downward spiraling loop anyway) and I have no doubt San Quentin’s percentages would be a hell of a lot higher than the rest of the state. Maybe if felons could vote it would shame some other people into voting too. Or scare ’em.
That’s interesting–hadn’t considered that. I bet it would have a positive impact on voter turnout overall, maybe a big one. Most probably out of fear as opposed to shame, but I’m sure some of both.
Whatever gets them thinking about the issues and out to the polls, when it comes to the general populace. And whatever gets them involved in the world around them in a positive way, when it comes to those incarcerated.
Let all citizens vote. period.
first of all about state’s rights and voting. Should each state have its own laws about voting? Even in federal elections? So far, except for the Civil Rights voting act which prohibits some of the Jim Crow laws and the nefarious Poll Taxes etc, the state’s laws trump when it comes to voting. Which means we have a crazy quilt kind of deal where each state makes it own rules for primaries, general elections, types of voting equipment, rules for election judges, rules about absentee voting, and on and on and on.
Now state’s rights can give a good chunk of diversity so that the states are an experiment in process. We also note that the fear around some of the voting machines and voting processes would be extreme if the repubs ruled the whole ball of wax! However, there may be some things we can ask – verification, recounts and rules for recounts etc. But bear in mind that the HAVA opened the door for Diebold and its brother company in a lot of states. So how much meddling do we want to do?
Redemption is a concept that once somebody has done time he/she can return to society. But in truth, it is damn hard to make that return. He/She always has to put “felon” down on applications for jobs (if they did “hard time”). And now we track sex offenders down even after their time is done. Literally chasing them out of community after community. I worry about that myself. What are we doing there? I, personally, think that redemption should be possible and after the time is done people are reinstated. Others would not agree because of the fear….. And isn’t it fear we are manufacturing in the US right at the moment?
goal for all who are incarcerated–at least, all those who are at some point let out. Imagine, for a moment, being turned down for a job at the corner gas station because of a felony conviction. Imagine being denied federal student aid because of a conviction for possession of an ounce of pot. Imagine being chased from community to community because of a conviction for urinating in public (which will land you on the registered sex offenders list). Where are these people to turn?
Do we need to protect our children from sex offenders? Yes, we do. How do we balance that with the need to reintegrate these people with society? I’m not sure, but I do know that stripping people of everything and then expecting them to be productive citizens isn’t going to work.
Speaking of stripping… I recently learned that if a woman takes off her shirt in protest… that she will be arrested and then is labeled and registered as a SEX OFFENDER.
We have to advise people of that now before protests.
I have a real problem with the whole sex offender registery thing. I have three small children, and yes, I’d like to know if the person next door or accross the street is a convicted molester. However, there are some serious issues with the way people get listed. Data is often inaccurate, some of the offenses that can get you listed are ludicrous, and again, people have to be allowed to live.
But who decides? A rich kid who date-rapes someone may well be able to afford a good lawyer and get charges dropped or reduced to something that keeps you off the list, while someone with little money may be railroaded for having sex with their underage partner (who might be only months younger than themselves). The courts are enough of a mess without “after-market” groups trying to decide who should be listed. If it’s going to be done at all, it should be done by a government agency of some type, not private citizens, though I don’t have a lot of faith that they’d get it right either…
I voted from jail in 1986, while serving a 30 day sentence for disorderly conduct at an apartheid protest. I was eligible for work release, but only 6 days a week and Tuesday was the off day. I should have had to vote absentee, but when my ballot failed to arrive, was allowed 45 minutes out to go to the polls. since 2000, the NAACP has been bringing registration forms and absentee requests to non-felon prisoners in the jails in madison, Racine, and Kenosha.
In Milwaukee, one of the County Supervisors did the same in 2004, but the City Clerk delayed sending the ballots until the last possible day, and then the Sheriff, rather than distribute them, put them through his ‘normal’ security screening, so that these folks were ot in fact ble to vote. A last-minute attempt at an injunction was denied.
Felons get their voting rights back on completion of full sentence, including any probation, parole, or extended supervision.
It’s great to hear that some people are making an extra effort to allow those who are eligible to vote over there. It’s also very encouraging to hear that most inmates are allowed to vote while incarcerated, and that everyone is allowed to vote upon “completion of full sentance”. I haven’t heard from many states, but I’m sure that that is not the case in plenty of places in the US.
Thanks for the info, and the personal comment as well.