this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
375 points (95.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
642 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I believe it to be a short-sited thing, but honestly necessary. This is due to the very large range of federal convictions. It goes from having some pot on you, to armed robbery and murder. I don't agree that those things should necessarily (case by case) include the same voting restrictions, but there is no way the US government is going to take the time to separate the "worse" crimes from the "lesser". And, as has been mentioned before the goal of the US penal system is (sadly) not rehabilitation. As long as the government has that attitude, it will never change. You lose more than just the right to vote as a felon, btw. The rights most often curtailed include the right to vote and hold public office, employment rights, domestic rights, and financial and contractual rights.
You still don't explain why it's, in your opinion, necessary to remove voting rights.
You put that it they shouldn't remove those for small infractions, but that the administration can't decide on a line where voting restrictions should be put, and therefore just blanket bans every from from voting.
Also it's somehow ok that after people have finished their punishment, they should be punished some more by stripping them off even more rights.
All of that greatly reduces chances of rehabilitation and keeps criminals in the criminal sector. I fail to see why even minor infractions should lead to lifelong consequences.
It's necessary because our government is stupid, slow, and can't make great choices. I should have clarified that it is deemed necessary by the government because they'll never make the decisions to back it up. I don't like it, and I never will. I typed that from the flawed perspective of government and should have worded it better.
I see, thnx for the clarification. It seemed like you were indeed supporting said practise.
It already separates crimes by sentancing. in the UK if your prison sentence is less than 2 years then you can vote from prison. (Also once your have served your time (including being out on probation/license) you can vote.