As you are asking for an opinion, I strongly believe that former inmates should be allowed the right to vote. If we are really stress a reintegration into society with opportunities for employment and an emphasis on reducing the rate of recidivism, I think it is important to restore as many rights as practical to the former offender. The desire to obtain and exercise the right to vote, to me, is a positive sign of a desire to exercise positive and responsible citizenship.

Dear Utku,

Your answer is very interesting and though-provoking. I really appreciate it.

sincerely

Don

I was informed by our Public Defender several decades ago that the voting rights were restored to ex-felons UNLESS they were convicted of voter fraud (per case law). He said this was done because the act of committing a felony should not deprive a person of the ability to influence the political decisions which affect their lives. Here is a citation which might shed some light on the subject. Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 94 S. Ct. 2655, 41 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1974).

Dear Nada,

It may be true for several decades ago. The citation is in 1974.

Please see the current state laws regarding the voting right for the convicted felons in the following link:

http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/

Nada, thank you for your input.

Sincerely

Don

Thank you for the update

As you are asking for an opinion, I strongly believe that former inmates should be allowed the right to vote. If we are really stress a reintegration into society with opportunities for employment and an emphasis on reducing the rate of recidivism, I think it is important to restore as many rights as practical to the former offender. The desire to obtain and exercise the right to vote, to me, is a positive sign of a desire to exercise positive and responsible citizenship.

.I feel that former offenders should have the opportunity for their right to vote to be restored. If we're expecting them to become productive citizens upon release, it is reasonable to afford them all of the rights and privileges of any other citizen unless there is a danger to the public

Dear David and Ashley,

I agree that depriving the right to vote is not good for an ex-convict’s integration into his or her community.

Since the 1970s, the goals of punishment in the United States have changed from rehabilitation/ reintegration to retribution (“eye for an eye” principle) / isolation/ just desert. The change has been partially influenced by citizens’ demand for tough on crime. Thus, the penal policies in the United States have been based on penal populism. In other words, to be reelected lawmakers and judges, who are elected by residents in their jurisdictions, tend to reflect citizens’ demand for tough on crime.

If we hope that ex-convicts be reintegrated into their communities and live as productive and law-abiding citizens, I believe that we must restore their right to vote when they complete their sentences (any other types of sentences including incarceration and probation).

Another issue associated with depriving the right to vote is that depriving the right to vote is more likely to affect African American populations than whites as disproportionately large numbers of African Americans are convicted of their felony crimes.

David and Ashley, thank you so much for your inputs.

Sincerely

Don

My thoughts are that an offender who is in prison should not be able to vote. However on release I do believe they should be able to vote as long as the offence did bit include an offence including vote fixing etc.

Dear Susan,

That's what I am thinking too.

Thank you.

Don

I feel rights such as voting should be restored while not some on automatic firearm possession if the crime is domestic or of other violence. If we want the former offender to become a productive member of society, gain and maintain employment, they should have the opportunity to vote.

Great point, both Leisa, I could not agree more. Excellent observations indeed.

Great point, Leisa, I could not agree more. Excellent observations indeed.

Great point, Leisa, I could not agree more. Excellent observations indeed.

Just found this! I was once told by a Canadian official that there's no such thing as as "right to vote". Voting, properly understood, is a privilege. As such, it's granted by authority and may be taken away by it. Oh those quirky Canucks! Don't you just love 'um 'eh? So different to their neighbours!

Christopher NOCK

If that immigration official was correct, it changes the entire issue. Prisoners tend to be quite aware that privileges can disappear when they've been particularly naughty.

I suspect he was correct. Why? Well you can only vote in authorized elections and on authorized issues, in properly authorized jurisdictions. A Californian doesn't often have the right to travel to vote in Wisconsin. That would be unauthorised.

Yea, I do like Canadians. That might explain why I married one!

NOCK

Nice and stimulating query@ Don Soo Chon

I have no secure knowledige on this issue. In Germany there is a right that imprisoned can vote, but the procedure is a little limitied, so postal vote is possible. People who are imprisoned because of electoral fraud are not allowed voting, I think. I have no exact knowledge, but I knwo that in 19th century imprisoners had no right to vote.

Well, thanks for having a go at it Hein! Do you think voting is a right? Or do the Canadians have a point??

NOCK

I concur with David and Ashley. Although one's voting rights may be revoked during incarceration while someone pays their debt to society, restoration is important with respect to integrating someone into society after release. Good points, folks.

This is not inconsistent with the Canadian view. However, you refer again to the "right" to vote. Canadians question whether there is such a thing. If there isn't, the "American" view would be effectively meaningless. That's the depth of what's at stake here!

NOCK

If by voting, we can only elect leaders who invade other countries on false pretexts, revoke international agreements, pulverize dissent, practice nepotism of a high order, cock a snook at law and legality, refuse to acknowledge global concerns, engage in sexual orgies and die by sexual stimulants, promote genocide and mass differentiation between peoples, refuse to acknowledge hate crimes, refuse to rush- in laws as society convulses, use religion to govern, accept the concept of a higher human race (Aryan) or KKK hate campaigns, colonize the world into their backyards and justify it, compromise on gun control...

If this a matter of right, Canadian or American view notwithstanding, the LCD (lowest common denominator) that is the VOTE is an effete outcome of democracies. "American" or "Canadian" view is neither the worldview nor the most cohesive view nor the futuristic view...

Civilization is young, just a few millennia. What we know as America or Canada or the North American Continent -- and the attitude of its citizens and the respondents in these columns -- can be easily broken up by one major convulsion of the Earth or coastal flooding dramatically altering the geography and the "views" that go with it. Like Murphy's Law, whatever can be conceived in sci-fi films about Earth can happen as whatever is portrayed is part-reality (unlike aliens or the interaction of dinosaurs with modern day humans or humans with mutant powers or sixth senses...). All readers are recommended, if not yet done, to see the movie/TV movie "The Day After" and "The Day After Tomorrow".

The Earth is still evolving. New mountains are coming up in Africa that could belittle Everest. What could belittle the vote? Will the vote, as we currently know, never change? That would be contrary to the laws of Nature. The inflexion point of such insurgency is not very far in democracies that have exhausted by far the concept of voting. In 2018, we have no idea what the vote, if at all, would be in 3018 or in 30,018?? To do so would be presumptuous and arrogant.

orcid.org/0000-0002-6770-5916