Rantings of a Queer Pagan

Should felons be allowed to vote?

In response to Jeffypoo:

Original Post: 11/1/06

I think this is a horrifying question. To loose your franchise because you've been convicted of a felony is reprehensible on so many levels. Let me explore a few.

Note: In Canada, you can't be charged with a felony, it's called an indictable offence, and your are not called a felon, but a convict. I realize that the source of this question stems from an American article, so I'm not trying to be a pain, just clearing that up.

First, one can be convicted of a crime without having actually done anything illegal. False convictions happen. Alternatively one can commit a crime without being convicted. This leads to a very serious question of fairness in regards to application of punishment which we really ought to consider, but won't address any further at this point for the sake of brevity.

Secondly, a citizen being convicted of a crime does not automatically equate that he has poor judgement. In fact, he could have been making a political statement, or participating in civil disobedience, or rebelling. All things I would hope we would encourage of those who have the conviction and see the need to do so.

Thirdly, A single failure of judgement in one instance does not indicate a contamination of the whole. Even multiples failures don't. In fact, it's often said that to succeed, one must fail. Failure of judgement is something we respect and see as a means to a healthier more enlightened end. One or many bad choices does not extend to an exclusive future of the same, nor the reverse. It's too simplistic an argument; not to mention illogical. We as a society tend to frown on throwing the baby out with the bath water. Why make an exception in regards to the most sacred of democratic rights?

Last, Let us also not forget that we are talking about RIGHTS, not PRIVLEAGES. Rights are non-revocable! As example, you have the right to freedom of association, you have the privilege of using the public motorways. Do we value our RIGHT to vote so little that we are willing to equate its worth with driving a car? If so, shouldn't one then be licensed to vote? (A whole other can of worms, I know.)(Section in Italics added June 18/2007)

I learnt long ago that conviction of an offence does not necessarily mean you have committed a crime. Even if you had technically violated a law, it does not mean you were wrong, morally or otherwise. Our legal system is rather arbitrary and has little basis in justice. It tries to be just, and some that work in it try very hard to keep it so, but it is far from it. A legal conviction means one thing only, that the convict was perceived guilty by his peer(s) of violating an interpretation of an arbitrary rule whose spirit may or may not have been violated and has therefore been punished, or not, in a matter befitting the weight and severity of the crime, or not.

To revoke someones franchise because they ran afoul of the legal system is self righteous as well. A conviction says nothing of innocence or guilt, of intent of action, of clarity of mind or pureness of heart. It says nothing of the convicts ability to clear and rational reasoning, nor how they would exercise their rights and responsibilities as a citizen. It is an illusion of justice in an attempt to hold people accountable for their actions and keep society from breaking down because of fear. It may be the best system out there, but it sucks, and it is not just. As such a conviction is not good enough a reason to revoke the prime method of participating in the democracy it purports to protect.

"Why is the idea a seemingly popular one?" is a much better question.

If a vote is a judgement on the execution of a governments roles and responsibilities, and being that government is the representation and logistical machinery of a society, a vote is a judgement on society itself, of where it's been, and where it's going. This being true, then maybe some people don't want to be judged or held accountable by those who may have the perception that society has failed them and is in part or wholly responsible for their conviction and the legal and social consequences therein. Maybe it's easier to declare arbitrary laws against people and behaviours that some of us feel are unpalatable and then lock up those who violate said laws and throw away the proverbial key.

Maybe it's comforting to not be held accountable by the disenfranchised and the neglected, by the sick of mind and and sick of body, or the dissenting and the poor. If we don't have to look in the mirror, if we don't have to listen to their wants and needs, if we can just remove them physically and legally from participating in society, then maybe we won't have to deal with their problems.

A society can be best judged by how it treats it's poor (of wealth, body and MIND), what does it say then that we lock them up and want to strip them of their only recourse? Are we scared of what they may say if they had to sit in judgement of US? Is that why the morally righteous among us feel the need to strip a citizen of his franchise?

Can we live with that?

I can't.

posted by Kasper @ 05:32