When I hear of voting rights restoration, I am more inclined to think wider.
For me the question is When should a Felon have full citizenship rights restored?
End of punishment plus 4 Presidential Election cycles seems right to me, but this number is arbitrary. My thought is that 17 years is a long time to go without being caught with more felonies. Assuming a 10 year incarceration/probation period and a crime committed at 16, the person could restore the citizenship rights at age 43. For those who commit crimes later in life or have a violent streak, then the rights wouldn't be restored until their twilight years.
I really just don't understand any rationale for not letting cons vote, even while in prison. I think there would be more to discuss if I had any idea what the rationale behind not letting them is. Mind giving some reasons?
Giving them their rights back isn't enough. There needs to be some sort of voter education program they attend before they get out. People who vote are more invested in their community and general well being and probably commit fewer crimes.
My dad was in prison for about 20 of my 30 years and didn't even finish high school. He's got severe mental and emotional problems on top of that. There probably isn't a greater example of an out of touch person I can think of. Can ex-cons with documented these problems really benefit from being able to vote? Would society benefit from it? I know I may sound pessimistic but all those people who don't vote are too ignorant to appreciate the privilege and aren't likely to miss it if it were taken away.
When I hear of voting rights restoration, I am more inclined to think wider.
For me the question is When should a Felon have full citizenship rights restored?
End of punishment plus 4 Presidential Election cycles seems right to me, but this number is arbitrary. My thought is that 17 years is a long time to go without being caught with more felonies. Assuming a 10 year incarceration/probation period and a crime committed at 16, the person could restore the citizenship rights at age 43. For those who commit crimes later in life or have a violent streak, then the rights wouldn't be restored until their twilight years.
I really just don't understand any rationale for not letting cons vote, even while in prison. I think there would be more to discuss if I had any idea what the rationale behind not letting them is. Mind giving some reasons?
Some of it has to do with giving people decision making power when they have no stake in the decisions. If someone is in prison and owns no property should they get to vote on a levee to raise property taxes? Should drug dealers in prison get to vote on legalizing drugs? Partially I think there is a fear that if criminals can vote our laws would slowly deteriorate.
I assume that's the reasoning behind it, whether or not that line of reasoning is practical is another matter.
When I hear of voting rights restoration, I am more inclined to think wider.
For me the question is When should a Felon have full citizenship rights restored?
End of punishment plus 4 Presidential Election cycles seems right to me, but this number is arbitrary. My thought is that 17 years is a long time to go without being caught with more felonies. Assuming a 10 year incarceration/probation period and a crime committed at 16, the person could restore the citizenship rights at age 43. For those who commit crimes later in life or have a violent streak, then the rights wouldn't be restored until their twilight years.
I really just don't understand any rationale for not letting cons vote, even while in prison. I think there would be more to discuss if I had any idea what the rationale behind not letting them is. Mind giving some reasons?
Some of it has to do with giving people decision making power when they have no stake in the decisions. If someone is in prison and owns no property should they get to vote on a levee to raise property taxes? Should drug dealers in prison get to vote on legalizing drugs? Partially I think there is a fear that if criminals can vote our laws would slowly deteriorate.
I assume that's the reasoning behind it, whether or not that line of reasoning is practical is another matter.
Unless you're in for life, you do have a stake in those decisions. It's not like life in prison is the standard punishment... you can be in for 6 months and still own your house. Also, plenty of people on the outside don't own a house, but still have a vote.
More generally, we don't filter who can vote by who is a good person, who is well informed about the issues at stake, who will vote for the common good rather than their own selfish interest, etc.
(Ironically, a drug dealer in prison who intends to resume dealing on the outside who votes for his own self-interest would vote no on legalizing drugs; illegal drug dealers would go away FAST in a world where drugs are legal. Drug cartels aren't going to be able to compete with Marlboro and other agribusiness or chemical manufacturing giants)
(Ironically, a drug dealer in prison who intends to resume dealing on the outside who votes for his own self-interest would vote no on legalizing drugs; illegal drug dealers would go away FAST in a world where drugs are legal. Drug cartels aren't going to be able to compete with Marlboro and other agribusiness or chemical manufacturing giants)
I read an economist's article saying that marijuana is so easy to grow and process (I mean, you can do it in your basement - that's saying something) that if agribusiness were able to take off with it the stuff would be cheaper than sugar. It wasn't a flag-waving pro-legalization piece, either; more of a theoretical exercise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
(Ironically, a drug dealer in prison who intends to resume dealing on the outside who votes for his own self-interest would vote no on legalizing drugs; illegal drug dealers would go away FAST in a world where drugs are legal. Drug cartels aren't going to be able to compete with Marlboro and other agribusiness or chemical manufacturing giants)
I read an economist's article saying that marijuana is so easy to grow and process (I mean, you can do it in your basement - that's saying something) that if agribusiness were able to take off with it the stuff would be cheaper than sugar. It wasn't a flag-waving pro-legalization piece, either; more of a theoretical exercise.
No surprises there. The cost of drugs on the streets today includes risk pay for dealers, distributors, manufacturers, all of whom risk long prison sentences... weaponry, guards, paramilitary soldiers in the areas where these things are grown... basically, all kinds of enormous expense that any legal business doesn't have to deal with. There's a reason drug runners don't traffic in tobacco or alcohol when those things are legal; they could never compete, even though they'd be dodging quite heavy taxation.
Sorry for the delay:
Lack of voting rights boils down to a society that is run by those who obey it's laws. Society has decided the difference between criminal acts that are misdemeanor and felony. The former having no bearing on the rights of the citizen. The later presented by society as a failure of the person and direct harm against the society.
A person's willingness and participation in a felonious act, followed by the persecution and judgment of guilty shows that they no longer can be trusted as a member of society. This behavior is of such detriment to society that the person is no longer qualified to shape the future of society and the laws that govern it.
Fundamentals of sustaining the society include not giving voting rights to non-members of the society, including those ostracized from society due to felonious acts.
If we don't trust them, why do we let them out of prison? A released prisoner is not ostracized and is a member of society.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Some of it has to do with giving people decision making power when they have no stake in the decisions. If someone is in prison and owns no property should they get to vote on a levee to raise property taxes? Should drug dealers in prison get to vote on legalizing drugs? Partially I think there is a fear that if criminals can vote our laws would slowly deteriorate.
But they do have a stake in it. If anything, they have a greater stake in it, given that the government is currently in control of every aspect of their lives.
Sorry for the delay:
Lack of voting rights boils down to a society that is run by those who obey it's laws.
Why? You're just stating that as a fact, not giving me any reasoning.
A person's willingness and participation in a felonious act, followed by the persecution and judgment of guilty shows that they no longer can be trusted as a member of society. This behavior is of such detriment to society that the person is no longer qualified to shape the future of society and the laws that govern it.
I find a lot of the things that people vote for "detrimental to society." However, I recognize an inherent problem with not letting people vote because I might not like what they vote for.
Fundamentals of sustaining the society include not giving voting rights to non-members of the society, including those ostracized from society due to felonious acts.
See above. They are members of society in a different capacity and, as Blinking Spirit indicated, eventually get out most of the time.
Some of it has to do with giving people decision making power when they have no stake in the decisions. If someone is in prison and owns no property should they get to vote on a levee to raise property taxes? Should drug dealers in prison get to vote on legalizing drugs? Partially I think there is a fear that if criminals can vote our laws would slowly deteriorate.
But they do have a stake in it. If anything, they have a greater stake in it, given that the government is currently in control of every aspect of their lives.
I didnt say I agreed. I just said that is probably something around the reasoning used.
Remember (as far as I know) the laws that remove voting rights from felons are ridiculously old. Felons were not allowed to vote long before trying to outrun a cop in your car was considered to be a felony. I am not even sure what was a felony at the time...
Lets be fair, if the American prison systems would have been more on rehabilitation and less on incarceration early on, would we even be having this debate? The problem is not all ex-cons should have the right to vote, along with a list of other things. There are some that should. But the bottom line if the prison systems worked more for rehabilitation and reentry as a useful member of society, this would be a non-issue.
Why is it when I give a rationale for why the laws are written then suddenly I must give reasoning beyond what is stated as to why this is a good thing?
Because this is the Debate forum. Also different states have different rules. Some allow voting while still in prison, some you have to wait until after you're released, and others you essentially never get them back. So it is plainly obvious that not everyone agrees on what the law should be.
Additionally, with the USA being the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the highest known in history, it's not unreasonable to think that laws surrounding incarceration may be questioned and require justification.
Just bringing this up because it got glossed over as somehow obviously wrong early in the topic:
Now, maybe they are focused on the "black men" too much, making me cringe at the subtle racism. But then, it does have a noticeable effect, as they point out, in places like Florida.
It's cringe-worthy but not misguided. Florida's current laws on felons voting date back only to 2011 - during a couple year period of time when voter repression laws targeted to Democratic voting blocs were popping up left and right in Republican-controlled states. Prison populations, by classic demographics, lean overwhelmingly left - minorities and urban poor are vastly overrepresented in prisons compared to their percentage of the general population. In Florida, 23% of the African-American population does not have the right to vote. In Virginia, it's 20%.
(Disclaimer: I'm not trying to open a discussion on whether minorities are unfairly targeted by the criminal justice system - that'd be a topic for a different thread. The relevant fact here is that minorities are far more likely to be incarcerated than whites - African Americans are incarcerated at a rate more than triple that of whites - and the 'why' doesn't matter when discussing what the consequences of giving felons the right to vote are)
There is an element of racism and also of partisan politics in the discussion that drives the national conversation to a degree we're not seeing in this debate thread (where most people are generally on board including some solidly conservative folks). Suddenly lifting bans on felons voting in certain states would drive the country fairly hard to the left.
You could also say that the person has done this crime and been convicted and that the PUNISHMENT for committing a felony DOES include that they wear a funny hat on Tuesdays. You would once again just be stating your position, not giving any reasoning for it. I'm not getting anything beyond something about how harming society means you shouldn't be allowed to participate in society. But I could argue that loud people, people who commit misdemeanors, stupid people, and Democrats do that, and we still let them vote.
@Brasswire,
Only 10 states either ban the voting or require an application to vote: Florida can apply for it. Texas grants the right to vote upon completion of the full sentence. California allows it during probation as does New York. That covers the big-4 States.
Reality is that this is a non-issue since only two states outright ban Felons from voting.
That would still make it an issue in those two states.
And I don't think you can just brush off Florida and similar states so easily. Yes, they can apply to get back the right to vote, but that application can easily be rejected or left spinning their wheels in bureaucratic hell (and that's after the mandatory waiting period). In 2011 Florida approved a meager 78 of the applications it received and had over 21,000 in it's backlog according to this article on nbcnews.
Are prisoners no longer citizens?
It never made any sense to me that prisoners can't vote even before or after.
Two states is problem enough. That's about how many times more real a problem than voter fraud? (Ex cons unable to vote > proven cases of voter fraud)
Depends, excons lose a lot of rights after serving their time. Things they will never be able to do/have because of having the stigma of being a felon. Not having some of these rights could very well just make them people with in a system they have no say over.
Are you arguing to come to point to invalidate the position of: felonies are serious crimes and those who are convicted of them shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Their judgment is so poor that they commit a felony. Their political will should be invalid based upon that alone. Pretty much sums up the logical explanation of why not.
Criminology is more complicated than "their judgement is so poor that they commit a felony."
And no, you couldn't make a funny hat on Tuesday part of the punishment because it is unusual. Cruel and unusual punishments are not allowed. The high seems to think that they are separate: a punishment that is cruel or a punishment that is unusual (typically meaning the time and fine must match the crime)
If a punishment must match the crime, then perhaps only people involved in voting related crimes should not be allowed to vote.
Unusual you say? Like, so unusual that someone might say:
A released prisoner is not ostracized and is a member of society.
Depends on if they were a felon or not. Felons are limited to where and what they can do when released and for the most part are herded into a certain element of society. Would you vote for a felon running for local office?
Felons are limited to where and what they can do when released and for the most part are herded into a certain element of society.
You're begging the question. Ought they to be treated this way?
Depends on why they are a felon and if they are repeat offenders. I personally dont believe in time served is enough proof a felon is able to adjust to society. As I stated earlier, the American prison system is not really all that good at rehabilitation as it is incarceration.
Would you vote for a felon running for local office?
Depends on the circumstances. If he stole a car when he was twenty and now he's fifty? Sure.
Still the experiences of an individual tends to stay with a person and shape their views at a later age. I personally would not want a person who stole a car and got caught running for office at any age. They would be in position to ease the punishment for such crimes in the future. Again, time served is not a guarantee they can or will adjust to society.
The real question is do we have the time, resources, and patients to make sure every felon gets a fair shake? I dont believe we do, hence the way we treat them. America has always leaned toward the cautious side when dealing with possible dangerous outcomes. Until we change how we handle felons in prison, I dont believe we can change the way we handle felons once they get out.
Again, time served is not a guarantee they can or will adjust to society.
A guarantee? No. That's why you look in depth at their record, their actions, their statements, and try to form an impression of their individual character. Y'know, just like you do for any other candidate.
Again, time served is not a guarantee they can or will adjust to society.
A guarantee? No. That's why you look in depth at their record, their actions, their statements, and try to form an impression of their individual character. Y'know, just like you do for any other candidate.
They would be in position to ease the punishment for such crimes in the future.
Sometimes punishments need to be eased. Somebody who has been through prison may be uniquely suited to the task of prison reform.
I just think you are looking at the wrong end of it. You are trying to make incarcerated felons fit into society. If we changed the way we deal with our felons/convicts while in prison, we wouldnt have to worry about chancing giving rights to the wrong ex-con.
Felons actually do retain rights while in prison. In-fact half of the 8th amendment exclusively deals with the rights of felons.
The fact that our leaders are held accountable to the citizens is a pillar of our modern democracy, and they are held accountable by the vote. It makes me feel uneasy when it's possible to remove that sort of right from any person, based on any criteria.
If you adopt a policy to say that certain people are unfit to vote, than what's to stop people from saying that YOU're unfit to vote, perhaps because you're atheist, or some other religion, or because you're homeless or because of something else.
You might be tempted to say that being atheist and being a criminal are not the same thing, but there are some people who see them in the same light. Surely you've met these people. You might even be one.
how can you expect them to respect your right to vote as an inalienable right when you can't even universally extend the same courtesy yourself?
The real question is whether there's a good reason to believe these people actually will make significantly worse decisions at the polls than other people generally.
The example, "I personally would not want a person who stole a car and got caught running for office at any age. They would be in position to ease the punishment for such crimes in the future" is worth discussing. Why would a 50 year old who doesn't intend to steal a car in the future care to reduce the punishment for such a crime? A 50 year old who does intend to do that might vote that way, but that's true whether they have in the past done it or not. Reticence statistics matter here, so should we be looking for the point at which you're statistically no more likely to repeat your crime than the general public? That kind of attempt doesn't really square with a categorical, "at any age", does it? And then again, if they're elected to a position of power, how likely are they to go out and steal a car as the mayor? And finally, what if your choice is between a guy who stole a car at age 18 and went to prison for a while, then got out, became involved in the community to help make a positive difference for 20 years and is extremely well-respected versus an obvious sleazeball who hasn't actually been convicted of anything? Obviously the details of the two lives matter, but once again that defies the categorical "at any age" - the details always matter.
For voters, the connection is even less robust. Voters rarely vote on a law to lower the penalty for some particular kind of behavior - they vote for candidates representing a wide range of positions. Sometimes a candidate who is less tough on crime comes up; the criminal might vote for that person, right? Except that the criminal generally believes he can beat the law (or he wouldn't try), and in the meantime they're as likely to be the victim of a crime if crime rates go up because crime is less punished as anyone else.
No, I simply don't buy the just-so "Criminals might vote for lawlessness" argument.
I can see the 'bad judgment' argument, though I'd say that'd be a very case-by-case sort of thing (if I'm the leading expert on the consequences of oil fracking and I get busted for having some marijuana, well, society would still be better off following my judgment on a lot of subjects than ignoring me). After all, everyone - everyone makes bad decisions. In no other case do we try to filter you out for being likely to make a bad decision - basic science literacy is not required to vote on subjects concerning scientific knowledge. If democracy is a good idea, it works well even with the participation of those demonstrating poor judgment. If it doesn't work well with those people, it doesn't work well period because you never get away from them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I really just don't understand any rationale for not letting cons vote, even while in prison. I think there would be more to discuss if I had any idea what the rationale behind not letting them is. Mind giving some reasons?
My dad was in prison for about 20 of my 30 years and didn't even finish high school. He's got severe mental and emotional problems on top of that. There probably isn't a greater example of an out of touch person I can think of. Can ex-cons with documented these problems really benefit from being able to vote? Would society benefit from it? I know I may sound pessimistic but all those people who don't vote are too ignorant to appreciate the privilege and aren't likely to miss it if it were taken away.
Some of it has to do with giving people decision making power when they have no stake in the decisions. If someone is in prison and owns no property should they get to vote on a levee to raise property taxes? Should drug dealers in prison get to vote on legalizing drugs? Partially I think there is a fear that if criminals can vote our laws would slowly deteriorate.
I assume that's the reasoning behind it, whether or not that line of reasoning is practical is another matter.
Unless you're in for life, you do have a stake in those decisions. It's not like life in prison is the standard punishment... you can be in for 6 months and still own your house. Also, plenty of people on the outside don't own a house, but still have a vote.
More generally, we don't filter who can vote by who is a good person, who is well informed about the issues at stake, who will vote for the common good rather than their own selfish interest, etc.
(Ironically, a drug dealer in prison who intends to resume dealing on the outside who votes for his own self-interest would vote no on legalizing drugs; illegal drug dealers would go away FAST in a world where drugs are legal. Drug cartels aren't going to be able to compete with Marlboro and other agribusiness or chemical manufacturing giants)
I read an economist's article saying that marijuana is so easy to grow and process (I mean, you can do it in your basement - that's saying something) that if agribusiness were able to take off with it the stuff would be cheaper than sugar. It wasn't a flag-waving pro-legalization piece, either; more of a theoretical exercise.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No surprises there. The cost of drugs on the streets today includes risk pay for dealers, distributors, manufacturers, all of whom risk long prison sentences... weaponry, guards, paramilitary soldiers in the areas where these things are grown... basically, all kinds of enormous expense that any legal business doesn't have to deal with. There's a reason drug runners don't traffic in tobacco or alcohol when those things are legal; they could never compete, even though they'd be dodging quite heavy taxation.
Sorry for the mild derailment.
If we don't trust them, why do we let them out of prison? A released prisoner is not ostracized and is a member of society.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I didnt say I agreed. I just said that is probably something around the reasoning used.
Remember (as far as I know) the laws that remove voting rights from felons are ridiculously old. Felons were not allowed to vote long before trying to outrun a cop in your car was considered to be a felony. I am not even sure what was a felony at the time...
Because this is the Debate forum. Also different states have different rules. Some allow voting while still in prison, some you have to wait until after you're released, and others you essentially never get them back. So it is plainly obvious that not everyone agrees on what the law should be.
Additionally, with the USA being the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the highest known in history, it's not unreasonable to think that laws surrounding incarceration may be questioned and require justification.
It's cringe-worthy but not misguided. Florida's current laws on felons voting date back only to 2011 - during a couple year period of time when voter repression laws targeted to Democratic voting blocs were popping up left and right in Republican-controlled states. Prison populations, by classic demographics, lean overwhelmingly left - minorities and urban poor are vastly overrepresented in prisons compared to their percentage of the general population. In Florida, 23% of the African-American population does not have the right to vote. In Virginia, it's 20%.
(Disclaimer: I'm not trying to open a discussion on whether minorities are unfairly targeted by the criminal justice system - that'd be a topic for a different thread. The relevant fact here is that minorities are far more likely to be incarcerated than whites - African Americans are incarcerated at a rate more than triple that of whites - and the 'why' doesn't matter when discussing what the consequences of giving felons the right to vote are)
There is an element of racism and also of partisan politics in the discussion that drives the national conversation to a degree we're not seeing in this debate thread (where most people are generally on board including some solidly conservative folks). Suddenly lifting bans on felons voting in certain states would drive the country fairly hard to the left.
It never made any sense to me that prisoners can't vote even before or after.
Two states is problem enough. That's about how many times more real a problem than voter fraud? (Ex cons unable to vote > proven cases of voter fraud)
That would still make it an issue in those two states.
And I don't think you can just brush off Florida and similar states so easily. Yes, they can apply to get back the right to vote, but that application can easily be rejected or left spinning their wheels in bureaucratic hell (and that's after the mandatory waiting period). In 2011 Florida approved a meager 78 of the applications it received and had over 21,000 in it's backlog according to this article on nbcnews.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/11/13806293-in-florida-1-in-4-blacks-of-voting-age-cannot-vote-because-of-felony-conviction
Depends, excons lose a lot of rights after serving their time. Things they will never be able to do/have because of having the stigma of being a felon. Not having some of these rights could very well just make them people with in a system they have no say over.
Unusual you say? Like, so unusual that someone might say:
Depends on if they were a felon or not. Felons are limited to where and what they can do when released and for the most part are herded into a certain element of society. Would you vote for a felon running for local office?
You're begging the question. Ought they to be treated this way?
Depends on the circumstances. If he stole a car when he was twenty and now he's fifty? Sure.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Depends on why they are a felon and if they are repeat offenders. I personally dont believe in time served is enough proof a felon is able to adjust to society. As I stated earlier, the American prison system is not really all that good at rehabilitation as it is incarceration.
Still the experiences of an individual tends to stay with a person and shape their views at a later age. I personally would not want a person who stole a car and got caught running for office at any age. They would be in position to ease the punishment for such crimes in the future. Again, time served is not a guarantee they can or will adjust to society.
The real question is do we have the time, resources, and patients to make sure every felon gets a fair shake? I dont believe we do, hence the way we treat them. America has always leaned toward the cautious side when dealing with possible dangerous outcomes. Until we change how we handle felons in prison, I dont believe we can change the way we handle felons once they get out.
Sometimes punishments need to be eased. Somebody who has been through prison may be uniquely suited to the task of prison reform.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I just think you are looking at the wrong end of it. You are trying to make incarcerated felons fit into society. If we changed the way we deal with our felons/convicts while in prison, we wouldnt have to worry about chancing giving rights to the wrong ex-con.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The fact that our leaders are held accountable to the citizens is a pillar of our modern democracy, and they are held accountable by the vote. It makes me feel uneasy when it's possible to remove that sort of right from any person, based on any criteria.
If you adopt a policy to say that certain people are unfit to vote, than what's to stop people from saying that YOU're unfit to vote, perhaps because you're atheist, or some other religion, or because you're homeless or because of something else.
You might be tempted to say that being atheist and being a criminal are not the same thing, but there are some people who see them in the same light. Surely you've met these people. You might even be one.
how can you expect them to respect your right to vote as an inalienable right when you can't even universally extend the same courtesy yourself?
The example, "I personally would not want a person who stole a car and got caught running for office at any age. They would be in position to ease the punishment for such crimes in the future" is worth discussing. Why would a 50 year old who doesn't intend to steal a car in the future care to reduce the punishment for such a crime? A 50 year old who does intend to do that might vote that way, but that's true whether they have in the past done it or not. Reticence statistics matter here, so should we be looking for the point at which you're statistically no more likely to repeat your crime than the general public? That kind of attempt doesn't really square with a categorical, "at any age", does it? And then again, if they're elected to a position of power, how likely are they to go out and steal a car as the mayor? And finally, what if your choice is between a guy who stole a car at age 18 and went to prison for a while, then got out, became involved in the community to help make a positive difference for 20 years and is extremely well-respected versus an obvious sleazeball who hasn't actually been convicted of anything? Obviously the details of the two lives matter, but once again that defies the categorical "at any age" - the details always matter.
For voters, the connection is even less robust. Voters rarely vote on a law to lower the penalty for some particular kind of behavior - they vote for candidates representing a wide range of positions. Sometimes a candidate who is less tough on crime comes up; the criminal might vote for that person, right? Except that the criminal generally believes he can beat the law (or he wouldn't try), and in the meantime they're as likely to be the victim of a crime if crime rates go up because crime is less punished as anyone else.
No, I simply don't buy the just-so "Criminals might vote for lawlessness" argument.
I can see the 'bad judgment' argument, though I'd say that'd be a very case-by-case sort of thing (if I'm the leading expert on the consequences of oil fracking and I get busted for having some marijuana, well, society would still be better off following my judgment on a lot of subjects than ignoring me). After all, everyone - everyone makes bad decisions. In no other case do we try to filter you out for being likely to make a bad decision - basic science literacy is not required to vote on subjects concerning scientific knowledge. If democracy is a good idea, it works well even with the participation of those demonstrating poor judgment. If it doesn't work well with those people, it doesn't work well period because you never get away from them.