Bernie Sanders Got It Right on CNN: Felons Ought to Be Allowed to Vote

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

But Locke lived in a time when only white, male, wealthy landowners could vote. Today, the right to vote is enshrined in democratic constitutions and international treaties. In American history, many states’ exclusions of those with a criminal record from voting date to the post-Civil War period and were clearly aimed at denying the franchise to African Americans.

Criminal justice reform advocates argue that suffering a Medieval-style “civil death” dehumanizes prisoners, prevents their reintegration into society, and perpetuates inequalities in our political system. We should not assume that prisoners are less knowledgeable about politics than those outside of prison—that’s a pretty low bar, after all. Encouraging prisoners to feel involved in the political process can have real benefits too. Isolating prisoners from the political process during and after their incarceration further stigmatizes and isolates them, and that can encourage reoffending.

Prisoners lose many of their rights when they go to prison. They can’t serve on a jury from a prison cell, or own guns; both of those are probably reasonable proscriptions. They probably should not own guns. But prisoners do not lose all their rights in prison. They are entitled to practice their religion and can challenge the conditions of their confinement. Taking away prisoners’ liberty is already a heavy punishment. Allowing them to cast an absentee ballot is not an unreasonable privilege.

The most important consequence of allowing prisoners to vote is that it would remove the incentives for “prison gerrymandering.” In most U.S. states, prisoners are counted by the census based on where they are incarcerated, not where they are registered to vote. Because most large prisons are in sparsely populated rural areas, prison complexes have an important effect on gerrymandering.

(snip)


https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-got-it-right-on-cnn-felons-ought-to-be-allowed-to-vote

[Shell_Seas]

1. I don't let my kids eat cookies while they are in time out.

Same idea. Sure they should be able to vote again once they pay their debt to society, but I disagree that we should let people vote while they are in prison.

[Uncle Joe]

11. I've always thought of voting as a bedrock principal that

our Democratic Republic rests upon.

It comes under attack in all manner of way and the only reason those attempts at thwarting the peoples' will are successful is because of the creation of a line which can and will be moved by the enemies of democracy.

I believe the only way to stop that from happening full proof is to eliminate the line.

Cookies are nice but I don't consider them to be an inalienable or sacred right.

[LongtimeAZDem]

14. Many would say the same about the right to bear arms. YMMV

[Uncle Joe]

18. Do you believe that?

[LongtimeAZDem]

24. To a degree, but that's not the point. The incarcerated forfeited their civil rights as a result

of their offenses against society.

When they have paid their debt for those offenses, they get to participate again.

[Uncle Joe]

47. They did not forfeit their right to freedom of religion and to address prison conditions.

They are incarcerated and to my way of thinking that is punishment, so the question becomes do we as society believe in redemption?

If we do, I see no harm and possible redemptive benefit in allowing prisoners to vote.

[Lancero]

71. That, of course, assumes that they all have debts to pay.

Our "justice" system has, time and time again, been shown to be skewed against minorities.

[LongtimeAZDem]

72. True, but that's an issue of the application of justice, not of the rights of the incarcerated

[Lancero]

75. Perhaps, but it doesn't exactly mesh with your claims that the incarcerated forfeit their rights.

As history shows, a lot of groups have those rights stolen away from them rather than forfeiting them.

[LongtimeAZDem]

76. It should have been obvious that my statement applied to the justifiably convicted

I will keep in mind the fact that it wasn't for future posts.

[Uncle Joe]

79. Well that's the billion dollar question, justifiable or unjustifiable? Sometimes we never find out

or discovery is made too late.

(snip)

A number of people are claimed to have been innocent victims of the death penalty.[3][4] Newly available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 20 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States,[5] but DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases. Others have been released on the basis of weak cases against them, sometimes involving prosecutorial misconduct; resulting in acquittal at retrial, charges dropped, or innocence-based pardons. The Death Penalty Information Center (U.S.) has published a list of 10 inmates "executed but possibly innocent".[6] Of all executions in the United States, 144 prisoners have been exonerated while on death row. [7]

(snip)

Joe Arridy (April 15, 1915 – January 6, 1939) was a mentally disabled American man executed for rape and murder and posthumously granted a pardon. Arridy was sentenced to death for the murder and rape of a 15-year-old schoolgirl from Pueblo, Colorado. He confessed to murdering the girl and assaulting her sister. Due to the sensational nature of the crime precautions were taken to keep him from being hanged by vigilante justice. His sentence was executed after multiple stays on January 6, 1939, in the Colorado gas chamber in the state penitentiary in Canon City, Colorado. Arridy was the first Colorado prisoner posthumously pardoned in January 2011 by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a former district attorney, after research had shown that Arridy was very likely not in Pueblo when the crime happened and had been coerced into confessing. Among other things, Arridy had an IQ of 46, which was equal to the mental age of a 6-year-old. He did not even understand that he was going to be executed, and played with a toy train that the warden, Roy Best, had given to him as a present. A man named Frank Aguilar had been executed in 1937 in the Colorado gas chamber for the same crime for which Arridy ended up also being executed. Arridy's posthumous pardon in 2011 was the first such pardon in Colorado history. A press release from the governor's office stated, "[A]n overwhelming body of evidence indicates the 23-year-old Arridy was innocent, including false and coerced confessions, the likelihood that Arridy was not in Pueblo at the time of the killing, and an admission of guilt by someone else." The governor also pointed to Arridy's intellectual disabilities. The governor said, “Granting a posthumous pardon is an extraordinary remedy. But the tragic conviction of Mr. Arridy and his subsequent execution on Jan. 6, 1939, merit such relief based on the great likelihood that Mr. Arridy was, in fact, innocent of the crime for which he was executed, and his severe mental disability at the time of his trial and execution."

George Stinney, a 14-year old black boy, was electrocuted in South Carolina in 1944 for the murder of Betty June Binnicker, age 11, as well as Mary Emma Thames, age 8. The arrest occurred on March 23, 1944 in Alcolu, inside of Clarendon County, South Carolina. Apparently, the two girls rode their bikes past Stinney’s house where they asked him and his sister about a certain type of flower; after this encounter, the girls went missing and were found dead in a ditch the following morning. After an hour of interrogation by the officers, a deputy stated that Stinney confessed to the murder. The confession explained that Stinney wanted to have intercourse with Betty, so he wanted to kill Mary to get Betty alone; however, both girls fought back and that is when he killed both of them. This case still remains a very controversial one due to the fact that the judicial process showed severe shortcomings. An example can be made out of this case by showing how the judicial system does not always properly orchestrate.[22] He was the youngest person executed in the United States. More than 70 years later, a judge threw out the conviction, calling it a "great injustice."[23]

Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in December 1989. Subsequent investigations cast strong doubt upon DeLuna's guilt for the murder of which he had been convicted.[24][25] Carlos DeLuna was executed in 1989 for stabbing a gas station clerk to death. His execution came about six years after the crime was committed. The trial ended up attracting local attention, but it was never suggested that an innocent man was about to be punished while the actual killer went free. DeLuna was found blocks away from the crime scene with $149 in his pocket. From that point on, it went downhill for the young Carlos DeLuna. A wrongful eyewitness testimony is what formed the case against him. Unfortunately, DeLuna’s previous criminal record was very much used against him.[26] The real killer, Carlos Hernandez, was a repeat violent offender who actually had a history of slashing women with his unique buck knife, not to mention he looked very similar to Carlos DeLuna. Hernandez did not keep quiet about his murder; apparently he went around bragging about the killing of Lopez. In 1999, Hernandez was imprisoned for attacking his neighbor with a knife.[27]

(snip)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

So long as we have lines in determining who has a right to vote and who doesn't those lines can and will be moved by cynical, cowardly politicians and their lobbyists.

[dogman]

84. Voting is not a treat.

We have a major problem with a lack of voting. These same felons are counted as residents of a district yet cannot vote in that district. They are a golden nugget for those seeking to gerrymander a district. Also they are disproportionately minorities and poor.

[stonecutter357]

2. I am not ok with a Pedophile ever voting ...

[leftofcool]

7. I agree. Or a terrorist bomber either

[rgbecker]

10. Hey! We could illiminate the mentally ill, Homosexuals and Jews too!

[stonecutter357]

19. We could illiminate the mentally ill, Homosexuals and Jews too! No just Pedophiles !

[dogman]

83. What will you do about the votes of all of the unknown pedophiles?

How will the country survive?

[Uncle Joe]

22. An advanced society would never, ever go that far, it's "inconceivable."

[revmclaren]

29. Holy s&$t...

rgbecker wrote...

10. Hey! We could illiminate the mentally ill, Homosexuals and Jews too

Are you actually comparing the mentally ill, Homosexuals and Jews, to terrorists, rapists, , pedophiles and other hardcore convicted criminals???

What kind of s&$t is this??????




ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[LongtimeAZDem]

37. Agreed; that's really beyond the pale

[Uncle Joe]

46. It's history and the United States despite our belief in "American Exceptionalism" is not immune

to those alterations.

So long as we have a line determining who can or can't vote that line can and will be moved by cynical, cowardly politicians and their lobbyists.

[revmclaren]

49. No amount of explaining will sanitize

the post you are defending. Sanders I-VT is backing a very unpopular stance that is only going to hurt him in the primaries. But by all means, please continue and encourage any and all Sanders I-VT 'fans' here on DU and out in the real world to push this politically suicidal stance. I hope he listens. Just means less time before he is out. IMHO of course.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Uncle Joe]

51. Whoever said history was "sanitary?"

[revmclaren]

53. Im talking about post 10...

But you know that...

Please proceed.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Uncle Joe]

54. Okay

(snip)

A number of people are claimed to have been innocent victims of the death penalty.[3][4] Newly available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 20 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States,[5] but DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases. Others have been released on the basis of weak cases against them, sometimes involving prosecutorial misconduct; resulting in acquittal at retrial, charges dropped, or innocence-based pardons. The Death Penalty Information Center (U.S.) has published a list of 10 inmates "executed but possibly innocent".[6] Of all executions in the United States, 144 prisoners have been exonerated while on death row. [7]

(snip)

Joe Arridy (April 15, 1915 – January 6, 1939) was a mentally disabled American man executed for rape and murder and posthumously granted a pardon. Arridy was sentenced to death for the murder and rape of a 15-year-old schoolgirl from Pueblo, Colorado. He confessed to murdering the girl and assaulting her sister. Due to the sensational nature of the crime precautions were taken to keep him from being hanged by vigilante justice. His sentence was executed after multiple stays on January 6, 1939, in the Colorado gas chamber in the state penitentiary in Canon City, Colorado. Arridy was the first Colorado prisoner posthumously pardoned in January 2011 by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a former district attorney, after research had shown that Arridy was very likely not in Pueblo when the crime happened and had been coerced into confessing. Among other things, Arridy had an IQ of 46, which was equal to the mental age of a 6-year-old. He did not even understand that he was going to be executed, and played with a toy train that the warden, Roy Best, had given to him as a present. A man named Frank Aguilar had been executed in 1937 in the Colorado gas chamber for the same crime for which Arridy ended up also being executed. Arridy's posthumous pardon in 2011 was the first such pardon in Colorado history. A press release from the governor's office stated, "[A]n overwhelming body of evidence indicates the 23-year-old Arridy was innocent, including false and coerced confessions, the likelihood that Arridy was not in Pueblo at the time of the killing, and an admission of guilt by someone else." The governor also pointed to Arridy's intellectual disabilities. The governor said, “Granting a posthumous pardon is an extraordinary remedy. But the tragic conviction of Mr. Arridy and his subsequent execution on Jan. 6, 1939, merit such relief based on the great likelihood that Mr. Arridy was, in fact, innocent of the crime for which he was executed, and his severe mental disability at the time of his trial and execution."

George Stinney, a 14-year old black boy, was electrocuted in South Carolina in 1944 for the murder of Betty June Binnicker, age 11, as well as Mary Emma Thames, age 8. The arrest occurred on March 23, 1944 in Alcolu, inside of Clarendon County, South Carolina. Apparently, the two girls rode their bikes past Stinney’s house where they asked him and his sister about a certain type of flower; after this encounter, the girls went missing and were found dead in a ditch the following morning. After an hour of interrogation by the officers, a deputy stated that Stinney confessed to the murder. The confession explained that Stinney wanted to have intercourse with Betty, so he wanted to kill Mary to get Betty alone; however, both girls fought back and that is when he killed both of them. This case still remains a very controversial one due to the fact that the judicial process showed severe shortcomings. An example can be made out of this case by showing how the judicial system does not always properly orchestrate.[22] He was the youngest person executed in the United States. More than 70 years later, a judge threw out the conviction, calling it a "great injustice."[23]

Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in December 1989. Subsequent investigations cast strong doubt upon DeLuna's guilt for the murder of which he had been convicted.[24][25] Carlos DeLuna was executed in 1989 for stabbing a gas station clerk to death. His execution came about six years after the crime was committed. The trial ended up attracting local attention, but it was never suggested that an innocent man was about to be punished while the actual killer went free. DeLuna was found blocks away from the crime scene with $149 in his pocket. From that point on, it went downhill for the young Carlos DeLuna. A wrongful eyewitness testimony is what formed the case against him. Unfortunately, DeLuna’s previous criminal record was very much used against him.[26] The real killer, Carlos Hernandez, was a repeat violent offender who actually had a history of slashing women with his unique buck knife, not to mention he looked very similar to Carlos DeLuna. Hernandez did not keep quiet about his murder; apparently he went around bragging about the killing of Lopez. In 1999, Hernandez was imprisoned for attacking his neighbor with a knife.[27]

(snip)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

[revmclaren]

56. So you agree with post 10?

Yes or no?

ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[tymorial]

59. He will never answer your question

Its the same tactics and strategy all over again. Big shock

[revmclaren]

62. I can play his game all day.

It's 90 degrees outside, I've got rocket pops in the freezer, good tunes on my Bluetooth and an unlimited number of little waving guys and yes or no questions.

Simple pleasures...



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Uncle Joe]

60. Post #10 was using sarcasm but it isn't as if the underlying point of division and disenfranchisement

aren't modern day realities in America.

[revmclaren]

66. So that's what it's called now... Sarcasm.

Nice Dodge but no sale. But keep up the 'cough' good fight.

Bookmarking to return here in a month or so to see how things pan out. I'm thinking not so good.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Uncle Joe]

70. It has been called sarcasm since the mid 16th century.

sarcasm (n.)
1570s, sarcasmus, from Late Latin sarcasmus, from late Greek sarkasmos "a sneer, jest, taunt, mockery," from sarkazein "to speak bitterly, sneer," literally "to strip off the flesh," from sarx (genitive sarkos) "flesh," properly "piece of meat," traditionally from PIE root *twerk-, *tuerk- "to cut" (source also of Avestan thwares "to cut&quot , but Beekes is dubious. Current form of the English word is from 1610s. For nuances of usage, see humor (n.).

https://www.etymonline.com/word/sarcasm

[revmclaren]

73. Seems like you just have to have to respond

no matter what. With mostly nonsense.

From now on I will respond to your responses to me in kind with the following...

Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla blaba bla blaba blaba bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla blaba bla blaba blaba bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla blaba bla blaba blaba bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla blaba bla blaba blaba bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla blaba bla blaba blaba bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla blaba bla blaba blaba bla bla.

Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla blaba bla blaba blaba bla bla.

Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla blaba bla blaba blaba bla bla.

Bla



(Gotta have the smiley waving guy. Maybe you'll get the hint. Maybe... If not, I can copy and paste all day.)

[The Mouth]

63. I'm pretty sure that the poster meant that as satire

if not, God help us.

[revmclaren]

68. Hope springs eternal...

But I've been on this crazy train before. And not the rocking Ozzy one either.




ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[LongtimeAZDem]

74. I'm sure it was, but it was in deplorable taste

[The Mouth]

77. True

But I can't get worked up about bad jokes or deplorable taste in general. There's enough shit to get genuinely outraged about .

[WeekiWater]

23. Plenty of pedophiles vote.

Even many of those who have been convicted. Being a pedophile never has or will be a criteria for voting on it's own.

[stonecutter357]

48. It is a Lifetime Probation for Pedophile in Alabama .

The state of Alabama allows felons to have their voting rights restored under the following guidelines. You must have completed your entire sentence, including incarceration, probation, and parole, or community supervision. Contact your local parole or probation office Write to the Board of Pardons and Parole at P.O.

[tymorial]

57. Right on

[OnDoutside]

3. No, he's completely wrong.

[PeeJ52]

4. I haven't weighed in on this topic because I thought it was stupid. I didn't know I was stupid. If

they count prisoners for voter apportionment and representation, then it seems to me they should vote. Otherwise, quit counting them.

[comradebillyboy]

78. They count children and non citizens as well.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. I think incarcerated people should retain the right to vote.

Doesn't mean I'm a Bernie supporter, though.

[Irishxs]

6. I agree w Bernie because voting is based on citizenship, not behavior.

[WeekiWater]

26. The rights afforded to us as citizens are often based on behavior.

[tymorial]

64. Indeed. This is why punishment for crime can deprive a citizen of their liberty

Disallowing participation in the election process is not "cruel and unusual punishment "

As for parolees who are compliant and convicts who have competed their sentence, they should be allowed to vote. Their liberty has been reinstated.

[WeekiWater]

67. "Disallowing participation in the election process is not "cruel and unusual punishment " "

While I do support the idea of incarcerated persons being able to vote, I one hundred percent agree with you that not allowing them to do so doe not rise to the level of "cruel and unusual punishment." We do not remove all liberties that would fall below that level.

[rgbecker]

8. Conflating voting with prison is just plain wrong.

The points made in the OP are right on. The pressure on people with Tump's mentality will move those in power to simply move 3 or 4 million into jail and literally change election results. In fact it has been going on since Ronald Reagan.

[corbettkroehler]

9. If Native Citizens Cannot Have Their Citizenship Revoked, Their Voting Rights Should Be Irrevocable

[BlueStater]

12. We don't owe child molesters shit.

They deserve nothing.

[Uncle Joe]

15. It isn't about the criminal it's about us as a society.

Do we believe in redemption or not?

[BlueStater]

16. Maybe after they do their time.

Although, personally, I don't think it's possible to redeem people who rape children.

[stonecutter357]

20. +1000

[Uncle Joe]

33. You may be right but allowing them vote while in prison may redeem us as a society.

[Nanjeanne]

45. Who gets to decide though? That's Sanders' point. Either voting is a right and it's everyone's right

or someone starts picking away at who is in and who is out. Since prisons are counted in census and used for gerrymandering districts - since prisoners are used for cheap labor to fight fires that are out of control - since disproportionately POC are incarcerated. Since hundreds of thousands of people are wrongly imprisoned and held without bail. Since crooks on Wall Street are not only voting but also buying politicians. Since the President of the US is voting. Since environmental polluters are voting. Since Canada, Israel, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and dozens of other countries are managing to maintain voting rights for prisoners without their countries losing all moral standing. For all those reasons - I'm much less concerned that some child molester is voting than the hundreds of thousands who are being deprived.

The US has one of the poorest voting turnout records - I find it kind of strange that some are thinking that depriving a murderer or child molester feels horribly punished because they can't vote. If we really valued voting rights and considered the denial of them a punishment we would be fighting for real democracy in our justice system, reinstating the Voting Rights Act, declaring a federal holiday for election day, and making voting easier rather than harder for people.

[BlueStater]

69. They're murderers and rapists. I don't really care about their rights.

They had no respect for their victims' right to live or their right to consent, so I'm not bothered in the slightest by them losing their right to vote.

I don't care what other countries do. I have a big, big problem with people who commit horrible crimes having a say in the formation of our government.

What needs to be done is that our justice system needs to drastically improve so far less innocent people are imprisoned and rich people who commit heinous crimes go to jail like everyone else. That's the solution, not letting despicable criminals vote.

[Nanjeanne]

80. Ok. You have a right to believe what you believe. It's a subject worth discussing - not

demonizing. As I said I doubt there would be so many murderers and despicable people utilizing their right to vote anyway as compared to non “despicable”. And then we really shouldn’t be including those despicables in our census either. And we will have to figure out which of those despicable people is actually guilty and who might be wrongly convicted. But hey, we will create lots of jobs being the deciders in chief.

On your second point, I totally agree. But seeing as how putting POC in jail has a long history in this country as a means for disenfranchisement-it’s going to be a long haul. Not that we shouldn’t start.

[Fresh_Start]

13. Because they don't lose all their rights, they should have the right to vote?

That is not a reasoned argument.

To solve the prison gerrymandering, I think we should be allocating seats based on voters, not bodies. That would solve more problems than prison gerrymandering, it would also help solve voter suppression since suppressing voters would result in loss of congressional seats.

If you deprive someone else of their vote, then you should also lose your vote.
I think someone convicted of election fraud, should lose the right to vote for the rest of their life.
I think someone convicted of murder should also lose the right to vote for the rest of their life.

I don't think terrorists even native terrorists should regain the right to vote.

[Uncle Joe]

17. What about prisoners that have been wrongfully convicted of murder or rape?

(snip)

A number of people are claimed to have been innocent victims of the death penalty.[3][4] Newly available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 20 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States,[5] but DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases. Others have been released on the basis of weak cases against them, sometimes involving prosecutorial misconduct; resulting in acquittal at retrial, charges dropped, or innocence-based pardons. The Death Penalty Information Center (U.S.) has published a list of 10 inmates "executed but possibly innocent".[6] Of all executions in the United States, 144 prisoners have been exonerated while on death row. [7]

(snip)

Joe Arridy (April 15, 1915 – January 6, 1939) was a mentally disabled American man executed for rape and murder and posthumously granted a pardon. Arridy was sentenced to death for the murder and rape of a 15-year-old schoolgirl from Pueblo, Colorado. He confessed to murdering the girl and assaulting her sister. Due to the sensational nature of the crime precautions were taken to keep him from being hanged by vigilante justice. His sentence was executed after multiple stays on January 6, 1939, in the Colorado gas chamber in the state penitentiary in Canon City, Colorado. Arridy was the first Colorado prisoner posthumously pardoned in January 2011 by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a former district attorney, after research had shown that Arridy was very likely not in Pueblo when the crime happened and had been coerced into confessing. Among other things, Arridy had an IQ of 46, which was equal to the mental age of a 6-year-old. He did not even understand that he was going to be executed, and played with a toy train that the warden, Roy Best, had given to him as a present. A man named Frank Aguilar had been executed in 1937 in the Colorado gas chamber for the same crime for which Arridy ended up also being executed. Arridy's posthumous pardon in 2011 was the first such pardon in Colorado history. A press release from the governor's office stated, "[A]n overwhelming body of evidence indicates the 23-year-old Arridy was innocent, including false and coerced confessions, the likelihood that Arridy was not in Pueblo at the time of the killing, and an admission of guilt by someone else." The governor also pointed to Arridy's intellectual disabilities. The governor said, “Granting a posthumous pardon is an extraordinary remedy. But the tragic conviction of Mr. Arridy and his subsequent execution on Jan. 6, 1939, merit such relief based on the great likelihood that Mr. Arridy was, in fact, innocent of the crime for which he was executed, and his severe mental disability at the time of his trial and execution."

George Stinney, a 14-year old black boy, was electrocuted in South Carolina in 1944 for the murder of Betty June Binnicker, age 11, as well as Mary Emma Thames, age 8. The arrest occurred on March 23, 1944 in Alcolu, inside of Clarendon County, South Carolina. Apparently, the two girls rode their bikes past Stinney’s house where they asked him and his sister about a certain type of flower; after this encounter, the girls went missing and were found dead in a ditch the following morning. After an hour of interrogation by the officers, a deputy stated that Stinney confessed to the murder. The confession explained that Stinney wanted to have intercourse with Betty, so he wanted to kill Mary to get Betty alone; however, both girls fought back and that is when he killed both of them. This case still remains a very controversial one due to the fact that the judicial process showed severe shortcomings. An example can be made out of this case by showing how the judicial system does not always properly orchestrate.[22] He was the youngest person executed in the United States. More than 70 years later, a judge threw out the conviction, calling it a "great injustice."[23]

Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in December 1989. Subsequent investigations cast strong doubt upon DeLuna's guilt for the murder of which he had been convicted.[24][25] Carlos DeLuna was executed in 1989 for stabbing a gas station clerk to death. His execution came about six years after the crime was committed. The trial ended up attracting local attention, but it was never suggested that an innocent man was about to be punished while the actual killer went free. DeLuna was found blocks away from the crime scene with $149 in his pocket. From that point on, it went downhill for the young Carlos DeLuna. A wrongful eyewitness testimony is what formed the case against him. Unfortunately, DeLuna’s previous criminal record was very much used against him.[26] The real killer, Carlos Hernandez, was a repeat violent offender who actually had a history of slashing women with his unique buck knife, not to mention he looked very similar to Carlos DeLuna. Hernandez did not keep quiet about his murder; apparently he went around bragging about the killing of Lopez. In 1999, Hernandez was imprisoned for attacking his neighbor with a knife.[27]

(snip)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

[BlueStater]

21. I'd be fine with granting voting rights to some of them depending on their crime.

Minor drug offenders? Sure.

People who commit robbery because they're poor and feel they have no other choice? Sure.

Murderers and pedophiles? They can fuck right the hell off.

[Uncle Joe]

25. These were Americans wrongfully convicted of murder and rape, not something minor. n/t

[BlueStater]

27. I know that.

Problem is, there's absolutely zero way to filter out the wrongly convicted ones from the actually guilty ones.

[Uncle Joe]

35. Precisely! That's why I believe the only way to protect our inalienable right to vote

is to eliminate the line of those that can vote from those that can't.

[Fresh_Start]

30. when they overturn their wrong convictions they can vote

until then, no

[Uncle Joe]

38. What if they never do? Should one injustice be heaped onto another?

[Fresh_Start]

39. I'm not worried about convicted murderers.

Even knowing the prejudice in the legal system, I'm very confident that the vast majority of people convicted of murder...are in fact, murderers.

[Uncle Joe]

41. Probably so but I believe our society should err on the side of democracy

rather than against it.

[Fresh_Start]

42. Which is why I think that terrorists and election fraud and murder

should all result in loss of vote.

Those actions by their very nature are anti-democratic actions.

[Uncle Joe]

44. So long as we draw a line into what can or can't constitute a loss of the right to vote,

that line can and will be moved by cynical, cowardly politicians and their lobbyists.

[rgbecker]

81. Right on once again, Joe. Such a pleasure to follow your reasoning.

The rightward shift in the country has rolled up a few on the DU I'm afraid. Their suggestions that the right to vote be handed out willy-nilly based on a random judgement of severity of crime is too much for me. It wasn't that long ago people were asked to take a test to see if "educated" or "smart" enough to vote. Now its all about getting a "Voters ID". Do people not realize many are in prison simply for political reasons? For example: Being Black. Have they not read that 1 in 5 in prison are Mentally Ill. These people need people representing them who will get treatment for them rather than jail time. They need more votes not less.

https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/evidence-and-research/learn-more-about/3695

[Uncle Joe]

82. Thank you rgbecker and much of that has to do with Reagan and the Republicans in 1981.

The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 (MHSA) was United States legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter which provided grants to community mental health centers. During the following Ronald Reagan administration, the United States Congress repealed most of the law.[1] The MHSA was considered landmark legislation in mental health care policy.

Coinciding with a movement during the 1970s for rehabilitation of people with severe mental illnesses, the Mental Health Systems Act supported and financed community mental health support systems, which coordinated general health care, mental health care, and social support services.[2] The law followed the 1978 Report of the President's Commission on Mental Health, which made recommendations for improving mental health care in the United States. While some concerns existed about the methodology followed by the President's Committee, the report served as the foundation for the MHSA, which in turn was seen as landmark legislation in U.S. mental health policy.[3]

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, signed by President Ronald Reagan on August 13, 1981, repealed most of the MHSA. The Patients' Bill of Rights, section 501, was not repealed; per Congressional record, the Congress felt that state provisions were sufficient and section 501 served as a recommendation to states to review and refine existing policies.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980

Recently, a 34-year-old woman rammed her car into barricades outside the White House while her infant daughter was in the back seat. The police, thinking it was an act of terror, chased her down and shot her to death.

Later, we learned she was actually struggling with mental illness.

(snip)

When I ask my mental health colleagues about this, the one political figure that typically comes up is former President Ronald Reagan. It’s like an urban legend in our field. People say the reason so many people with mental illness are homeless or in jail—one-third of all homeless individuals and half of all people behind bars—is because of President Reagan.

(snip)

There certainly seems to be a correlation between the de-institutionalization of mental health patients in the 1970s and early 1980s and the significant number of homelessness agencies created in the mid-to-late 1980s. PATH itself was founded in 1984 in response to the significant increase in homelessness in Los Angeles.

http://www.povertyinsights.org/2013/10/14/did-reagans-crazy-mental-health-policies-cause-todays-homelessness/

[DURHAM D]

28. This discussion is just stupid.

After voting rights have been restored in all states for convicted felons who have served their time we can have this discussion.

[Fresh_Start]

31. true dat nt

nt

[Freethinker65]

32. No. You lose your rights while serving time for crimes committed.

Once you have served your time and you return to the outside society, your voting rights should automatically be restored.

[Uncle Joe]

36. You don't lose all your rights as the OP spelled out.

[Chin music]

34. Felons are Americans too. If trump family members can vote, so should

felons. I've thought felons should vote for a long time. Respectfully, it's been a wish of Ds for years. Bernie didnt invent the idea. Glad he's talking about it though.

[oasis]

40. This is a GIANT loser from jump street. How easy it will be

for our GOP 2020 opposition to restart the chorus of "Democrats Are Soft On Crime".

Any Democrat seeking office should run away from this without hesitation.

[Uncle Joe]

43. I believe most of them will run away but

I also believe considering that we have the world's largest prison population at almost 2.3 million Americans behind bars (even more than communist China with a population of over 1.3 billion) and considering Trump's crimes while in office and probably before that playing the "soft on crime" canard will not wash anymore.

[oasis]

50. Pushing a controversial issue that most voters don't care about is

a headache the Democratic Party doesn't need to deal with at this particular time.

[tymorial]

52. No he didnt.

Removing a prisoners ability to participate in elections while incarcerated is not a disproportionate punishment especially for convicts who have committed heinous acts.

Security level shouldnt matter either because there are many white collar criminals that have destroyed/ruined lives (Maddof) he shouldnt be able to vote either.

[BlueFlorida]

55. THread No. 3 on the same topic.

[Uncle Joe]

58. Different article and it isn't as if we don't have repetitive threads here at D.U.

[NBachers]

61. I am an ex-felon. I live in California, and I vote. I give a lot of crap to Bernie & his supporters

around here, but, I have to support him with this policy.

[tymorial]

65. I have no problem with you voting

You are out. If you were on parole and in compliance then that would be fine too in my opinion.

[David__77]

85. I agree with Kamala Harris- this is a conversation to have.

...