Jail survey: Nearly 3/4 felons register as Democrats

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Well then it makes perfect sense to keep alcohol legal, right?

Anyone who argues for keep drugs illegal without coming for prohibition for alcohol is a hypocrite. It's as simple as that. Almost every drug warrior will sit in front of you with a beer in his hand telling you how dangerous it is to legalize drugs.

The hypocrisy is nauseating.

You lose a drug war when you have a society that would much rather glamorize it, than show the harsh reality of what such an addiction will cause. How many programs can you name that introduce the darker side of drugs: the addictions, the destruction to family, the financial impact and devastation it leaves on all those involved? How many reality shows confront the issue of drug addiction, and it's involvement on kids? Doesn't Hollywood find it more appealing to portray the dealer in some glamorous lifestyle among beautiful women, than reveal the reality of the effects such a lifestyle can leave? Legalizing it wouldn't have stopped Heath Ledger, although his life as an actor could very well have been cut a lot sooner. Interesting how little of an impact he appears to have left on people's lives, how quickly we move on yet haven't learned a damn thing.

Were you sucking down a beer when you typed that? If Heath Ledger wants to destroy himself, that's his business. However, one thing I don't want is some Heroin addict stealing everything I haven't locked up in a safe to pay for his drug habit. And locking people up for long prison sentences really does wonders to improve their lives. Yeah, that's the way to show concern for people addicted to drugs: put them in the state penitentiary for 5 years!

Whenever I listen to drug warriors I want to vomit.

I don't have a need to consume alcohol, any more than I would presume you'd like to see a legalization of drugs to support your habit. Putting your childish bickering aside, what makes you think legalizing drugs, such as marijuana will solve anything? If you legalize a drug, it will only push people to pursue after the next illegal narcotic simply because it is. That's just the nature of things as people just get a kick out of doing something simply BECAUSE it's illegal. Drugs are still an addictive habit, and you can't stop those who will steal to feed such behaviors. If you think THAT will ever change you are really just kidding yourself or merely choosing to be ignorant. It won't be long before we look to justify and legalize the next drug down the pike, as we look to try and make excuses for it - like incarceration.

 

[FA_Q2]

You lose a drug war when you have a society that would much rather glamorize it, than show the harsh reality of what such an addiction will cause. How many programs can you name that introduce the darker side of drugs: the addictions, the destruction to family, the financial impact and devastation it leaves on all those involved? How many reality shows confront the issue of drug addiction, and it's involvement on kids? Doesn't Hollywood find it more appealing to portray the dealer in some glamorous lifestyle among beautiful women, than reveal the reality of the effects such a lifestyle can leave? Legalizing it wouldn't have stopped Heath Ledger, although his life as an actor could very well have been cut a lot sooner. Interesting how little of an impact he appears to have left on people's lives, how quickly we move on yet haven't learned a damn thing.

Were you sucking down a beer when you typed that? If Heath Ledger wants to destroy himself, that's his business. However, one thing I don't want is some Heroin addict stealing everything I haven't locked up in a safe to pay for his drug habit. And locking people up for long prison sentences really does wonders to improve their lives. Yeah, that's the way to show concern for people addicted to drugs: put them in the state penitentiary for 5 years!

Whenever I listen to drug warriors I want to vomit.

I don't have a need to consume alcohol, any more than I would presume you'd like to see a legalization of drugs to support your habit. Putting your childish bickering aside, what makes you think legalizing drugs, such as marijuana will solve anything? If you legalize a drug, it will only push people to pursue after the next illegal narcotic simply because it is. That's just the nature of things as people just get a kick out of doing something simply BECAUSE it's illegal. Drugs are still an addictive habit, and you can't stop those who will steal to feed such behaviors. If you think THAT will ever change you are really just kidding yourself or merely choosing to be ignorant. It won't be long before we look to justify and legalize the next drug down the pike, as we look to try and make excuses for it - like incarceration.

That is a pretty massive contention and I think compactly unfounded. People do not do drugs because they are illegal, they do them because people want to get high. Prohibition is proof positive that alkalizing drugs is NOT an effective control of them. Legalized alcoholic beverages are far better controlled and far better for the nation than when they were illegal. That does not even touch on the fact that you don't have a right to regulate an activity that I want to partake in when it is not harming you.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[FA_Q2]

Be that as it may, I've always been a huge proponent of allowing people to vote even if they have a record. It is entirely unjust to continue to punish someone after their sentence is completed. It is also dangerously tyrannical.

No, that is completely untrue.

Voting is a PRIVILEGE, not a Right.

There is no right to vote in the US Constitution. You people need to get that through your thick skulls.

Voting is a privilege, and when you show that you have become an irresponsible member of society, you SHOULD lose your voting privileges. Permanently. Or as determined by the STATE in which you live.

IMO, it should be permanently.

That's only true if you ignore the fact that the constitution has been amended.

Sorry but voting is an established right. One that can, like the right to association, firearms and any other right, be infringed upon with due process. That is how rights protected in the constitution work.

You can state that it is not a natural right as it requires the existence of the state (our what are you voting on) but it is still a right protected by the constitution.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[FA_Q2]

If you are incarcerated for a crime you can have your voting rights taken from you.

The point is that they shouldn't be. Incarceration should not lose you your fundamental right to vote.

Yes you should. It is compleatly asinine to allow someone that is sitting in prison the right to vote. You lose virtually all your other rights while incarcerated. You have no privacy, no freedom of association, no right to self defense and a myriad of other basic and protected rights. That does not mean that such should be pregnant though.

While I think that you should not be allowed to vote in prison, you certainly should have ALL your rights restored after serving your time. One of the fundamentally fucked up things about or incarceration system is that it offers you little chance to escape it after serving your time. Once you have paid your debt that should be the end of it.

For those pointing out that losing your rights for asinine things like drug infractions, the problem is not that you should still be able to vote but rather the entire law in the first place.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Care4all]

If you are incarcerated for a crime you can have your voting rights taken from you.

The point is that they shouldn't be. Incarceration should not lose you your fundamental right to vote.

Yes you should. It is compleatly asinine to allow someone that is sitting in prison the right to vote. You lose virtually all your other rights while incarcerated. You have no privacy, no freedom of association, no right to self defense and a myriad of other basic and protected rights. That does not mean that such should be pregnant though.

While I think that you should not be allowed to vote in prison, you certainly should have ALL your rights restored after serving your time. One of the fundamentally fucked up things about or incarceration system is that it offers you little chance to escape it after serving your time. Once you have paid your debt that should be the end of it.

For those pointing out that losing your rights for asinine things like drug infractions, the problem is not that you should still be able to vote but rather the entire law in the first place.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

It's a STATE ISSUE. Felons can vote while in prison in my State, via Absentee ballot.

 

[Geaux4it]

Be that as it may, I've always been a huge proponent of allowing people to vote even if they have a record. It is entirely unjust to continue to punish someone after their sentence is completed. It is also dangerously tyrannical.

No, that is completely untrue.

Voting is a PRIVILEGE, not a Right.

There is no right to vote in the US Constitution. You people need to get that through your thick skulls.

Voting is a privilege, and when you show that you have become an irresponsible member of society, you SHOULD lose your voting privileges. Permanently. Or as determined by the STATE in which you live.

IMO, it should be permanently.

Go figure, a convicted American citizen felon can't vote because he broke the law, yet we allow illegals to stay out of jail because their votes are more important.

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

If you are incarcerated for a crime you can have your voting rights taken from you.

The point is that they shouldn't be. Incarceration should not lose you your fundamental right to vote.

Yes you should. It is compleatly asinine to allow someone that is sitting in prison the right to vote. You lose virtually all your other rights while incarcerated. You have no privacy, no freedom of association, no right to self defense and a myriad of other basic and protected rights. That does not mean that such should be pregnant though.

While I think that you should not be allowed to vote in prison, you certainly should have ALL your rights restored after serving your time. One of the fundamentally fucked up things about or incarceration system is that it offers you little chance to escape it after serving your time. Once you have paid your debt that should be the end of it.

For those pointing out that losing your rights for asinine things like drug infractions, the problem is not that you should still be able to vote but rather the entire law in the first place.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

People vote in prison all the time. It's a felony that takes away the right to vote, not incarceration.

Why should you lose one fundamental right and not another? In Turner v Safley the SCOTUS ruled that the fundamental right to marry could not be denied to prison inmates. Why one fundamental right and not another?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Be that as it may, I've always been a huge proponent of allowing people to vote even if they have a record. It is entirely unjust to continue to punish someone after their sentence is completed. It is also dangerously tyrannical.

No, that is completely untrue.

Voting is a PRIVILEGE, not a Right.

There is no right to vote in the US Constitution. You people need to get that through your thick skulls.

Voting is a privilege, and when you show that you have become an irresponsible member of society, you SHOULD lose your voting privileges. Permanently. Or as determined by the STATE in which you live.

IMO, it should be permanently.

That's only true if you ignore the fact that the constitution has been amended.

Sorry but voting is an established right. One that can, like the right to association, firearms and any other right, be infringed upon with due process. That is how rights protected in the constitution work.

You can state that it is not a natural right as it requires the existence of the state (our what are you voting on) but it is still a right protected by the constitution.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

The problem with perceiving voting as a right, implies that it's an "entitlement" which is shared by all, which is obviously not true since certain groups are kept from their "entitled" obligation to vote those being individuals who find themselves incarcerated. To suggest it as a right also implies that the ability to cast a vote was simply given to you without even a fight or struggle. When you look at the barriers that had kept certain groups away from their ability to cast a vote (women, slavery), we see that isn't true either. So it's more accurate to say, that compared to other forms of government, we have the privilege of being able to elect certain officials to represent us in our form of government. It's a role we are each responsible for and not have taken for granted.

An international perspective on voting as a right: In 2005, the European Court on Human Rights found that the United Kingdom had breached the human rights of prisoners by denying them the vote, ruling that British policies were disenfranchising 80,000 incarcerated British citizens. The Human Right Act of 1998, which had incorporated most of the European Convention on Human rights into British law, established the right to vote as an essential right of all humans. This ruling was grounded in voting as a right, not a privilege, but the British government has fought against implementing the ruling despite the 1998 law

http://www.fairvote.org/voting-a-right-a-privilege-or-a-responsibility#.UslJ-n-9KK0

 

[Duped]

Don't the majority of government dependents vote for liberals?

People who succeed generally have a distaste for those who seek to take it from them. Those who have nothing tend to vote for politicians who promise to take from others on their behalf.

There is great truth in that statement. That is why it is so important that the haves make certain that there are not too many have nots, because when we get to many have nots, then the there is backlash against the haves and if it gets really bad for the have nots, the backlash is even greater. It's not about taking from those who have as much as it is making certain everyone has a reasonable opportunity to be successful. If greed wins in the short term then true socialism will win in the long run, and that isn't really good for anyone.

The big problem is that the haves never seem to see it as their responsibility to help the have nots not end up being have nots. You can argue that it is not their responsibility but again, if the have nots grow to a significant enough percentage, then there will be trouble. Even in dictatorships or systems where the have nots do not have a right to vote, they will fight back. We have seen this throughout history. Unfortunately, we will most likely repeat the mistakes of the past over and over again.

The dumbest, most ignorant, and poorest; least capable of raising children in this dangerous, competitive world have the most . The weak outnumber the strong, and therefore will out vote them. That is why all republics are doomed to failure.

When times were hard, there was no sympathy for sluggards, and those who victimized others. Death was rampant - you either worked or starved. Now we teach people to game the system ( producers ) instead of self reliance. That is why we are looking more third world each, and every day.

We have already tipped past the event horizon; now the people who put faith in the government outnumber us who put faith in ourselves. The hispanics will decide which direction we go in - straight to hell! There are simply too many dumb ass hispanics who think they have a right to infiltrate, and propagate in our country at the expense of our producers, and too many dumb ass blacks who think the producers owe them.

I firmly believe that once you have paid in full for your crimes, your voice should be restablished. However, most in jail have a street mentality, and the word on the street is that the republicans are for the rich, and the dems are for the poor - if they only knew the truth!

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. My study has it at 90% democrats.
2. And guess what 85% of them love rap music.
3. Read my tag line.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[FA_Q2]

The point is that they shouldn't be. Incarceration should not lose you your fundamental right to vote.

Yes you should. It is compleatly asinine to allow someone that is sitting in prison the right to vote. You lose virtually all your other rights while incarcerated. You have no privacy, no freedom of association, no right to self defense and a myriad of other basic and protected rights. That does not mean that such should be pregnant though.

While I think that you should not be allowed to vote in prison, you certainly should have ALL your rights restored after serving your time. One of the fundamentally fucked up things about or incarceration system is that it offers you little chance to escape it after serving your time. Once you have paid your debt that should be the end of it.

For those pointing out that losing your rights for asinine things like drug infractions, the problem is not that you should still be able to vote but rather the entire law in the first place.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

It's a STATE ISSUE. Felons can vote while in prison in my State, via Absentee ballot.

Your point? The fact that it is a state issue has nothing to do with my statements. I said that you should not have the right to vote if you are doing time not that you don't. I am well aware that the situation is dependent on local law. The point that I was countering were statements outlining support for protecting that right for those jailed. It is a silly thing to do.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[FA_Q2]

The point is that they shouldn't be. Incarceration should not lose you your fundamental right to vote.

Yes you should. It is compleatly asinine to allow someone that is sitting in prison the right to vote. You lose virtually all your other rights while incarcerated. You have no privacy, no freedom of association, no right to self defense and a myriad of other basic and protected rights. That does not mean that such should be pregnant though.

While I think that you should not be allowed to vote in prison, you certainly should have ALL your rights restored after serving your time. One of the fundamentally fucked up things about or incarceration system is that it offers you little chance to escape it after serving your time. Once you have paid your debt that should be the end of it.

For those pointing out that losing your rights for asinine things like drug infractions, the problem is not that you should still be able to vote but rather the entire law in the first place.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

People vote in prison all the time. It's a felony that takes away the right to vote, not incarceration.

Why should you lose one fundamental right and not another? In Turner v Safley the SCOTUS ruled that the fundamental right to marry could not be denied to prison inmates. Why one fundamental right and not another?

That is what jail is. It inherently removes certain rights from those jailed. Do you have privacy in jail? What about the right to a firearm? Hoe about freedom of association?

Why one right over another? Try asking that again, your question makes no sense considering that is exactly what jail accomplishes.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Sorry bout that,


1. My study has it at 90% democrats.
2. And guess what 85% of them love rap music.
3. Read my tag line.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Your study? And just who the fuck are you? Where did you do time?

I did mine in Hutchison State Penitentiary and MY STUDY says you are full of shit.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Watch "Walking tour of Hutchinson Correctional Facility" on YouTube


Many many people who've made terrible mistakes in their lives have gone on to do very well for themselves and others in many cases after paying their debt to society. Yet so many of you who live in your bubbles think of us as second class citizens or worse. In many cases you might be right, but in most of those cases those individuals are likely right back in and are of no consequence to the rest of us. On the other hand there are many like me who have gone on to lead very happy and productive lives. Many of us even contributing more to society because of our experience and wanting to excel beyond the norm of an average American citizen that is content with the mundane life of entry level jobs. I know I have created hundreds of jobs both directly and indirectly because of the skills that I have tought people.

I would also guess that many of you have at some point broken some law, be it intentional or not really doesn't matter. Yet you never got caught. Should you be able to vote then? I have repaid my debt 10 fold by my contributions and damn well deserve the right to vote and it makes no damn difference what party I belong to.

Ps. The video is the only footage I could find of the institution I was held in and I posted it because I know some of you may be curious.

You may now commence throwing stones from your ivory tower made of perfect glass

 

[SwimExpert]

In other news, 75% of felons in prison are born again Christians.

That is, until they get out.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

In other news, 75% of felons in prison are born again Christians.

That is, until they get out.

I think the term you're looking for is con artist. But in my experience this is nothing more than a crutch to fill A LOT OF EMPTY TIME.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, that is completely untrue.

Voting is a PRIVILEGE, not a Right.

There is no right to vote in the US Constitution. You people need to get that through your thick skulls.

Voting is a privilege, and when you show that you have become an irresponsible member of society, you SHOULD lose your voting privileges. Permanently. Or as determined by the STATE in which you live.

IMO, it should be permanently.

That's only true if you ignore the fact that the constitution has been amended.

Sorry but voting is an established right. One that can, like the right to association, firearms and any other right, be infringed upon with due process. That is how rights protected in the constitution work.

You can state that it is not a natural right as it requires the existence of the state (our what are you voting on) but it is still a right protected by the constitution.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

The problem with perceiving voting as a right, implies that it's an "entitlement" which is shared by all, which is obviously not true since certain groups are kept from their "entitled" obligation to vote those being individuals who find themselves incarcerated.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever. Rights are not entitlements and never were. People confusing the two are irrelevant. Again, something that everone CONTINUALLY ignores, your rights are taken away as a matter of incarceration. That is exactly what incarceration is. When you are jailed you certainly don’t have a right to privacy. You don’t have a right of association. You don’t have a right to firearms. The fact that you can have your right to vote removed through due process has nothing to do with the fact that it is a stated right in the constitution. That is exactly how protected rights work. They can be infringed through due process. That is simple fact.

To suggest it as a right also implies that the ability to cast a vote was simply given to you without even a fight or struggle.

WAY off base here. Our rights have been fought over and secured through bloody wars and the continual sacrifice of brave men and women throughout our history. To state differently is completely incorrect. Further, slavery was legal in this nation at one point in time. At that moment, thiose individuals rights (all of them) were infringed to the point of nonexistence. That is no different than the right to vote is in such a matter. Just because there is a time in the past where those rights were denied does not make them rights – it means that we make mistakes. Again, reference the above for other rights that are also infringed through due process. It is a stone cold fact that the state can and will take away rights as a matter of law when you decide to break it.

When you look at the barriers that had kept certain groups away from their ability to cast a vote (women, slavery), we see that isn't true either. So it's more accurate to say, that compared to other forms of government, we have the privilege of being able to elect certain officials to represent us in our form of government. It's a role we are each responsible for and not have taken for granted.

No, it not. Voting is not a privilege in any frame of reference according to the constitution. It is a RIGHT. That is fact. YOU might want it to be a privilege but that is simply not the case. It was a privilege when the nation was founded. This is because each state could take away your right to vote simply because they decided that you were not worthy. Perhaps you didn’t own land or were not wealthy or educated enough. Such rules could and were imposed at the whim of the state. THAT is what a privilege is. It is something that you are not guaranteed and the state can remove or impose whatever regulatory structure that it deems fit in order to control it. That is what driving is. A PRIVILEGE.

The state cannot, however, infringe on your ability to vote without due process. They cannot do this specifically because it is a protected right.

Lastly, seeing voting as a privilege is quite scary. Nowhere should the state have the power to decide arbitrarily if you should have that power. It should be inherent of the governed to control the governing body or what do we have representation for? Voting IS a responsibility – the most important responsibility that you exercise in relation to the government BUT that in no way7 diminishes the fact that it is a right.

An international perspective on voting as a right: In 2005, the European Court on Human Rights found that the United Kingdom had breached the human rights of prisoners by denying them the vote, ruling that British policies were disenfranchising 80,000 incarcerated British citizens. The Human Right Act of 1998, which had incorporated most of the European Convention on Human rights into British law, established the right to vote as an essential right of all humans. This ruling was grounded in voting as a right, not a privilege, but the British government has fought against implementing the ruling despite the 1998 law

http://www.fairvote.org/voting-a-right-a-privilege-or-a-responsibility#.UslJ-n-9KK0

And why do you bother to quote European drivel on the matter? I don’t care what they think on the matter considering they are not speaking from any position of authority in regard to American law at all and their prospective completely disregards the concept of due process anyway. How about we bother to look at the constitution – a document that I know you hold in high regard:

The first clause of the 15th amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Now, tell me – how exactly can you claim that the constitution has not declared voting as a protected right but rather a privilege? If you think the constitution has got it wrong then you really need to start there rather than stating it is a privilege and quoting a European institution that exists in a frame of reference where the term right is damn near meaningless.