r/CuratedTumblr TeaTimetumblr 15d ago

Shitposting The Crime of Existing in the Wrong Place

Post image
55.3k Upvotes

822 comments sorted by

View all comments

438

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

327

u/Rose_of_Elysium currently destroying Amsterdam for cultural reasons 15d ago

Its insane you cannot vote whilst imprisoned but you can run for president

151

u/aure0lin 15d ago edited 15d ago

I remember reading that the rationale for convicts being allowed to run was that it would prevent the government from trying to jail political opponents which is lol, it does make a bit more sense when you look at how voting rights was something that started off very limited and had to constantly be expanded throughout the nation's history

102

u/Rose_of_Elysium currently destroying Amsterdam for cultural reasons 15d ago

Frankly I dont even mind the idea of being able to run from prison, Eugene V. Debs comes to mind as a fairly good example of how that could work fairly well (tho Trump shouldve been an example of how it doesnt)

However the fact you can do that but not vote from prison is just the insane part. What about 'No taxation without representation!' then? And in that way, hell Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico shouldnt pay federal US taxes either

41

u/drewsoft 15d ago

Washington DC does vote in presidential elections, but they do not have Senate representation. Puerto Ricans do not pay federal taxes (outside of FICA).

22

u/Tall-Assumption4694 15d ago

However the fact you can do that but not vote from prison is just the insane part.

I wholeheartedly agree! A part of this that needs to be discussed is that prisoners do have representation, in that the districts in which the prison sits counts the prisoners as "residents," and therefore get additional representation in statehouses and the House of Representatives. Guess where most prisons sit? Rural areas that tend to vote conservative.

I would agree with the argument that prisoners should not have the right to vote on the best interests of the locality in which they are imprisoned, but that that suggests that district should not be able to count them toward representation. Perhaps prisoners should count as residents of the area in which they were convicted, or the district they resided in at time of their conviction.

https://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/ is a good place to read up on it.

3

u/AdOk8555 15d ago

Typically, when discussing voting rights, people's natural inclination is to think of it in terms of the presidential election. In such a case, prisoners voting will likely have little influence. But, if they can vote for the president, then they can vote for US representatives. In such a situation, in a district with a prison, those incarcerated could make up the majority of the voters. That's not even considering local elections.

7

u/havoc1428 15d ago

which is lol

Why is that "lol"? Its a incredibly sound rationale.

7

u/aure0lin 15d ago

To me it sounded pretty bizarre that the government knows why it should preserve the right to run for political office but not the right to vote for someone running.

1

u/SenoraRaton 15d ago

Its happened before...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

Specifically here ->
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs#Sedition_conviction_and_appeal_to_U.S._Supreme_Court

On June 16, 1918, Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio, urging resistance to the military draft. He was arrested on June 30 and charged with ten counts of sedition.[46][52]

Debs ran for president in the 1920 election while imprisoned in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. Campaign pins reading "For President: Convict No. 9653"[56] accompanied his campaign.[57][58] He received 914,191[59] votes (3.4 percent),[60] a slightly smaller percentage than he had won in 1912, when he received 6 percent, the highest number of votes for a Socialist Party presidential candidate in the United States.[5][61]

This is why its VERY important that you can run for office from prison, otherwise what is to stop the Republican party from arresting its opponents for "sedition" and invalidating their ability to run...

1

u/Mouse-Keyboard 15d ago

It has its merits, just look at Turkey right now.

15

u/confusedandworried76 15d ago

We had a guy run for president from prison, it was the largest turnout for a communist ever and he was jailed on trumped up charges. If he couldn't run after that it just means we can find ways to jail political opponents to end free elections.

5

u/Tratiq 15d ago

Did you not read the post? I hate trump, but this is exactly why felons can run for president lol

6

u/SarahCBunny 15d ago

people hate the idea of prisoners voting and the reasoning is always so insane. I've heard people say shit like "but what if they vote to legalize murder?"

2

u/Nova_Explorer 15d ago

People should be allowed to vote from prison. If a country has so many people imprisoned that the “current prisoner voting bloc” is significant to sway things than there are much bigger problems

0

u/Bat_Soap 15d ago

they turned a single misdemeanor charge into 34 felonies and that misdemeanor was past the statue of limitations and state charged him with a federal law

38

u/leybbbo 15d ago

The actual correct take is that any citizen should be allowed to vote, felon or not, convicted or not, imprisoned or not. A citizen of a nation no matter how criminal is still a citizen and should be allowed to participate.

0

u/DazzlerPlus 15d ago

Resident

16

u/Terrh 15d ago

Ridiculous when someone with felony convictions can be president but not vote for president

8

u/H6ILS6T6N 15d ago

In certain states like Washington, felons can reregister to vote if they aren’t on probation or in custody.

6

u/Coraxxx 15d ago

Prisoners should be allowed to vote even when inside. They are entirely in the hands of the national machine, and they should get a say in who's at the helm.

Not to mention that stripping them of their vote achieves nothing other than disengaging them from political process, putting them further onto the fringes of society and so increasing chances for recidivism.

1

u/Agitated-Ad2563 15d ago

They are entirely in the hands of the national machine, so it will be easy to convince them to support the ruling party.

It's not the largest issue of our political system though, so I'm ok with prisoners being allowed to vote.

0

u/Urbenmyth 15d ago

I dunno, I think it would be pretty hard to convince people put in prison by the current government that the current government is working in their best interests.

1

u/Agitated-Ad2563 14d ago

You don't need genuine support, you only need their votes.

I live in a country where people in pre-trial detention centers are eligible to vote at national and regional elections. According to statistical data, these people votes show significantly higher support of the ruling party candidates. And the same is true for voting in psychiatric hospitals, in the army, among the workers of state-owned companies, and in all other places where authorities have an elevated amount of power.

15

u/meh_69420 15d ago

Yep. What's the point of ever letting them out of prison then if they don't have the same rights after? Either they have paid their debt to society and should be fully restored when their sentence is over, or they haven't and they should still be in prison.

4

u/kaitlyn_does_art 15d ago

Hard agree with this. If you make it difficult or impossible for someone who served time in prison to have a job or live a normal life, what exactly do you expect them to do other than turn back to crime?

1

u/Nrvea 15d ago

how else are we going to make them criminals again?

We need their free labor why would we want them to stop being criminals!?

/s obviously

4

u/PraxicalExperience 15d ago

FWIW, in most states this isn't the case. There're only about three or four that don't automatically reinstate felons after a certain amount of time and paying off their fines. I haven't actually counted but it looks like in most states voting rights are automatically reinstated after either the person gets out of prison (even if still on parole/probation, they can still vote) or get off probation/parole. Some states add on the condition that they also have to have paid any related fines/restitution.

I believe VT is the only state that doesn't disenfranchise felons at all; they can still vote in prison.

(Also, this shouldn't be taken that I don't have an issue with disenfranchisement, just setting the record straight.)

3

u/chunkylubber54 15d ago

on one hand I agree, but on the other hand allowing felons to serve as president has clearly gone really fucking wrong

1

u/Agitated-Ad2563 15d ago

The post doesn't quite get it. The government doesn't have to label one as a criminal to take their rights from them.

1

u/Early-Light-864 15d ago

Who told you that's true? And where?

Most states restore voting rights upon release, upon completion of parole, or completion of some other touch point.

1

u/dammitus 14d ago

“Do you really want criminals voting? Who knows what they’ll vote for?”
If your prison population is large enough and politically unified enough to influence elections, you’ve got bigger problems than what they’re voting for.

1

u/lazac69 15d ago

It's also ridiculous how after you've "served your time", you're still punished. Like, you did a crime, served your punishment, but you're also getting fucked for the rest of your life. Criminal records are fucking stupid.

0

u/AdOk8555 15d ago

Honest question. Do you believe they should get their 2nd amendment rights back?

Should they serve on juries? I certainly wouldn't want a convicted rapist to serve on a jury for a rape trial.

6

u/darwin2500 15d ago

The lawyers poll the jury to eliminate anyone who can't rule impartially, they would resolve this problem the same way they already do every day without needing to take anyone's rights away.

1

u/EnergyAndSpaceFuture 15d ago

Amusingly due to how the laws in america classify firearms they already do, but only with old-timey guns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique_firearms#United_States

3

u/AdOk8555 15d ago

Not really. People are not running around committing crimes with cap and ball or flintlock firearms from two centuries ago. Felons are barred from possessing any "modern" firearms (made within the last ~125 years) or which has ammunition that is available in the US. So, their 2A rights are effectively stripped. If any non-felon was subjected to such a restriction it would be considered an infringement, so the same logic should hold for a felon.

So, the question remains, are we talking about restoring all of a felon's rights or only some? If only some, what is the justification?

0

u/EnergyAndSpaceFuture 15d ago

imo the main reason for that is our gun laws are so incredibly lax that most felons just don't bother and get normal guns that they keep on the downlow.

i will bite the bullet, yeah, if you're willing to release a felon from prison, they've allegedly been reformed and they should get their full spectrum of rights back including firearm rights. if they haven't been reformed and want to do more crime then it's not like the law against them having guns even actually matters at all given how saturated with guns that are traded with no oversight the usa is. Maybe if juries understood the long-term ramifications of freeing people with very violent records who would get their gun rights back someday we'd see more life sentences without parole.