The Modern Scarlet Letter
Dean
City Journal, normally a fairly sane conservative publication, has a piece up strongly arguing that anyone ever convicted of a felony is a felon for life, and should never be allowed to vote--with a lengthy rant about how allowing felons to vote will help Democrats and hurt Republicans.
While there is a certain irony to the notion that Democrats seem anxious to boost the convict vote because they know it will help them, I have to say I find Republican attempts to ban anyone who was ever convicted of anything to be, uhm, what's the word? Oh yeah: draconian.
What on Earth ever happened to the mentality in this country that once you'd worked off your sentence and paid your debt to society, you were a free man (or woman) and no longer persecuted?
I can fully understand denying the right to vote to people currently in the pen, or out on parole (since you're still technically in jail when you're on parole). But when your time's served you'r time's served, dammit. Why do you have to be considered a bleeding heart liberal to say, "look, enough is enough!?"
I have a number of friends who are ex-felons. And yes, I said ex- felons, because they finished serving their time years and years ago and are now productive, hard-working members of society.
What's next? We gonna start branding them on the face so we can identify them on the streets? Or maybe little armbands they all have to wear, yeah, that's a good idea...
Yeesh.
I have no problem with felons losing their right to vote -- forever. But I do have a problem when too many things are called felonies.
The problem is the language has been degraded. Felon doesn't mean what it should.
In other words, "truth in sentencing" cuts both ways.
The other point is, of course, well taken. If you were convicted of "sodomy" in many states before 6/26/2003, you were a felon. Branded for life because you had oral sex with your wife?
At this point, some "progressive" will inevitably scream, as they did in 1988: "You're a racist! You're discriminating against poor Willie Horton solely because of the color of his skin!"
I reply: Nonsense! He was a convicted rapist and murderer and should never have been let out. Indeed, in my opinion, he deserved the death penalty. I have had it with Political Correctness.
That said, if we're going to let these people go and live in our society, we've got to given them incentives to be good members of society. Voting is one of those incentives. People with no say tend to value society, and its rules, less. Thus, I'd tend to support movement towards restoring the right to vote to felons after one's sentence is fully served.
But for some crimes, permanent loss of the right to vote is an appropriate part of the sentence. Voter fraud comes to mind, or corruption as an elected official.
Non-violent felons, may have these rights restored, after finishing their sentence, and filing the correct petion with the court. Those who have been convicted of "drug crimes" fall into this catagory.
A weapon does not have to be used, to have the crime be classified as a violent felony. The only recourse for a violent felon is to wait a minimum of 10 years after his sentence is completed, then petition the govenor of the state for a state crime, or the president of the US for a federal crime for a pardon. There are two types of pardons. One that restores the lost rights, and a full pardon, that restores the rights, and seals the record of the crime, so that it does not show up on background checks.
There is recourse for those who do choose to reenter society, and become full and productive citizens.
As far as the sex crimes registries around the country, they are a crock of crap.
Also, traditionally, such a person would be put to death. Prison and release for felons is a relatively recent societal innovation, based in a belief in mercy and the potential for rehabilitation.
It's a more complex problem than blanket statements about modern felons can address.
Punishment like loss of certain rights, after due process, and under reviewed color of law, is nothing either shameful (for the society imposing such a punishment, that is) or new.
Enough is enough? Loss of rights is part of the sentence; there's no commonly accepted principle that says the only possible punishment for a crime is fines or jail time, is there? Certainly I don't accept any such principle. (Though I do hold that punishments should not just be added on, or be extra-judicial, but that's back to due process.)
And living in other States since the summer of '92, after my 120 days was done, has made it only show up when they are running a more expensive, in depth background check at a job or rental office. And not everyone asks, in which case you don't have to tell them.
But I haven't had the $10-20,000 it will take to get it dropped in CA: a few grand in court costs and penalties, lawyers fees, yada yada. Had the conviction been here in AZ, as a non-violent first felony all my rights but to use/own weapons would have been restored after 2 years automatically. But I have to get it cleared in CA.
I finished probation, have been convicted of NOTHING in the mean time (not even a traffic ticket!), started a number of businesses, and there are still jobs and networks I made with my own hands out there being productive.
The computer industry and academia for the most part do not give a damn, and in the dept. where I work right now it is almost a badge of honor (it's a pretty hippied out environment: I did time fightin' the man!), but I have to put up with Bush punching dolls and shit like that on everyone's desks, and I'm one of the very few there who is married. And I don't talk about my politics, at all.
So I've never voted in an election in my life, as every State I've lived in has disenfranchised felons, and I pled guilty when I was 19, so I've missed all 4 Presidential elections since then. I do indeed not feel very connected to our society in many, many ways.
What I don't like is the increasing government encouraged persecution.
But that's just me, I guess.
I have also come to the conclusion that the national strategy of locking up citizens for minor offenses related to drug use works no better now than National Prohibition stopped the liquor traffic during 1920-1933.
Probably I have commented before that there are parts of my own state, Wisconsin, where the only growth industries seem to be methamphetamine labs and prisons. Something is wrong here that is not truly addressable through any system of lockups.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Having the vote is an indicia of full citizenship, and it is important for rehabilitated felons to be invited back into society.
But a blanket amnesty coming from the federal government is just the wrong the way to go about it.
Also, isn't it odd that the Constitution says that impeachment can occur for 'high crimes and misdemeanors'?
There was a time when misdemeanors were considered to be far more serious than they are now - sort of the inverse of the term 'felony' these days, which now covers conduct not nearly as heinous as felonies in bygone eras.
It died when it was realized that the discharged felon was in no way reformed, but had merely been released to prey on the innocent again.
The situation you describe is not one that is required to exist. It exists because American culture and society simply do not give a damn.
For a more pointed discussion of the topic allow me to direct you to a post I made some time ago. It seems oddly prescient given the current discussion.
Nowdays, on the other hand, we hand out felonies over anything we don't like. When possession of a relatively simple chemical compound (cocaine) that is going no place but the person's own nose is considered a felony, we have gone far, far past the original intent of the word.
Longer sentences for violent crimes have been the main thing that has brought down the violent and property crime rates. In such matters I'm about as law-and-order-ish as one could get. HOWEVER,
we have also increased sentences (and indeed what's a felonly) for victimless crimes, such as the drug laws. This destroys productivity, and transfers wealth directly into the pockets of court and law enforcement pockets, from everyone else via taxes. The amount of lost and reduced wages (and the tax base!) due to the drug war is astounding. Google around and see: the govts. own stats on this are the most damning, and comprehensive.
And then there is the very high percentage (the vast majority in most jurisdictions in the US now) of cases that are resolved through plea bargain, because the courts are so over crowded. Google something like 'destruction of the defense bar' to see how far even those with lots of money have had their personal rights eroded, all in the name of 'stamping out drugs'.
I'd just like those anti-Drug members of the Christian right, without whom prohibition would NOT stand a chance of continuing, to read Genesis 1:29 and Matthew 25, look Angel Raich in the eye, and THEN see if they can look me in the eye and say they support marijuana prohibition with a straight face.
We can honestly only afford one or the other. And then felony can go back to meaning something again.
There are some things I would stick to out of philosophical merit, but other issues ought to be subject to re-examination as, hopefully, we all strive to lessen the abrasive characteristics of person to person contacts in everyday life in this great society.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The shape of our criminal justice and educational systems does not bode well for the Republic. Nor does much other nonsense in the public sphere.