151
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Nineteen federal appellate judges are scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on whether Mississippi can continue to permanently strip voting rights from people convicted of certain felonies, including nonviolent crimes for which they have served a complete sentence.

The outcome of the case will likely determine whether tens of thousands of people win back the right to vote. An immediate decision is not expected.

Criminal justice advocates won a major victory last August when a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban violates the Constitution’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual” punishment. But the full 17-member circuit court vacated that ruling weeks later and scheduled Tuesday’s hearing.

Attorneys for the state argue that the voting ban is a “nonpunitive voting regulation” and that, even if it did constitute punishment, it isn’t cruel and unusual.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

I'd be interested in hearing a compelling reason why anyone should have their voting rights revoked for any reason what so ever.

If you're a citizen of a country, you should always get a say, no matter what you've done.

Doing otherwise just opens the doors for something like making weed illegal so you can throw hippies in prison on felony charges.

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don't agree with this stance, but I believe the idea is that people who vote should be those who have a vested interest in the preservation of social order and the governments that ensure it.

Prisoners are kept imprisoned by the government, which means on the whole you'd expect their priorities to trend towards the dissolution of governmental social order.

You've also got voter jurisdiction conflicts. Should prisoners have a say in local elections where the prison is housed or should it be their last known residence before they were incarcerated? If the prison population is significant compared to the population of a remote town where the prison may be housed, do we say they don't get a say in local elections after all?

I'd say before any of these problems can be easily answered, it requires a huge overhaul of the justice system and the way we handle imprisonment as a whole.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 2 years ago

Prisoners, who are entirely at the mercy of the state, have more vested interest than anyone else in ensuring that their needs are heard.

Voting for the government to dissolve will never be on the ballot, and even if it was, I'd argue that if a government is keeping enough prisoners that they could vote to dissolve it, that government is the most extreme police state in history and it definitely needs to be dissolved.

[-] vinylshrapnel@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 years ago

I would argue committing voter fraud or election fraud is grounds for stripping away one’s voting rights. The person has proven they do not value other people’s voting rights by trying to subvert otherwise fair elections and should therefore forfeit their own voting rights. That’s really the only reason voting rights should ever be stripped though.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 points 2 years ago

There won't ever be enough people convicted of election-related fraud to matter, so all you'd be doing by taking away their right to vote is to reinforce the idea that the right to vote can be taken away.

[-] vinylshrapnel@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 years ago

Just because the number of offenders is negligible doesn’t mean they should continue to exercise that right after they’ve abused that same right to the detriment of others.

this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
151 points (98.7% liked)

News

37756 readers
319 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS