Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkandrew  ^Yes, when it comes to perminently removing the democratic rights of citizens, the minutiae of the detail is very important. I am wondering who (and on what criteria) is deciding whether people should be prevented from voting.
So, to go back to my example, the DUI with minor injury 'felon' to be perminently excluded from elections - reasonable or not? |
Actually there are a number of people in the US who would think it is reasonable. I don't think the offense in and of itself should cost someone their right to vote. But the reason this type of thing gets felony status in some states is because they feel that it is a really big deal and should be treated as such. The goal of moving it into felony status is not to take away the right to vote, but to increase the level of punishment that can be given for violators.
I do think those that commit felony crimes should have their right to vote taken away. At least for a while - I would be open to debate how long that might be.
And I also support the right for each state to determine which crimes are felony crimes and which are not. Sure some states are going to have more crimes fall into the felony area than others - it's up to them. And it is up to the citizens of each state not to commit a felony if they want to keep their right to vote. Not too much to ask really.