It doesn't really need to be said here because I think we're all on the same page, but felons and excons should both have full enfranchisement. On the level of what constitutes a felony, about half of people serving a felony sentence were only convicted for a drug or property crime and were not violent. Regardless of that, the state of capitalism right now drives people to desperation - desperation all the way up to murder or robbery in an attempt to make a living in an increasingly desperate society. None of that should mean stripping people of the right to vote - if we're going to disenfranchise people for the harm they cause, then strip the right to vote from billionaires, landlords and cops before you disenfranchise a homeless person or a drug dealer.
Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1366824014145064964
Arguing for the rights of "non-violent" criminals is a decent talking point, but a bad principle, btw. You steal a wallet with a knife - you're a violent thug facing years in jail. You steal millions with fraud - you're an entrepreneur who succumbed to temptation and will maybe get away with public service. You're a junkie who passes a note to a bank saying you have a knife - you get charged with armed robbery. Not to mention how cops/security commit violent crimes on behalf of the rich.
I think there's value in having it as an easy sell, but I think we can easily go further:
What is a felony isn't absolute, it changes over time with our laws. There are a number of people serving felony sentences (or who have completed felony sentences) for non-violent marijuana offenses, for example, but largely, people today don't think marijuana should be illegal at all -- let alone strip you of your voting rights. And because these people are disenfranchised, they aren't getting a say in this matter, and they are the group most affected by this policy -- they're literally the ones who have had their rights stripped away because of it. And if people largely think marijuana shouldn't be illegal, then if we're being consistent in our moral judgement, we should also be saying that being charged for it is wrong. And if we continue to be consistent, we should conclude that disenfranchising people for it is wrong.
There is only one way to prevent this. End felony disenfranchisement, whether the person is serving a sentence or has already served. Anything less risks people being denied their political participation for wrong reasons.
Personally, I'd go a step further and say "there is no valid reason why any adult citizen should be denied the right to vote", but that is a bit of a hard sell because people might say "well what if someone has severe dementia", and you'd probably have to supplement it with "we shouldn't trust the state to be the arbiter of who does and does not get to vote" which is just a better argument on its own.
Very well said.
I think people mention the non-violent part because they've gotten fed up with discussions getting to a dead end because most people close their minds as soon as the concept of 'violent criminals' enters the discussion. I don't like violent criminals either, but I don't like the 'non-violence' of the millionaire/billionaire class(es) either, nor do I have any understanding for the 'non-crime' of political parties that should've never been voted into power (for instance the 'non-crime' of declaring war or crippling sanctions, or the inevitable war crimes that follow on the heels of wars, or the hushing up or pardoning of war crimes). Unfortunately it's pretty hard getting through to libs unless you can swing them left, and having these discussions with conservatives is a waste of time (as evidenced by the 0-209 Republican vote).
Yes, all totally reasonable!
I agree 100%. If we want to disenfranchise people who cause harm, we should start with landlords, billionaires and cops. But it isn't strictly necessary to do that just by how much more numerous workers are and especially if they have some class consciousness.