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

  • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    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).