"...and polls indicate that Floridians are poised to approve a constitutional amendment on Tuesday that would restore rights to 1.4 million residents who have completed their sentences."

Wonder if that includes 2nd Amendment rights, and subsequent removal of bars to gun purchase per Form 4473?

Raddy, I don't think that's covered. However, I have ask why not? unless the crime committed puts you on the "prohibited person" list.

And even then, if you've done all of your time and finished your sentence, why not?

I agree that voting rights she be earned back. I can’t imagine permanently losing a right after something like stealing an iPhone one time, pleading guilty, and paying restitution.

I mention this because my husband had a client that pled guilty to a theft and received probation but permanently lost the right to vote. I was shocked by this kind of punishment for non-violent crime that didn’t involve prison time.

I was thinking of Michael Vick and how, as part of his sentence, he was forbidden from owning any animal for the rest of his life.

When Michael Vick was appealing this restriction (which he has since won), some argued that he should be allowed to own a dog, because he served his sentence.

Well, no, he hadn't. His sentence was a life sentence. The jail time was limited, but the judge imposed a life sentence prohibiting him from owning a dog.

On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, no judge has ever pronounced a sentence of lifelong disenfranchisement. That is simply a restriction that the law places on felony convicts.

If a judge includes a sentence prohibiting a person from voting for the rest of their lives, that's a sentence which they can either appeal and win, appeal and lose or choose to live with.

But a law that imposes a punishment that a judge didn't seems wrong to me.

I'm trying to think of other examples of a law punishing someone outside of a judge's sentence, but I can't think of one.

The sex offender registry doesn't count because the judge does include in the sentencing. Moreover, when sex offenders who served their sentences before the registry was created complained that it was an ex post facto law, the Supreme Court ruled that the registry isn't a punishment.

I'm with Jen on voting rights being earned back. I don't think they should be simply handed to you on release.

The idea behind voting is that you have a stake in society - and that you are trusted by society to vote responsibly due to that stake. Ex-convicts need to re-earn society's trust.

And, who knows, perhaps we could work out something where even Second Amendment rights could be earned back.

No. Not with recidivism rates what they are. Felons, most of them, give not 2 shits about society, or what's best for law abiding citizens.

Maybe, maybe a program to earn them back over decades. Maybe. But really, no. Too many poorly informed idiots vote themselves largesse already.

I don't think they should be simply handed to you on release.

According to my understanding, this is post sentence, probation, etc. IE: one has fully paid off the debt to "society".

with recidivism rates what they are

Then they'll never be eligible. If they're as incorrigible as you say, they'll get out on parole, violate the law, and get tossed back in. Lather, rinse, repeat. They'll never get to a point of I've served my sentence in full.

"Felons, most of them, give not 2 shits about society, or what's best for law abiding citizens. "

Like Martha Stewart, for example.

Even if a state restores a felon's firearms rights, the Senate has de-funded the BATF's restoration program, so there's no one at the Federal level who can process an application anyway.

The House (God bless 'em) tried to re-fund the BATF rights restoration program in 2015, but our glorious leaders of the Senate killed it. Lest we forget, Republicans held both houses of Congress at that time.

So we continue the insane situation where a nonviolent felon can't hunt ducks or protect self and/or family with a firearm.

Better brush up on those Kung Fu skills, Martha, you despicable criminal!

Like Martha Stewart, for example.

Her crime was talking too much. She should have exercised her right to remain silent.

Why do libertarians like Amy love losing so much? Convicts vote mostly for Democrats so you should want to take away their vote. Second it's not really progress to give everyone the franchise. Voting should be limited to the best people. Scientists for example should have a bigger role in influencing our society than convicts.

Voting should be limited to the best people. ~ Jewish Cat at November 6, 2018 8:27 AM

And, I'll bet, you think you'll be included in that influential few.

The "best people," as a whole, have shown no better judgement than their lessers in terms of politics, culture, morality, and economics.

Yes, Gog, because Martha Stewart is a prime example of "most" felons. Let's base policy on her.

Scientists for example should have a bigger role in influencing our society than convicts.

OH. DEER. LORD. No. Just no. At least no in terms of voting. Let them have that role via the developments, patents, and innovations.

First, to which scientists are you referring?

Second, I've known more than a few who were extremely bright, brilliant even, but didn't have the common sense God gave a door knob. I'll defer to Buckley, William F. on this.

I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.

By the way, I just got back from voting. So, smug-smug; I am votier than thou.

But the point I wanted to make is that convicted murderers and sex offenders can never have their voting rights restored. The Florida ballot is for all convicted felons, murderers and sex offenders.

This is what runs through my head when I hear about criminals, whether still in prison or not, whining about their rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVu9ymIwURs

If your rights weren't important enough for you to protect, I can't be concerned about them for you now. Sorry.

Second, I've known more than a few who were extremely bright, brilliant even, but didn't have the common sense God gave a door knob.

Curiously, there's a Simpson's episode about that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Saved_Lisa%27s_Brain

Jewish Cat:

Voting should be limited to the best people.

Rarely do I see such unapologetic snobbery. Even on Amy's blog. Crid should be feeling threatened.

"I'm trying to think of other examples of a law punishing someone outside of a judge's sentence, but I can't think of one."

There are a lot of second-order effects, that you won't find in the law books as such, but they're there. In the aerospace industry, many jobs are barred to someone with a drug conviction.

"Yes, Gog, because Martha Stewart is a prime example of "most" felons. Let's base policy on her."

As long as we're not distinguishing between felonies (or felons), let's put the death penalty on the table for all felonies, not just murder.

It's the only logical solution.

"Her crime was talking too much."

I'd say her real crime was stoking OCDs in the average American housefrau.

When I say her crime was talking too much, I say that there wouldn't have been enough evidence for a conviction if she simply kept her mouth shut.

Probably true, Patrick.

"It's better to be thought a criminal than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" - or something to that effect.

"The "best people," as a whole, have shown no better judgement than their lessers in terms of politics, culture, morality, and economics."

Conan, whom I quote more often than others here, has it cold. I know many gifted musicians, brilliant, really, who still exhibit Reasoning Deficit Disorder in that they back policies or people actively and demonstrably hostile to the ideals they otherwise express.

This "better judgment" also fails to note the differences in motive voters have.

"Nearly one in 10 of the state's adults, and one in four African-Americans, has a felony record that bans them from voting for life, according to The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy group. It is the nation's highest rate of black disenfranchisement, the group says, and among African-American males like Mr. Harbin, the rate is considered even higher: an estimated one in three. Those astounding rates are the product of the tough-on-crime ethos of the 1980s and 1990s, when crushing penalties were imposed for nonviolent violations like low-volume drug sales and failure to pay alimony."

Of course somebody has to play the race card, but it doesn't work.

"your right to pay taxes" LOL

As to the general idea of recidivism caused by less opportunities for those who have records. Partially that is the world we live in. There are many things messed up with the criminal justice system, the education system and "welfare" system. Much is predicated on a societal pressure to be a productive member of society. But that pressure has been greatly diminished and in some areas reversed. Street cred for having a record.
Businesses today have the choice between a ex felon, and an unknown person who doesn't speak English. They regularly choose the latter being the safer and saner choice. Until, the ex felons become the better/safer bet, or there are fewer unknowns. This choice will harm and disenfranchise the ex felons way more than voting rights will.

In my opinion, there should be a period of time, say 5 to 10 years, between completion of a sentence and when an affected criminal gets his voting rights back. He must show he is a FORMER criminal first, or else he will simply be voting for politicians who promise lighter sentences while committing further crimes.

@Jewish Cat: I read a portion of the Federalist papers in which the author(s) apparently expressed a desire to include all people of sufficient maturity and sound mind in popular voting.

(I, personally, would restrict it to people 25 and over. 25 years of age is the age at which the brain typically reaches physical maturity. But that would be it. Gender, race, or, in your example, brilliance or keenness of mind wouldn't matter)

Furthermore, exclusion is all fun and games until the Leftoids and Moslems start demanding that Jews be excluded from voting.

People who can't vote should not be counted towards the number of representatives a state can have.

"In my opinion, there should be a period of time, say 5 to 10 years, between completion of a sentence and when an affected criminal gets his voting rights back."

Voting rights restoration policies by state:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

Details by state at the bottom of the page.

Mpetrie98, the 25 years old leading to a mature brain thing is a complete lie. The best proof of this is that date has been moving later and later in life. As far as years go you have before puberty and after. Everything else is environmental and not tied to how old someone is. If you move the age where people are forced to act maturely and have responsibility later in life you will find your brain data tracks with it, gaining you nothing.

Perhaps we should be reducing the number of things that count as felonies rather than reducing the punishment for committing felonies.

"Perhaps we should be reducing the number of things that count as felonies rather than reducing the punishment for committing felonies."

Ben, may I introduce you to Helen Lovejoy and the default response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg

Ben, that might be a great tack. In Texas, theft of a new Smartphone (or anything worth than $500) or a minuscule amount of hash is a felony that can cause loss of voting rights.