[nyolfen]

if somebody defects against society very seriously, damaging others, i have no problem with stripping them of legal rights. this is in fact exactly the principle underlying imprisonment. constitutional rights are granted by men, not god, in service of shared prosperity; democracy is good insofar as it produces good results, not because it is the intrinsic source of good. there is no higher construct to appeal to, like this platonic ideal of democracy you're gesturing at

[dylan604]

Okay so now you’ve set an arbitrary limit with “very seriously” yet you do not define what that means. Is grand theft auto worthy of striping someone’s vote? Is conviction of marijuana possession? Is shop lifting? Is embezzlement? Where’s the line of very serious for you? It won’t be the same for someone else. Do you see the issue inherent with your proposal?

[metalcrow]

it is arbitrary yes, but the point of democracy is to allow society to codify these subjective questions into rigid laws. I mean, what is the arbitrary line between tough love and child abuse? We have to decide somewhere, and we use democracy to draw that line.

[AnthonyMouse]

Let's consider the consequences of that line with respect to electoral math. If we consider only serious criminals, e.g. murderers, they constitute a negligible proportion of the population and with high probability the number of election outcomes changed by allowing them to vote or not would be none.

By contrast, if you lump in people convicted of things like drug possession, that is enough people to change the outcome of some elections. And in general it's a strong heuristic that if huge numbers of people are committing a particular crime, it's a result of flaws in the law or society rather than flaws in huge numbers of different people.

So the only time disenfranchising felons matters to the outcome is when you get the line wrong, implying that it shouldn't be done because it shouldn't affect the outcome unless it's being done improperly.

[watwut]

The big issue are perverse incentives here. If felony sentence means no vote, the best thing you can do is to criminalize demographics you dont like as much as possible.

That way you can have pleasure of mistreating them and also prevent them from voting.

[komali2]

Unfortunately you're also engaging in an appeal to universal virtue.

It's weird because your argument doesn't seem to disagree with the notion that people should stay enfranchised, other than you saying specifically people should be disenfranchised for breaking a law. But you're now discussing lines so I guess you mean, literally any crime means no more voting.

A good democracy, and by that I mean useful for humans, isn't good by trying to be perfectly virtuous, it's good because it has recursive mechanisms to maintain its usefulness to humans. The primary mechanism is voting. For that reason I personally believe nothing should be allowed to remove the ability to use that primary mechanism, since the obvious outcome is a fascist is elected, and begins seeking means to strip the right to vote from his opponents, ensuring his perpetual rule. Modern example: I have a little antifa flag on my backpack, and therefore am now considered a terrorist in the USA, and can be arrested and have my right to vote stripped (other democratic mechanisms might prevent this, for now).

What crime would I have committed? Declaring an ideology a terrorist group is nonsensical but possible. Me suddenly being a terrorist crossed that line for you though.

So does speeding. So does operating your motor vehicle without checking your brake lights and turning indicators, every time. So does riding on a horse backwards in a specific town in Texas (don't forget local jurisdictions have their own laws, often insane!)

[philipallstar]

> What crime would I have committed?

This is a personal decision, but would you say the same about someone with a small Nazi swastika on their backpack?

[razakel]

That might be relevant if antifa ever rounded up and slaughtered eleven million people.

[philipallstar]

It's relevant if you think logic is worth something.

[komali2]

Well, first, I reject both sidesism because Nazism is an ideology that wants me and my friends to die, and denies our very humanity, and my ideology doesn't really want anyone to die, and absolutely does not deny anyone's humanity.

However, under liberal democracy I personally don't believe the wearing of a swastika should be a crime, though I don't mind if people wearing swastikas are rejected from every interaction they attempt to have, denied business everywhere. The simple banning of nazis memorabilia doesn't seem to be doing anything to stop the rise of nazism in Germany so it seems pointless overall. The Germans had their opportunity to actually apply this anti-nazi law when banning the AFD came up, and they failed to act, so it seems the only thing the law is good for is preventing people from playing Wolfenstein.

Under other forms of society I think the wearing of a swastika should result in the ejection of someone from society entirely.

[philipallstar]

You're the perfect person to have illustrated this. Someone could've committed no crime, as you're claiming for yourself with your symbol, and you'd still want them ejected because of a symbol.

You are in principle no different to the people you're complaining about. You've just got a smaller set of symbols than they do that you don't like.

[forgotoldacc]

I can understand stripping them of the right temporarily while in prison. That's the time in which they pay their debt to society for the harm they're convicted of. Some rights are restricted during that period.

But once it's determined that the debt has been repaid and they're free to live outside and participate in society again, it seems hard to justify them not also participating in the democratic process.

[Terr_]

> [in prison they] pay their debt to society

How exactly is taking away an inmates vote "paying me back" for a crime in my community? "Society" isn't actually benefiting here.

Let's go down the list of justifications:

1. Is disenfranchisement rehabilitative justice? No, if anything it's the opposite, preparing them to fail when they get out, promoting ignorance and helplessness instead of engagement in the political process.

2. Is disenfranchisement punitive justice? Not usefully, because the worst criminals won't care anyway, instead it tends to hurt the people who deserve it the least, the people who would otherwise try to work through "the system."

3. Is disenfranchisement a deterrent? No, LOL. Nobody goes: "OK, I was going to commit the crime and risk being caught and shot or jailed for many years, buuuuut then I realized I wouldn't be able to vote, so I'm out."

What's left? Bad reasons, like helping politicians get away with abusive policies.

[pfannkuchen]

> debt has been repaid

I know people say this, but I think this framing likely generates anti-prison arguments because it basically doesn’t make any sense. How does being in a cage for X years repay society? It doesn’t. It does keep the harmful person away from society though, which is a very different and useful thing (in many cases, obviously imprisonment for some crimes is dumb).

[dylan604]

Being in prison is the punishment. It is not restitution, but as part of the punishment restitution could be imposed. It's hard to pay that restitution while incarcerated though. Some people advocate that just because one has been released from incarceration that they should still not be allowed to vote until any moneys owed have been paid. That could be fines from the court as well as restitution to victims.

[novemp]

> this is in fact exactly the principle underlying imprisonment.

No, the principle underlying imprisonment is to protect others and rehabilitate the criminal.