Should Child Molesters Be Allowed to Vote?
That's what Shawn Macomber thinks:
The most basic right of a citizen is not to vote. Voting is not a right at all.
For most of American history, the voting franchise was severely restricted. At first, only free male property owners could vote. After slavery was abolished, the franchise was extended more or less to all men of a certain age, although in practice the poor and the racial minorities found this a hard privilege to exercise.
The franchise was extended to women after the First World War, nearly a century-and-a-half after the nation's founding.
Voting has been regarded as a privilege since the inception of the Republic. When one commits a felony, which is by definition a serious crime, one gives up that privilege. Why should this not be so? By committing such crimes, are these individuals not stepping outside the bounds of society? Why should 5 millions Americans who choose to commit felonies by allowed to sway elections?
Macomber argues that they have paid their debt to society. I should like to see what proof he has that that is so---isn't it just as likely that they were released because the State no longer had the wherewithal to incarcerate them? There is no requirement that someone be fully rehabilitated before release.
The prohibition against felons' voting is a time-honored bit of good sense. If one really cares about casting their ballot, wouldn't they avoid the kind of behaviors that lead to felony convictions?
If felons should vote, why not resident aliens? Why not illegal aliens? Why not prisoners? Why not the mad? Why not children? Why not the comatose? All live here, all are a part of American society. If voting is a right, surely all of these people possess that right.
Voting is not a right. It is a privilege, one that no amount of egalitarian utopianism should diminish.
Released convicts have regained their liberty. That is sufficient.
Update:
Shawn Macomber doesn't think I've addressed his argument and that the header to this post is a bad joke made reality. He's entitled to his opinion, and disagreement with his position on this issue does not connote diminishing admiration for his work, which ranks with the best of political columnists out there today.
I've said it before and I'll say it again---if you're not reading The American Spectator Online every day, you should be.
Close to five million Americans are currently barred from voting because of felony convictions. Of this number, nearly two million have completely paid their debt to society in the form of time served behind bars, parole, and probation. There is no legitimate moral argument for denying those who have regained their status as free citizens through public penance the most basic right of a citizen.
The most basic right of a citizen is not to vote. Voting is not a right at all.
For most of American history, the voting franchise was severely restricted. At first, only free male property owners could vote. After slavery was abolished, the franchise was extended more or less to all men of a certain age, although in practice the poor and the racial minorities found this a hard privilege to exercise.
The franchise was extended to women after the First World War, nearly a century-and-a-half after the nation's founding.
Voting has been regarded as a privilege since the inception of the Republic. When one commits a felony, which is by definition a serious crime, one gives up that privilege. Why should this not be so? By committing such crimes, are these individuals not stepping outside the bounds of society? Why should 5 millions Americans who choose to commit felonies by allowed to sway elections?
Macomber argues that they have paid their debt to society. I should like to see what proof he has that that is so---isn't it just as likely that they were released because the State no longer had the wherewithal to incarcerate them? There is no requirement that someone be fully rehabilitated before release.
The prohibition against felons' voting is a time-honored bit of good sense. If one really cares about casting their ballot, wouldn't they avoid the kind of behaviors that lead to felony convictions?
If felons should vote, why not resident aliens? Why not illegal aliens? Why not prisoners? Why not the mad? Why not children? Why not the comatose? All live here, all are a part of American society. If voting is a right, surely all of these people possess that right.
Voting is not a right. It is a privilege, one that no amount of egalitarian utopianism should diminish.
Released convicts have regained their liberty. That is sufficient.
Update:
Shawn Macomber doesn't think I've addressed his argument and that the header to this post is a bad joke made reality. He's entitled to his opinion, and disagreement with his position on this issue does not connote diminishing admiration for his work, which ranks with the best of political columnists out there today.
I've said it before and I'll say it again---if you're not reading The American Spectator Online every day, you should be.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home