For some reason this was on our state wide talk program today. Not sure this is the actual article he was referencing, but this was the main conversation of the day.
Ok, I was thinking of not stating my opinion on this one since so many seem to like to just take the opposite of me for the fun of it. I’m always hopeful that one day I’ll post one that everyone goes oh yeah, that’s a no brainer. We’ll see if this is the golden one!
Horrible horrible horrible idea.
I’m all for anyone and everyone voting. But why oh why should we encourage the uninformed to cast a ballot? Think of the lines of people who have no clue what they’re even voting for (yes, I realize they currently do this anyway) and just want to be entered into the lottery. Of course we can’t limit who gets to vote (minus convicts of course), but it would be so nice if voters had a basic understanding of issues and candidates. I’d rather see campaigns for getting informed instead of campaigns of just go vote.
Now… have at it!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I agree with Jay.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yes, very stupid idea.
Especially this part:
quote:A voter would get one entry in the drawing for voting in either the primary or general election or two if voting both times.
Which means that independents have only half the chance of winning that partisans do. I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea of promoting partisanship.
Add in the icreased numbers of uninformed voters, and the idea stinks to high heaven.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Jay, I agree with you that it's a bad idea. 'Getting out there and being heard' doesn't really advance much if you're just going to go vote for whoever MTV told you to vote for. I'm not sure that I want people who think the lottery is an investment of their biweekly paycheck deciding the economic future of this country.
One thing you said kind of bothers me though...why is it a given that convicts should not be allowed to vote? I'm referring in particular to ones who have served their time and are free men again (ex-cons), not ones currently incarcerated.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: One thing you said kind of bothers me though...why is it a given that convicts should not be allowed to vote? I'm referring in particular to ones who have served their time and are free men again (ex-cons), not ones currently incarcerated.
I wasn’t meaning to imply an opinion on this, and I might be totally off, but I thought felons lost their right to vote. That was all I meant there. I’m not sure if this is a state to state thing or nation wide.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's state-specific. But such limitations are specifically contemplated by the 14th amendment.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Interesting. So I’d assume most just can’t vote while they’re on probation or have some other time limit.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Dag, I know that next to your knowledge of the law, I really don't have room to speak, but here it is from my POV. I see how the courts have interpreted the 14th ammendment. However, the wording 'rebellion' and other crimes, as well as the context of the section, seem to imply to me that it would be along the lines of political rebellion and related crimes. Obviously people far more learned than me and in positions to decide court cases disagree, and that's that.
One interesting side effect though is the effect on the ability of blacks to vote. Since the vast majority of felony convictions are blacks, this amounts to a very disproportionate disenfranchisement of black voters- something I thought the 14th ammendment was supposed to remedy.
Again, this is just my opinion, I realize I don't have an informed view or anything.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Jay,
Sorry, I read your wording to mean that 'minus convicts of course' to mean that it is obvious that they should not vote, rather than you just pointing out that many cannot vote. My bad.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
A vote-lottery is the worst I idea since I heard an environmentalist recommend scrambling stop-lights to make drivers motivated to stop driving.
Felons can't vote because we don't want people who have demonstrated their contempt for society by breaking it's rules to have a hand in shaping them. I think most people who are for felons voting are liberals. And they're really for it because they think most felons would vote Democrat.
Pix
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I'm not a liberal (nor a democrat or republican) and I support felons voting.
Do you seriously think that they're going to try to have 7-11 holdups are embezzlement made legal?
quote:...we don't want people who have demonstrated their contempt for society by breaking it's rules to have a hand in shaping them.
Everyone who's every broke the law (speeding or whatever) raise their hand. Heck, pretty much everyone I know has committed at least one felony- they're surprisingly easy once you start looking up EULA on software, or MP3 downloads, etc. One main difference between them and those folks that can't vote is that they didn't get caught. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: However, the wording 'rebellion' and other crimes, as well as the context of the section, seem to imply to me that it would be along the lines of political rebellion and related crimes.
On its face there's nothing to suggest that - the "or other crimes" is set off by a comma and not clearly a modifier to (or modified by) "rebellion."
quote:One interesting side effect though is the effect on the ability of blacks to vote. Since the vast majority of felony convictions are blacks, this amounts to a very disproportionate disenfranchisement of black voters- something I thought the 14th ammendment was supposed to remedy.
In equal protection jurisprudence, a law with a disparate impact - i.e., one which tends to affect more blacks than whites - is unconstitutional only if the person challenging the law can prove discriminatory intent, a very high burden.
Note that all this analysis says is that it's constitutional to bar felons from voting. It doesn't say it's required or desirable to do so.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Ah, that makes sense Dag. Since the purpose of the felony disenfranchisement isn't to deny equal protection to black voters, then it doesn't violate the law (even if it may unintentionally have that effect).
quote:except for participation in rebellion, or other crime
The wording is ambigious to me. It makes me think that the intent is relating to crimes of rebellion (e.g. treason, etc) but it isn't the only way to read it, like you said. So it sounds like the courts have decided that 'other crime' refers to all felony convictions. Interesting.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Everyone who's every broke the law (speeding or whatever) raise their hand. Heck, pretty much everyone I know has committed at least one felony- they're surprisingly easy once you start looking up EULA on software, or MP3 downloads, etc. One main difference between them and those folks that can't vote is that they didn't get caught.
You certainly can’t lump those all together like that. Sure, we’re all sinners but there is a huge difference between murder and littering.
While in prison you for sure shouldn’t be allowed to vote. I certainly don’t see anything wrong with the probation thing either. The lifetime ban might be a bit harsh, but we do track sex offenders for life. And if it’s a deterrent to committing serious crimes good. Though I doubt people who commit felonies care much about voting or the well being of their fellow man.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Copying a movie is a felony. Sharing software and from what I understand sharing your mp3 collection is a felony.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not at all; only in an extreme amount and for profit might those become felonies. In their simplest form those aren't even misdemeanors, they're civil offenses.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Copying a movie is a felony. Sharing software and from what I understand sharing your mp3 collection is a felony.
The only copyright violations I'm aware of that aren't misdemeanors involve "reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more."
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hmmmm....so how is distributing (sharing) your MP3 collection on a P2P network not in violation of what you have quoted me?
fugu, I'm pretty sure that you can get into felony level trouble for copying or distributing movies, even if there is no monetary gain involved.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It would have to be 2500 of them at iTunes prices. You said copying "a" movie.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, there've been some recent law changes that lead to that. That requires doing it with a huge number of copies, though.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You’d still need to get to some level for it to be a felony.
Isn’t there some threshold with money to make it a felony? Like if you steal $10 that would be a misdemeanor, but if you stole $100,000 that would be a felony for sure. Right?
So just transfer your movies and music things over to the amount levels and you have the same thing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Isn’t there some threshold with money to make it a felony? Like if you steal $10 that would be a misdemeanor, but if you stole $100,000 that would be a felony for sure. Right?
In Virginia, just as an example, here's how it works:
Larceny (basic theft) is a felony if
1) The property taken was $250 or more in value. 2) The property was taken from someone's person and valued at $5 or more. 3) The property taken included a firearm of any value. 4) The defendant has been convicted of two prior non-felony larcenies.
These factors have to be alleged in the indictment and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Larceny laws do NOT apply to copyright violations.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
See, the one nice thing about this idea is that if there was a lottery prize for voting, at least someone would benefit from the election... as it stands now, no matter who gets elected, everyone gets screwed.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Then very modest number of popular songs in your shared folder, say 250, if only downloaded 10 times each (not unreasonable at all considering some of the networks boast over 15 million users using it at one time) would make one a felon.
Also, the FBI warning at the beginning of movies would be somewhat misleading then. It says that the unauthorized reproduction or distribution of the movie is punishable by 5 years in prison or $250,000- and wouldn't that be felony level punishments?
But like I said earlier, I have no special knowledge of the law. It sounds like these aren't felonies and I was wrong.
Edit: I guess what threw me off was they use the phrase 'criminal copyright' which you pointed at as being defined as 10 copies at $2500 or more.
[ July 17, 2006, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not really, man. The reasons P2P networks get in trouble is based on the way P2P networks share the information being traded.
The P2P software slices up the files, music or other information, into many little sections, then connect to a number of other computers and trades those newly created files back and forth.
Each trade is a violation of copywite law. If you connect and download ONE song with a torrent that has 30 seeds and 1000 leechers in it, and your computer connects to 200 other people at a time (not unreasonable at all), you have just created over 200 copies at once, and traded parts of them. The RIAA claims, and has success in court defending their position, that each of those trades, even though it only results on one copy of that song being in YOUR position, counts against you as a violation.
So trading ONE song could be considered a felony.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Jay in VA if u steal more than 1,000$ of valuables its grand larceny which is a felony i think...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
SoaPiNuReYe, the cutoff is $200. The description I gave above is accurate except for the amount, which was off by $50. And it's more than the value of the property that can make it grand larceny.
quote:§ 18.2-95. Grand larceny defined; how punished.
Any person who (i) commits larceny from the person of another of money or other thing of value of $5 or more, (ii) commits simple larceny not from the person of another of goods and chattels of the value of $200 or more, or (iii) commits simple larceny not from the person of another of any firearm, regardless of the firearm's value, shall be guilty of grand larceny, punishable by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not less than one nor more than twenty years or, in the discretion of the jury or court trying the case without a jury, be confined in jail for a period not exceeding twelve months or fined not more than $2,500, either or both.
§ 18.2-104. Punishment for conviction of misdemeanor larceny. When a person is convicted of an offense of larceny or any offense deemed to be or punished as larceny under any provision of the Code, and it is alleged in the warrant, indictment or information on which he is convicted, and admitted, or found by the jury or judge before whom he is tried, that he has been before convicted in the Commonwealth of Virginia or in another jurisdiction for any offense of larceny or any offense deemed or punishable as larceny, or of any substantially similar offense in any other jurisdiction, regardless of whether the prior convictions were misdemeanors, felonies or a combination thereof, he shall be confined in jail not less than thirty days nor more than twelve months; and for a third, or any subsequent offense, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Oh, I saw a trial where a dude stole like 1,100$ worth from a mobile home. They gave him grand larceny and i swear thats what the judge said but maybe i just heard wrong.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
In places with three-strikes laws, all you have to do is commit the misdemeanor in sharing mp3s three times to have committed a felony, if we ignore convictions. So the only difference between someone who infringes on copyright three times and another felon, as far as the law is concerned, is that the latter got caught. Well, and that the crimes the former committed were spaced apart by a conviction, but...pretty close. Three strikes laws are stupid. I remember reading about how Coretta Scott King was one of the campaigners to allow felons the right to vote after they serve their time, before she died. I think it's stupid, myself, to punish someone for the rest of their life, even for a felony. If the vote is really important, then ex-felons should get to vote once they've already been punished for their crime.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
It's only Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia that have lifetime non vote for felons.
quote:I think it's stupid, myself, to punish someone for the rest of their life, even for a felony.
And yet we do this with sex offenders regularly, even after their time is served. We don't continue to punish offenders of any other type in the same way we do sex offenders. We put their pictures and names and addresses up on the internet, and show them on local TV, and allow neighbors to spit on them and put posters up demanding that they be driven from the neighborhood, and try to pass laws that make it illegal for them to give out Halloween candy. All after they've supposedly "paid their debt to society".
</soapbox>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
JennaDean, the sex offender lists aren't an attempt to punish the offender (though this is an effect); the are a response to the extreme tendency toward recidivism in child molestors.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Actually kmbboots, I've seen studies where the recidivism is less in sex offenders than other felons and is much less than assumed by law enforcement. Right now, without looking it up, what do you think the recividism rate for sex offenders is within say 5 years?
Furthermore, there is a lumping of sex offenders going on here- not all sex offenders are child molesters. My friend's neighbor is around 50 years old, and still registers as a sex offender because he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 18.
Lifelong stigmas always bothered me, although they are generally accepted in this case no doubt because what they have done affects us on such an emotional level.
Edited: effects->affects
[ July 17, 2006, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
And life-long sex-offender registries are stupid too. And age-of-consent problems should definitely be treated differently than other sex offenses (like, oh, actual rape?). I'm all right with age of consent laws, as long as they have nearness-of-age exceptions, but that's mainly because the way our society is set up means that the power difference makes true consent between, say, a fifteen-year-old and a thirty-year-old iffy. But, yeah, laws so that people who commit certain types of sex offenses are barred from living within so many miles of a school, for instance, are definitely unfair. Like that girl a while back who sent pictures of herself naked and while performing sexual acts, who got charged with possession of child pornography, distribution of child pornography, and child molestation. Yes, apparently she molested herself. And even for rapists and so on, posting addresses, pictures, names, and descriptions of them for any potential vigilante to use to hunt them down...wrong, wrong, wrong. We don't do that with murderers!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In places with three-strikes laws, all you have to do is commit the misdemeanor in sharing mp3s three times to have committed a felony, if we ignore convictions.
Most 3 strikes laws do not apply to misdemeanors.
Further, I'd be very surprised if felony copyright infringement applies as a three strike predicate in most states. It might not apply in any of them.
In Virginia, only violent crimes apply to the three strikes statute.
quote:All after they've supposedly "paid their debt to society".
This isn't a fair statement, especially with regards to people convicted after the registration laws went into effect. Look at it this way: the legislature could have simply doubled the mandatory sentence rather than added registration. Or, the states could have required post-sentence supervision for all sex offenders. This is part of their debt.
quote:Actually kmbboots, I've seen studies where the recidivism is less in sex offenders than other felons and is much less than assumed by law enforcement. Right now, without looking it up, what do you think the recividism rate for sex offenders is within say 5 years?
quote:Across all studies, the average sex offense recidivism rate (as evidenced by rearrest or reconviction) was 18.9 percent for rapists and 12.7 percent for child molesters over a four to five year period. The rate of recidivism for nonsexual violent offenses was 22.1 percent for rapists and 9.9 percent for child molesters, while the recidivism rate for any reoffense for rapists was 46.2 percent and 36.9 percent for child molesters over a four to five year period.
Note that this is calculated based on known offenses only (arrests or convictions only), and is for a five year period. By 25 years, the rate for child molesters is 24% and rapists 52%.
Plus, the low reporting rate for sex crimes makes it hard to figure out the actual rates, which are even higher.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote: 'Getting out there and being heard' doesn't really advance much if you're just going to go vote for whoever MTV told you to vote for.
My first thought when I read this was that South Park episode..."Vote or die, motha******, motha******, vote or die!"
-pH
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
*If* we assume that felons have paid their debt to society and learned something from their experiences, those experiences might actually have a good and useful effect on the vote. Felons might just have insights as to the societal pressures that influenced their crimes, and how to positively bring about change in society to prevent similar crimes.
To say "liberals want ex-felons to vote simply because they're more likely to vote liberal" is no more accurate than to say "conservatives don't want former-felons to vote simply because they're more likely to vote liberal."
On the original question: no, I don't necessarily want people to vote because there might be money in it for them, but the increasingly low voter turn-out isn't good for anyone. If people are apathetic or ill-informed (and the two do not necessarily entirely overlap) how do we combat that?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Dag, I'm really not too interested in debating this topic...it gets way to emotional for way too many people on the board. I'll just post a couple links so you don't think I just spout this stuff off.
I don't know where the study I originally saw was, I just remember coming across it when talking with someone about background checks. However, just to let you know I'm not pulling my statement out of thin air here's a couple of studies: Adult Recidivism Page 2 in particular
Anyways, I'm not really interested in getting dogpiled for this, or for discussion the subject at length because I know some people on Hatrack have had some terrible experiences.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The second one has good statistics:
quote:Nearly 28% of released rapists were re-arrested for a new violent crime within 3 years (figure 27). For nearly 8% of released rapists, the new arrest for a violent crime was another charge for rape.
quote:Released rapists were found to be 10.5 times as likely as nonrapists to be re-arrested for rape, and those who had served time for sexual assault were 7.5 times as likely as those convicted of other crimes to be rearrested for a new sexual assault.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Given the original subject, what difference does it make whether felons are allowed to vote? Just because voters would be entered in a lottery doesn't change whether felons would be permitted to vote or not. And in states where felons can vote, are we to assume that felons will choose to vote at a disproportionately higher rate than the rest of the population?
quote:I’m all for anyone and everyone voting. But why oh why should we encourage the uninformed to cast a ballot? Think of the lines of people who have no clue what they’re even voting for (yes, I realize they currently do this anyway) and just want to be entered into the lottery.
I don't think that a voter lottery is a good idea, because in general I'm opposed to gambling.
But I don't see this idea affecting uninformed voters in any greater numbers than it would affect informed voters. I'm also curious why the issue of "uninformed voters" tends to be raised by conservatives. (This is another of Bruce Tinsley's running gags. He equates liberalism with being uninformed, and any attempt to increase voter turnout is equated with liberals)
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I'm also curious why the issue of "uninformed voters" tends to be raised by conservatives. (This is another of Bruce Tinsley's running gags. He equates liberalism with being uninformed, and any attempt to increase voter turnout is equated with liberals)
I don’t see any value in someone going to the ballet box and randomly checking off names based on possibly something as arbitrary as I saw more of their signs out or they’re cute or I’m just here to enter the lottery. I’m not sure how that is a liberal or conservative view point, but more of a way to get an accurate view of what the voters want.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I don’t see any value in someone going to the ballet box and randomly checking off names
I can understand that. But why does it seem to be related to a perception of the liberal/conservative spectrum? Is there a liberal equivalent?
Also, I tend to think that most people don't consider themselves to be uninformed. Most people are informed on some level. Tinsley's comics imply that liberals are uninformed as a matter of course. Liberals could just as easily claim that conservatives are uninformed, since they are so obviously "wrong" (otherwise they wouldn't be conservatives) about the issues. The fact is that both liberals and conservatives are selectively informed. Accusing a particular group of being uninformed is merely a matter of not valuing the information that the group is informed of.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here is how its considered a liberal/conservative thing.
There are more poor people than rich people.
Rich people are more likely to vote Republican--if they vote.
Poor people are more likely to vote Democratic--if they vote.
Rich people have good reasons to vote, as their vote saves them from being over-taxed.
Poor people are more likely not to vote, as they don't believe they can make a difference.
Offering any insentive to get more people to vote, statistically, gets more poor people to vote, and hence it is assumed, gets more of those votes to democrats.
I am not saying that any of the above is true, only that is the perception and the math, that the politicians use.
This is why Christian Conservatives are so important to the Republican party. They help bring in the mass, less wealthy, vote.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
So conservatives are actually against poor people voting, but they couch it as if they are against "uninformed" people voting, because that doesn't sound so bigoted?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)