Prisoners right to vote, positive outcome data?

You mean like they have chosen to be gay?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That sounds reasonable to me. But what I consider to NOT be reasonable is to force the citizens of the country to pay to have all prisoners tested to see which ones have REAL mental problems and then treat them with kid gloves. In my personal opinion, they had to be a little nutty/stupid to wind up there in the first place. And if they are SO bad that they can't function in the outside world anyway, then that's a good place to keep them. Perhaps in a section away from dangerous inmates - but that's the *only* concession I'd be willing to pay for.

And to underscore my point, would you expect someone who abuses and kills children to be completely sane anyway????

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most people in prison haven't committed crimes like killing children. As for the mentally ill, the reason that they end up there isn't because their illness is "so bad that they can't function in the outside world anyway." Usually, it is because their illness goes untreated and unmedicated. Another reason is medication noncompliance because they simply can't afford the meds. You might not have any idea how expensive a year's worth of antipsychotic meds are, but Risperdal alone costs $7,000 a year. That is why some jurisdictions have tried to solve this problem with laws similar to Kendra's Law which we have here in NY.

Fact: most psychiatric hospital admissions are due to medication noncompliance by people who are usually stable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12532538

...for a pretty good article about mental illness in prison, especially note the sidebar.

I was told that here, it was not uncommon to see a full bus of people from the state mental hospital arrive in our downtown in the 80's...and they just dumped them out...with no community support, no home, nowhere to go.

Fly free, little crazy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All states but Kentucky and Virginia restore the right to vote after completion of sentence; and Kentucky has a process of restoration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement

Here in Texas, we lock up a lot of black folks. We lock them up in rural areas. Where they are then counted for purposes of voting population. But they are not allowed to vote!

(Why this is legal is beyond me...it strikes me as similar to the way slaves counted as sorta/kinda part of the voting population...the prisoners ought to be counted as from their county of original residence.)

What this does is gives unfair weight to the conservative, rural counties where the Texas prisons are built. Texas would look fairly different if those people were allowed to vote-because a large portion of the prisoners are from the cities, a majority are not white (because, let's face it, the system is racist), and their outlook is at least going to be less socially-conservative, probably more for poverty-alleviation, since most of the people in prison end up there because they can't afford a lawyer, not because of what they did or did not do.

I wonder if this is true in other parts of my country, where the presence of prisoners in a conservative rural district effectively pads its' numbers and power, even though those prisoners have no vote?

Does all that strike anyone else as more than a bit screwy?

 

James, bells posted a while ago about how our procutors are uninterested in if someone commited a crime, just wether they can win the case. Further more the legal aid service has top quality lawyers but they are compleatly underfunded and under resorced and rember the linsly Chamberlain case if you think once someone is convicted they don't matter

 

Oh, I forgot to mention, if you arrange for bail you are not considered to be indigent, and not give a court-appointed attorney...at least in my county.

So a friend of my brother's pled guilty to a crime he didn't commit-a felony-and was put on probation...because, while his friends could have scraped together enough for bail, that would have meant he'd have no attorney...and his trial date was TWO YEARS OFF.

I'm not sure that was the wisest move-maybe he should have bonded out on the gamble that he could find a way to raise the money to retain a lawyer in the two years 'till the trial date rolled around...because a felony record is a permanent second-class citizenship. It's a black cloud that will follow him forever.

It disqualifies him from government aid, student grants, a lot of colleges won't take him even. A lot of places won't hire someone with a record-he'll be working crap jobs for the rest of his life.

OTOH, the local jail is known for producing its' own special strain of MRSA...it produces necrotic pocks...

 

That's the way it is here too, but this EU ruling is saying we should take polling booths into prisons however. I think that's a lot of effort to give cons a say. I think it's just tough shit if they miss a vote while banged up.

 

In the U. S., a convicted felon is stripped of the normal privileges associated with citizenship: voting, running for public office, owning a firearm and serving in the armed forces. A felon by his (her) acts has demonstrated an unwillingness to exist and participate in society in a proper and productive manner. That is federal law, although there may be echoing state laws as well.

There are movements in the U. S. for a blanket restoration of 'rights' upon release from confinement. It is interesting to note this is sponsored almost exclusively by the Democrat party, as they think more felons will vote for them. I find that amusing but sad.

Also curious is the restoration of 'rights' would not allow a convicted felon to own a firearm. Vote for elected officials, but not own a firearm. Frankly, anyone I don't trust with a gun, I don't trust to vote.