Crime, Punishment, and the Right to Vote: A Constitutional Debate

AI Chatting...

I asked:

How can prisoners lose their right to vote when imprisoned?

ChatGPT:

In many countries, including the United States, prisoners lose their right to vote while incarcerated due to a legal principle called "felony disenfranchisement." This practice is based on the belief that those who commit serious crimes should temporarily forfeit certain rights, such as voting, as part of their punishment.

In the U.S., voting rights for prisoners vary depending on the state. Some states permanently disenfranchise convicted felons, even after they serve their sentence, while others restore voting rights after release or after completing parole or probation. The rationale behind this varies, with debates focusing on punishment, rehabilitation, and civil rights.

The restoration of voting rights is part of broader discussions about the rights of formerly incarcerated individuals and whether this disenfranchisement disproportionately affects certain groups, particularly minorities.

If you'd like information specific to U.S. elections, please visit CanIVote.org for more details from your state or local election authority.

I said:

That seems unconstitutional.

ChatGPT:

The argument that felony disenfranchisement is unconstitutional has been a topic of debate for many years. Critics argue that it contradicts democratic principles, particularly the 14th and 15th Amendments, which guarantee equal protection and prohibit racial discrimination in voting. Here's an overview of both perspectives:

Constitutional Basis for Felony Disenfranchisement

14th Amendment (Section 2): The 14th Amendment explicitly allows for the disenfranchisement of individuals for "participation in rebellion, or other crime." This is often cited as the constitutional basis for states enacting laws that restrict voting rights for prisoners.

Historical precedent: Courts have generally upheld the constitutionality of felony disenfranchisement laws, reasoning that the right to vote can be restricted as a part of the punishment for committing a crime.

Arguments Against Felony Disenfranchisement

Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment): Critics argue that stripping the right to vote disproportionately impacts minority groups, especially Black Americans, due to systemic inequalities in the criminal justice system. This could violate equal protection under the law.

15th Amendment (Racial Discrimination): In some cases, felony disenfranchisement laws have been challenged for being rooted in racial discrimination. Historically, these laws were implemented after Reconstruction as a way to suppress the Black vote.

Eighth Amendment (Cruel and Unusual Punishment): Some argue that permanently stripping someone's right to vote is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, especially if it continues after the sentence has been served.

Democratic Participation: Philosophically, denying voting rights to prisoners is seen as inconsistent with democratic values. Critics argue that voting is a fundamental right, and disenfranchisement limits rehabilitation and civic reintegration for prisoners and former felons.

Current Legal Landscape

State laws vary: The U.S. allows each state to determine its policies on felony disenfranchisement. Some states, like Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners to vote even while incarcerated. Others, like Florida and Iowa (after reform), have restored voting rights to some or all former felons after their sentence is served.

Recent reforms: There has been a trend toward reforming felony disenfranchisement laws. In 2020, states like California passed measures to restore voting rights to those on parole.

Legal Challenges

Numerous legal challenges have been brought to courts, arguing that these laws are discriminatory or unjust. While many of these challenges have failed, the landscape is slowly shifting, with increased scrutiny on felony disenfranchisement policies.

The constitutionality of felony disenfranchisement is still a matter of interpretation, and ongoing debates question whether it aligns with modern concepts of justice and equality.

I said:

"Participation in rebellion, or other crime." sounds like "crime" is related to rebellion not general crime.

ChatGPT:

Yes, the phrasing in the 14th Amendment’s Section 2—“participation in rebellion, or other crime”—has an interesting historical context. It was written in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War and originally intended to address issues of loyalty and punishment for those who participated in the Confederacy's rebellion.

Here’s a closer look at how it connects to rebellion and evolved to justify felony disenfranchisement:

Historical Context:

14th Amendment (1868): Section 2 was drafted as part of the Reconstruction Amendments after the Civil War. Its primary focus was to reduce the representation of states that denied voting rights to male citizens, especially newly freed African Americans. The exception clause—"participation in rebellion, or other crime"—was added to allow for the disenfranchisement of former Confederates who had taken up arms against the U.S. government during the war.

“Rebellion” Clause: At the time, there was a clear concern about the political participation of those who had rebelled against the Union. The goal was to prevent those individuals from influencing future elections and policies. Essentially, this clause permitted states to deny voting rights to individuals who had committed treasonous acts against the U.S.

Evolution to Felony Disenfranchisement:

Over time, the “other crime” portion of the 14th Amendment’s language has been interpreted more broadly, allowing for the disenfranchisement of individuals convicted of felonies, even though the original focus was on rebellion. Courts have largely upheld the use of this clause to justify felony disenfranchisement by:

Broad Interpretation: While the 14th Amendment was concerned with rebellion, its language was broad enough to encompass other types of crimes. States took advantage of this flexibility, developing laws that disenfranchise individuals convicted of a wide range of crimes, not just rebellion.

Legislative and Judicial Expansion: After the Civil War, states, particularly in the South, began to expand disenfranchisement laws to apply to other crimes. This expansion allowed states to disenfranchise Black citizens through Jim Crow laws, which disproportionately targeted African Americans for convictions that could strip away voting rights.

Legal Precedents: Over the years, courts have upheld felony disenfranchisement under this broad interpretation. For instance, in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that disenfranchisement of felons did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, citing the 14th Amendment’s Section 2 as constitutional justification.

Criticisms and Controversies:

While the original intent of the language in the 14th Amendment may have focused on rebellion, its use to justify modern felony disenfranchisement has been controversial for several reasons:

Historical Roots in Racial Discrimination: Many felony disenfranchisement laws were developed as tools to suppress Black voting after Reconstruction, which has led to criticism that their current application still disproportionately impacts minority groups.

Evolving Social Norms: Critics argue that laws focused on rebellion may not align with modern ideas of justice, rehabilitation, and civil rights, especially when applied to felons who have served their time.

Reform Movements:

Given this historical context, modern reformers question whether felony disenfranchisement laws, grounded in post-Civil War ideas of rebellion and crime, are still relevant or justifiable in a contemporary democratic society. Many argue that the laws need re-examination to ensure they aren't unfairly disenfranchising large segments of the population, especially after individuals have served their sentences.

In short, while the 14th Amendment’s reference to “rebellion” was initially a specific post-Civil War concern, the interpretation has expanded over time to justify felony disenfranchisement, a practice that remains contentious today.

Sine qua non.

Where to Invade Next?

Every American should watch documentary filmmaker and very liberal American Michael Moore's, Where to Invade Next. You may know him from his other works like Fahrenheit 9/11 about the Bush administration's travesties, and other documentaries. His film Trumpland was a tour de force, well reasoned and productive in many ways. He went into the heart of Trump supporters and invited them to a one man stage show and filmed it.

He pushes his mostly left wing progressive agenda with facts, and humor. We need people like him, who push the envelope. But where he used to be annoying to many, he has grown into someone who is succinct, lighthearted, and accurate as a sniper's bullet.

I have never before pushed anyone to watch a Michael Moore film. But watch Where to Invade Next. It's on Netflix DVDs and Amazon Prime where I saw it. Ignore your feelings about him and just listen to what people in Europe say about us and how they view us and LET THAT SINK IN! It could be the one thing that saves us.

Do NOT let conservatives, Republicans, capitalists, and those types deny what is possible, deny the potential to make our lives better, deny we can make changes better for people and the country. You will find their lies sound oddly familiar. Because they are the same lies by the rich and powerful who have gotten us to the place. This sad place. America sad? Watch the damn film first before denying. Then we can talk.

Even IF what we see in the film is not possible in America according to those naysayers and soldiers of the status quo, which is at least partially ridiculous, the film most definitely gives you a feeling for an obviousness of how things should be certainly in AMERICA, and yet how they are most prominently, not!

CEOs are asked in the film, why do you give your employees so much? Because we can, they say, because it is right. How much money do you need to make after all, they say. Human dignity and respect. Our employees are healthier, happier. We make lots of money and we take care of our people and they respect and take care of us.

When asking people if they don't work two or three jobs, people are confused by the question. And so it goes in the film, on and on and on again about so many topics. Jurisprudence. Schools. And so on.

Michael's long been known as a liberal nut job. I didn't always agree with him. He seems to be mellowing though, getting more accurate and his documentaries? They are getting better. This one is his best in my view, in one particular way (and his others are pretty damn good too).

His best not because it has the best facts, the most truth, the actual important over what Pres. Trump is dictating as most important. We can't listen to what Mr. Trump says because he tells falsehoods and I believe, actual lies so much, just to get his way, to satiate his emotional status, to inflate his already conflated ego.

I saw this is Michael's best because by the end of the film you have a true visceral feeling for what is wrong in America. How we are not seeing reality around us because we've been lied to for so long by government, corporate and big money interests, and our own sad paradigm through archaic beliefs.

We have all the information in the world and yet, we continue to be the parent who beats their child rather than using newer tried and true methods now used world wide.

Over and over again, those in other countries react to Moore's prodding with looks of surprise, incredulity, and horror at how America does things. Over and over we hear Europeans asking about America, in how we do things. To paraphrase...

Life and government is about the human dignity? Primary is respect for people.

After watching the film, then ask of our new Pres. Donald Trump:

"How again are you planning to make America great again?"

But who cares really, apparently, as he got elected. Still ask what he means by America being made great AGAIN?

Michael's examination of other countries in how it can be in America, of how people can think of fellow citizens in really trying to actually help families and children, not just lip service, is simply not like America.

Try not to get angry while watching the film at how you are treated, how most of us are treated as workers here.

Two months vacation a year? That's just the beginning.

If you're not embarrassed, humiliated, disgusted and depressed by what this documentary shows you about ourselves, then you need to take a really good look at Yourself. It shows how we are not who we should be, who we could be, who we already think we are and, we are not.

It shows us how our understanding of things is warped from reality. How we don't allow cruel and unusual punishment in our prisons, and yet, we have those prisons which are themselves crule and unusual punishment based on 18th century jurisprudence, on punishment and retribution, not rehabilitation and building a better citizen. America prisons, including privatized ones (a truly despicable thing) are a broken, degenerate paradigm that is in itself cruel and unusual.

And we cannot see those things.

We need to wake up. I'll even go this far.

We need to wake the HELL up!

#EverySecondCounts

Colleges or Prisons, Education or Punishment - It's Our Choice

Where would you rather spend your late teens and twenties? College? Or, prison? Where should we prefer our youth, in colleges or prisons? Should we even care, if they aren't our very own young adults?

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” 
― Nelson Mandela

It is our choice if we want more colleges or prisons in this country. We are ultimately responsible. It's no secret that we need to better educate our country. It is an established fact that those with higher educational levels have less violent crime and produce fewer children. That means, to spell it out, that more of those with a poorer education produce most of the violent crime and children. We don't need more ignorant children raised to be more ignorant adults.

We need fewer children being not just better, but well educated. In prisons, we literally have a captive audience of potential students. Of course we can't force feed education in prisons. But there is something we can do. We can inspire through education, and we can educate through inspiration.

“The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.” 
― Plutarch

I wanted to compare the numbers of colleges against the numbers of prisons and I couldn't find how many prisons there are in the US. That is mostly talked in numbers of prisoners in the US, not in how many prisons there actually are. But finally, I did find it.

I found on Salon that there are 4,575 prisons in the US. I also found that the number of inmates in state and federal prisons decreased by 1.7 percent, to an estimated 1,571,013 in 2012 from 1,598,783 in 2011 (NY Times).

There are 21 million college students as of 2010 (enrollment increased 37% from 2000 to 2010, according to the National Center for Education Statistics). Well, that's good news anyway. But not good enough. There are 2,774 four year colleges, nearly half of the numbers of prisons.

Why? Why should that be?

Why should it apparently be easier to get into jail than into college? This may at first sound stupid, but what if many of those jailed, were instead in college?

Why don't we have more colleges than prisons? Are we just a criminally based culture or, can we admit we are letting down our children in educating and taking care of them as they grow into productive adults?

“Intelligence plus character-that is the goal of true education.” 
― Martin Luther King Jr.

There are also many more students in those colleges than prisoners in those prisons, but what if we had that number more evened out for students? Have you attended a university? Have you been in, seen, or heard of the 1,000 student GUR (General University Requirements) classes in colleges, classes that you are obligated to take in order to graduate? Classes like for instance, "Intro to Psychology". What if those were instead like my own Intro to Psych class, which had less than thirty students?

I started my college career at a very well ranked Community College in Washington state which eventually got accreditation as a full College. I then had my two year AA degree transferred to a four year University where I received my Bachelor of Arts and Letters degree. I feel I got a very good education starting at the Community College level because I had easy access to my teachers. The Community College had Master's graduates teaching where the University has only PhDs teaching. Yes the work may be harder at a University but some of that is because you have to do so much more on your own which leads to some degree of guessing. Which can be good, but wouldn't it be better to have those questions filled in and then some by Professors? Allow me to explain.

I admit, it was a shock to go from Community College level to a University, but so is the divide between sophomore and junior years of college.

My girlfriend at the time had her first year at a University in one of those 1,000 student classes. She had a scholarship, I just had my V.A. benefits after getting out of the Air Force. After that first year, she decided to come home to finish school and so we moved in together. We had a lot of time to discuss this topic until we both later graduated at the same University. It was her belief that I had gotten a much better education because of the smaller classes I had, than she did starting at a prestigious four year University, because I could have more in depth discussions with my teachers. Which I did many times, where she could barely get to see hers and many times, simply didn't. Of course, much of this is about how much the student pushes to learn. But a student shouldn't be put up against other students to steal their time with a Professor. They should all have equal time, as needed or desired.

My Psych teacher didn't have "office hours". Her's did. Hers had to. My teacher didn't need office hours because I could talk to him anytime between classes, before or after school. He was very available to us, as were most of our teachers there. But my girlfriend had to jockey for time with her Professors among the long lines of other students trying to see their Prof. for what could only be a few minutes and during too few "office hours" times. She said sometimes she'd stand in line outside a Professor's office, wasting time, trying to study in line, and not infrequently, simply not get to see him at all. Of course not all classes are like that, but many are. Certainly the more popular classes were.

So what if  we had enough University level schools so that all students could have a Prof. and a class with only thirty students in it? What if we had as many higher education schools, that supported the levels needed by the available students, to the students' needs and not societies lack of money to pay for what is needed? What kind of education would they get then? What kind of graduates would we end up with compared to now, when many of those students are simply sitting in jail learning to be better criminals, rather than better students and citizens? What kind of advancements would our country see, then? What would life in America be like then? What would our world be like if America produced so many fewer ex prisoners and so many more University, College, or even Community College students?

Simply put, we need to turn this thing with our prisons, around. We need to stop using 18th century paradigms of jurisprudence and start using what we have learned works, replacing what we know perpetuates generational criminals.

I would like to end this with a caveat. That being that how we educate is as important as what and who we educate. We need to teach how to think, critically. We need to teach accurate information and the best knowledge we have at the time. We need to separate out theology from science as theology can be it's own educational direction, but has little to do with a fact based education other than in historical perspectives. Much of our education system lacks progression within itself and inspiration. And to that I will end with this....

“Ideally, what should be said to every child, repeatedly, throughout his or her school life is something like this: 'You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination. We are sorry, but it is the best we can do. What you are being taught here is an amalgam of current prejudice and the choices of this particular culture. The slightest look at history will show how impermanent these must be. You are being taught by people who have been able to accommodate themselves to a regime of thought laid down by their predecessors. It is a self-perpetuating system. Those of you who are more robust and individual than others will be encouraged to leave and find ways of educating yourself — educating your own judgements. Those that stay must remember, always, and all the time, that they are being moulded and patterned to fit into the narrow and particular needs of this particular society.” 
― Doris Lessing, The Golden Notebook

Just know that we can do better.