Ok. Now that i have youyr attention, it’s not “that” dramatic, but it’s still just as liberally-foolish.
Posted: 2:09 pm PDT March 21, 2009Updated: 8:25 am PDT March 22, 2009
OLYMPIA, Wash. — For tens of thousands of convicted felons in Washington state, only one thing stands between them and the ballot box: debt.
The Associated Press reported that under current law, felons can’t vote until they have served their sentences, including the completion of any parole or probation, and paid all restitution and other court fees.
A measure to remove that payment requirement — opponents say it’s akin to a modern-day “poll tax” — has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate.
If it becomes law, felons could simply re-register to vote once they’re no longer in state custody, including any parole or probation.
“The basic unfairness is that our system is currently based on someone paying off their legal obligations,” said Rep. Jeannie Darneille, a Tacoma Democrat who sponsored the measure. “If you have money, you can get your rights restored, and if you don’t have money, you won’t.”
Washington’s neighbor, Oregon, automatically restores voting rights to felons once they’re released from prison. Nearly 40 other states and the District of Columbia also have less onerous restrictions on restoring voting rights to felons.
But others argue Washington state is obligated to make sure felons complete all of their sentence, including all monetary obligations.
After you’ve served your sentence, it makes sense that you should be allowed to vote. I would imagine it makes the same sense that all your other rights should be restored, too, since you’re no longer a “bad guy”. Like your right to own guns. Right? Telling an ex-felon they can vote but not have all their rights back is kind of saying two things, right? Like: “We can trust you to choose our next President, but not to own a firearm.”
I don’t want former felons who’d been covicted of a violent crime to have guns. I don’t want any “white-collar” felon choosing our president and other elected officials. Politicians – particularly democrats, from whom much support is gleaned from the formerly guilty – want more votes. Crooked politicians want crooked peers to vote them into office.
Now for the part that doesn’t make any sense:
Saying the financial obligation that was part of their sentence isn’t fair is … stupid. It’s part of their sentence! When they committed their crime, the financial consequence was one of the consequences of their stupidity, selfishness or evil. If you kill a person, you expect to be put to death or put in prison for life. If you break into someone’s house, rape a jogger in a park, hold up a convenience store or drive drunk, you know society is going to expect you to pay. You know you’re going to be indebtecd with your time and your money and your reputation to pay restitution for your crime.
If a previously convicted felon can’t afford his or her financial portion of the sentence, then they should get a job. If that doesn’t work, they can go back to jail, which is what happens when the financial portion of their prior sentencing is not met.
A person who intentionally committed a crime needs to fulfill their complete sentencing before they are granted the privileges given to good citizens.