Letters to Editor - bLetters
We welcome your opinion on public issues, in either of two ways. You can submit a letter to the editor for possible publication in the printed edition. The Virginian-Pilot welcomes letters to the editor on all topics, although concise letters (150 words or less) on public issues will receive priority. Letters may be edited for length, style and clarity and writers are limited to one published letter every month. Please add your name, city, street address and daytime telephone number for confirmation.
The other way is to comment on the published letters in this blog. In this online forum, you can comment as much as you want by using the comment box at the end of each entry.
By e-mail: letters@pilotonline.com
By mail: Letters to the editor - P.O. Box 449 - Norfolk, VA 23501-0449
By fax: (757) 446-2051
Category: Readers' Opinions
Subscribe to this blog
Subscribe to this blog
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Thanks! Thought provoking and relevant.
Hi Sabrina,
This is a thoughtful and provocative editorial on a rarely discussed issue, and I thank you and applaud you for bringing it up. I read your letter in the newspaper last week, and have been thinking it since. I have also discussed it with others at work who I figured would disagree with you to hear their opposing thoughts, read the response blogs to your letter online, and considered rights vs. rights, safety, justice, and a variety of conflicting ethical points your post inspires.
In short: I agree with you. And I think your last phrase: “..while returning to hundreds of thousands of Virginians the right to participate in our democracy, which they earned when they repaid their debt to society.” is on-target, valid and just.
I read with interest the opposing (and valid) point some bloggers made wrt the conflict of restoring gun rights as well if voting rights are restored. My response to them is that it seems logical that if a person was convicted of a violent crime, or one involving a weapon, they should not have gun rights restored. I think most would agree this is a common-sense security precaution to protect society that most would agree with. B
What she really meant to say...
"...that prevents about 300,000 Virginia residents from voting."
Translation: that's 300,000 likely Democratic Party voters!
Crime is Partisan
Only democrats are former felons? That is a remarkable statistic!
Don't see a problem
I don't see a problem with the current system. Restoration of rights should be made on an individual basis. Stay out of trouble, work and lead a productive life and then apply to have participation restored. To allow wholesale voting rights to folks that have no respect or regard for society does not meet the common sense test.
How things work . . .
Conviction of a felony, by law, removes some civil rights. When you complete your sentence these rights are not automatically restored. That is because you have, by committing a felony, broken the requirement to live an honorable, law abiding life. The incarceration is to remove you from free society to give you time to reflect on your life and purpose and give you an opportunity to repent and determine to live a law abiding life. When you complete your incarceration you then, for a time, you have to demonstrate that you are able and willing to live a respectable and crime free life. When you have done this, then it is the time to consider restoring your civil rights.
Law Abiding Life
Hi Charles,
Some points I agree with, some I would argue. The primary question I have is wrt this: "When you complete your sentence these rights are not automatically restored." My question is, if they've COMPLETED their sentence...then why not?
I understand your point that if they broke the law they need to pay for it. But incarceration is supposed to be the "paying for it" part.
What if the ideas met in the middle? What if all former felons had to complete a year of "voting probation" before their voting rights were automatically restored? But it happens automatically if they stay law-abiding during post-incarceration probation, not a Governor plea, not an exception, but the rule.
I gotta agree with the original poster that to continue to disenfranchise citizens who are former felons probably doesn't do our society much good in the long run, and I think that when someone has paid for their crime it is reasonable to let them move on with their lives.
Thoughts?
Tracy
Charles
Read my post.
How things work . . .
Conviction of a felony, by law, removes some civil rights. When you complete your sentence these rights are not automatically restored. That is because you have, by committing a felony, broken the requirement to live an honorable, law abiding life. The incarceration is to remove you from free society to give you time to reflect on your life and purpose and give you an opportunity to repent and determine to live a law abiding life. When you complete your incarceration you then, for a time, you have to demonstrate that you are able and willing to live a respectable and crime free life. When you have done this, then it is the time to consider restoring your civil rights.
conservatives,
Would you people still be against voting rights for felons if it were a felony to read the Bible or listen to Rush Limbaugh? There's no other way to change unjust laws than to allow those who break them to vote. People should be able to vote even while in prison. I don't even care if mentally deranged people are allowed to vote--there aren't enough of them out there to affect any real change.
Really?
"I don't even care if mentally deranged people are allowed to vote--there aren't enough of them out there to affect any real change."
All you have to do is look at the last presidential election or the senatorial vote in Minnesota to see the fallacy of that statement.
Yes, that's right..
no more corporate execs. We now have a govt that is owned and operated by a mryiad of special interests, via the Congress. A lesson Obama learned from Clinton's health care fiasco. If you want proof, just look at the Porkulus and health care bills recently passed.
What is the connection...
between racism and losing your right to vote? I thought the only requirement was to be a convicted felon.
Jim King
How about the racisist judicial system?
Huh?
Our judicial system specifically targets one group of people by race? Please enlighten us as to where that's written.
dave
It certainly convicts and incarcerates people according to race, as evidenced by the fact that certain races are convicted and incarcerated disproportionately to their crime rates.
From the news I read & hear
From the news I read & hear everyday, it appears that certain minority groups are the ones commiting a lot of the crimes, i.e., rape, burglary, murder; it makes sense that a large proportion of the jail population is and will be these minorities.
citygal
I assumed you had heard about this before, from Leonard Pitts and others, but apparently not:
The War on Drugs came into being under President Nixon, whose chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, once quoted the president as saying, "You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to." Small wonder blacks account for 13 percent of the nation's regular drug users, 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of those convicted, but more than 74 percent of all those jailed for drug use.
Okay, Fine...
If you want to restore the voting rights of convicted felons, why not allow them to own a gun, too since that is a right that is also permanently stripped from them? Why not allow convicted sex offenders to live next door to a school?
Convicted felons are stripped of these rights REGARDLESS of race, but since the author of this letter decrys the law as racist, what is happening in the black community to PREVENT people from BECOMING felons in the first place?
I personally like the fact that a person who commits a felony cannot vote or legally own a firearm, but if you restore one right then by default, you really have no argument to not restore all rights felons have lost-be VERY CAREFUL what you wish for.
So basically
what you're saying is that they shouldn't be allowed to vote while they're in jail but once out, they should have full rights and benefits of those of us who have consistently followed the rules. Would you then also advocate letting them own guns since they repaid their debt to society? Would you allow a convicted child molester access to schools, daycare, and other venues where children are available? At what point do the needs of the convicted felon outweigh the needs of law abiding people?
It's pretty well known that if you make the choice to commit a felony, you lose certain privileges. Live by the rules and your letter is moot.
Rights vs Privileges...
You are conflating rights vs privileges. It is a privilege to have a driver's license, access to schools and daycare facilities, etc. These can easily be taken away from those who do not abide by the rules-as well it should be. Rights are another thing. Gun ownership and voting are constitutional rights. Guns however are low hanging fruit in the issue of convicted felons, as guns are used to commit crimes-so the tie is close and the loss of this right is not questioned by many, including myself. There is a strong case to be made on the guns issue about the public good regarding safety and general welfare. Voting is quite another issue. What harm is done by allowing felons to vote who have served their sentence? Can't use a vote to harm someone, and our registrar system keeps illegal voting in check. This is the most basic right of citizens in a democracy and I cannot fathom why not restoring voting rights in these cases is in the public good-outside of the want to continue make a person pay for their mistake.