[nyolfen]

if somebody defects against society very seriously, damaging others, i have no problem with stripping them of legal rights. this is in fact exactly the principle underlying imprisonment. constitutional rights are granted by men, not god, in service of shared prosperity; democracy is good insofar as it produces good results, not because it is the intrinsic source of good. there is no higher construct to appeal to, like this platonic ideal of democracy you're gesturing at

[dylan604]

Okay so now you’ve set an arbitrary limit with “very seriously” yet you do not define what that means. Is grand theft auto worthy of striping someone’s vote? Is conviction of marijuana possession? Is shop lifting? Is embezzlement? Where’s the line of very serious for you? It won’t be the same for someone else. Do you see the issue inherent with your proposal?

[metalcrow]

it is arbitrary yes, but the point of democracy is to allow society to codify these subjective questions into rigid laws. I mean, what is the arbitrary line between tough love and child abuse? We have to decide somewhere, and we use democracy to draw that line.

[forgotoldacc]

I can understand stripping them of the right temporarily while in prison. That's the time in which they pay their debt to society for the harm they're convicted of. Some rights are restricted during that period.

But once it's determined that the debt has been repaid and they're free to live outside and participate in society again, it seems hard to justify them not also participating in the democratic process.

[Terr_]

> [in prison they] pay their debt to society

How exactly is taking away an inmates vote "paying me back" for a crime in my community? "Society" isn't actually benefiting here.

Let's go down the list of justifications:

1. Is disenfranchisement rehabilitative justice? No, if anything it's the opposite, preparing them to fail when they get out, promoting ignorance and helplessness instead of engagement in the political process.

2. Is disenfranchisement punitive justice? Not usefully, because the worst criminals won't care anyway, instead it tends to hurt the people who deserve it the least, the people who would otherwise try to work through "the system."

3. Is disenfranchisement a deterrent? No, LOL. Nobody goes: "OK, I was going to commit the crime and risk being caught and shot or jailed for many years, buuuuut then I realized I wouldn't be able to vote, so I'm out."

What's left? Bad reasons, like helping politicians get away with abusive policies.

[pfannkuchen]

> debt has been repaid

I know people say this, but I think this framing likely generates anti-prison arguments because it basically doesn’t make any sense. How does being in a cage for X years repay society? It doesn’t. It does keep the harmful person away from society though, which is a very different and useful thing (in many cases, obviously imprisonment for some crimes is dumb).

[novemp]

> this is in fact exactly the principle underlying imprisonment.

No, the principle underlying imprisonment is to protect others and rehabilitate the criminal.