Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
But to be fair I also think stupid people shouldn't vote, so take that with a grain of salt.
For example, someone kills someone while drunk driving. They go to jail. They actually get rehabilitated. They should still never be allowed to drive or drink again for the rest of their lives. Sure, maybe they can do both safely. But they can also live a meaningful and fulfilling life without doing either, so for the sake of the rest of us, better that they don't.
If anything, someone who kills someone else as a result of drink driving is probably far less likely to do the same thing in the future, because of the lasting psychological effect that experience is going to have on them. By comparison, people who have driven drunk without having any kind of accident likely pose a much greater risk to society, since they will erroneously underestimate just how dangerous it is.
Unless you live in a major metropolitan area with good public transportation, without a car, you're not going to be employed. Unemployment leads to crime. It is actually in society's best interests to allow people to drive if it means they can earn a living.
Elderly drivers kill regularly, and are a danger to those around them. Is the mere fact that most places in the US have garbage mass transit legitimate reason to leave these extremely dangerous drivers on the road killing others?
But to compare old people with drunk driving criminals is conflating two very different things... Old people are dangerous drivers because they're old. To use Scott's example, a drunk driver is dangerous because of alcohol, not because the driver is inherently dangerous. Someone who drives drunk and kills someone, goes to prison, and comes out years later is not inherently dangerous unless that person starts drinking again.
Old people are mostly retired or don't work so I don't think society has to worry about a sudden spike in geriatric crime sprees. Old people are generally less mobile as they get older so even if they drive, they drive infrequently. There are also assisted living communities specifically for old people that provide transportation to the grocery store, pharmacy, doctor, mall, etc.
By not allowing a former criminal to drive, that person basically has no other options other than living in a city, getting help from other people, or being unemployed. I can't cite you specific numbers but off the top of my head I would wager that an unemployed former criminal is more likely to commit a crime than an employed former criminal.
Also, make government not corrupt.
Also the city is so spread out because its surrounded by useless desert land so the place is huge for only having like 150000 or so people.
Only the worst possible humans. If even after rehabilitation, the freedom they regain is somehow limited and involves some amount of suffering for the rest of their lives in the US, such as no car driving, that is fine. Car driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. If the just not-corrupt society can't also solve the problem of public transportation, forcing some people to live either in a city, or with difficulty, is not a great concern.
People who drive drunk even once are a danger to those around them, as they are likely to do so again. At what threshold is this danger no longer acceptable? Is "release from prison, but prohibition of ever driving again" better than "not released from prison?"
*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853607/
http://www.williamwhitepapers.com/pr/2007HardCoreDrinkingDriverProfile.pdf
1. A good case
2. SCOTUS to actually treat prisoners as a suspect class
Discrete and insular minorities, even with the right to vote, are unable in practice to defend themselves from the policies of the majority electorally. Thus, they are afforded additional protection by the courts.
I am not opposed to felony prisoners losing the right to vote (while they're in prison), but they definitely deserve and require elevated protection from the courts if that is the case.
Of course, a lot of people are felony prisoners for things that shouldn't be felonies. A lot of people are also guilty of felonies because society fucked them over. Prison is the worst place for those people to be. But that's a whole separate debate.
I don't think #2 is happening enough, so I'd rather let them vote. But here's the question: what district do they count in for voting?
That diffuses their vote to the point that they likely can't directly affect the policies of the prison, which is where they actually live.
It's done to prevent gerrymandering. I get it. A small densely populated area in an otherwise rural county is a golden goose.
Or, if we're committed to being a prison/police state, consider all prison populations together their own state and let them vote/interact as a state.
I like the Kyln.
http://marvel.com/universe/Kyln