Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Taniel
A NY lawmaker said that allowing voting from prison is "insulting" to law enforcement. So I reached out to prosecutors & DOCs in Maine & Vermont, which enable prison voting, to ask about that. And received some powerful replies. Check it out! And thread.
A New York bill would abolish felony disenfranchisement. That would mean law enforcement is no longer the arbiter of who gets to vote.
The Appeal The Appeal @theappeal
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Taniel 22. stu
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Taniel
Those who replied defended prison voting, or else shrugged it off as a non-issue. The prosecutor of VT's biggest county said: "That quote is appalling. .... It’s a good reflection of how inhumane our system has become." If nothing else, read her quote:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Taniel 22. stu
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Taniel
But this is key: DAs or DOCs in ME & VT are interesting not bc they have special say. On the contrary. What they signal is the gap between a system like NY, that sets them up as gatekeepers of voting rights, & one like VT's, where public officials don't get to police who votes.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Taniel 22. stu
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Taniel
Each time DAs decide whether to charge someone with a felony, or whether to offer someone a deal that avoids prison, or how long a sentence to seek, they shift the voting public. And we know such decisions systematically skew against people of color.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Taniel 22. stu
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Taniel
That power validates those who see people in prison as vanquished adversaries to be cut off from the world. But multiple officials in ME & VT cast voting as a link between incarcerated people & the world beyond the prison. A way to fight civil death.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jill Steinberg 23. stu
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Taniel
Thanks as always but in the USA how is "insulting" law enforcement a legitimate reason for disenfranchising a citizen? They should have to do better than that when taking a decision to strip a citizen of their most important duty. Snowflakes
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Taniel 23. stu
Odgovor korisniku/ci @JillSteinberg3
That's very much thrust of article! Not that whether they are insulted matters: but that, if they would be in a place like NY, that speaks to the way crim legal system is set up. Depriving people of this right invites public officials to think they can ignore other rights, too.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Izengabe 24. stu
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Taniel
Loss of voting rights is part of the punishment for committing a crime. When you are convicted of committing a crime against society you should lose the ability to pick our leaders and make the rules. Criminals shouldn't vote until they've served their time & repaid their debt.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Taniel 24. stu
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Izengabe_
Disenfranchisement "is" not part of punishment of a crime, period. That's incorrect. It is not at all in some states; in all others it's part of the punishment of some crimes, and sometimes not even of all felonies. That alone shows there is no fatality or intrinsic link here.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
J Gudy 22. stu
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Taniel
Why should we care even if it were insulting to LEO's?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Taniel 22. stu
Odgovor korisniku/ci @j_gudy
I am not suggesting that matters. I'm suggesting that reveals something about how systems foster expectations about the importance of voting rights to center on humanity & political agency of all.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"