The misnamed Democracy Restoration Act, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., (whose politician wife is a convicted felon) would force all states to immediately restore the voting rights of convicted felons the moment they leave prison -- even if they're on probation or have paid none of the civil penalties imposed on them.
I have a problem with restoring the right to vote to ex-cons, and so should everyone. Here's why...
Paying your debt does not make you any less a shopaholic. You pay your debts, presumably, but you keep shopping. Ex-cons paid their debts, presumably, but that in no way means they will not continue on as criminals. The recitivism rate is extremely high.
Assuming 4 million ex-cons, that would represent a huge bloc of voters, since only 60 million people vote. Ex-cons could swing elections. And, since they want the "system" to be friendlier to them, they would vote for politicians that are soft on crime. This would encourage crime, and that is not something that would be a good thing for America.
The Democrats in particular want to restore voting rights to cons because more than 80% of ex-cons tend to lean Democrat. And Democrats are well-known to be the party of "bleeding heart liberals" - the same people who want gang murderers and cop killers freed. Democrats would treat ex-cons "better".
So it would seem the Democrats in Congress (not the Democrats on the streets of America) are trying to put another "voting bloc" in their corner as they did with welfare. I understand that. But what I fail to understand is why even left-wing loons like Conyers would want to do that in ways that will harm all Americans by giving ex-cons the ability to change the face of America in ways that benefit criminals.
And it is interesting to note, and to show as proof that this is an attempt at buying votes, that Conyers and his liberal ilk are not advocating for the restoration of any other rights for cons. Nope - just voting rights. The liberals are not requesting that ex-cons be allowed to serve on jury duty, or to possess firearms.
Apparently even Conyers does not trust ex-cons very much. He just wants their votes. I find it despicable when anyone, particularly a politician, so blatantly tries to "use" people in that manner, for their own personal gain.
/
2 comments:
Taken from
The Reentry Advocate Newsletter Oct. 2007
Changing the language will help re-entry
By Charles See
Executive Director
Cleveland Community Re-entry
At the numerous prisoner reentry seminars, discussions, and panels I attend and participate in around the country, I encounter many well-meaning people who sincerely want to help individuals returning home from a period of incarceration. However, some of these people are using language that is hurtful (and, more importantly) counterproductive to the reentry cause. I realize their pejorative words are not intended to set the movement back, but they are — out of ignorance — nonetheless perpetuating negative stereotypes with their thoughtless words.
Terms like “ex-cons” and “ex-felons” are buzzwords the media uses to conjure up images of persons who are still a danger to society and therefore should be closely watched and/or are not worthy of our trust. It is much easier to treat someone unfairly, deny them employment, and make their return from a period of incarceration exceedingly more difficult if, in the collective public mind, these individuals deserve such treatment.
Years ago the homeless were called “bums” and “hobos” but these terms are no longer acceptable when referring to this population. In a similar fashion individuals suffering from mental illnesses were once called “lunatics” and “fruitcakes” (as well as many far more uglier terms), but when society came to the humane realization that we should treat these sick individuals with dignity and respect the first step in the process was to change the language we use to refer to this demographic.
A similar change must occur in the field of prisoner reentry if we are serious about instituting real solutions to this growing national problem. The accepted term for those returning home from prison today is “formerly incarcerated persons” and the faster we can make the linguistic shift, the faster we can drop the pejorative language … the faster this pressing social problem can and will be solved.
Charles See has been the executive director of Lutheran Metro Ministry’s Cleveland Community Re-entry program for 37 years, which makes it the oldest re-entry program in the United States.
Ed. - In response to the above comment, the terms "ex-con" and "ex-felon" are appropriate terms as they are accurate. A vast part of the problems in this country come from well-intentioned liberals who try to force political correctness that does nothing more than change the language for the purpose of changing the issue. When you say "weight challenged" instead of "fat", the fat guy still knows you are calling him fat. The only "feel good" feelings are for the benefit of the person being PC as it makes him feel like he is being "nicer", when the opposite is true. Using PC terms merely emphasizes the issue, drawing more attention to it.
As for the assertion that "ex-con" gives an impression that these people are still dangerous, most of them ARE still dangerous, and that perception is part of the price a person pays when they commit a felony. Even after "paying his debt to society" a murderer is still a murderer. As truthfully stated in the original post, the recitivism rate is very high. In fact, in instances of the most dangerous categories that include violence, the recitivism rate is often higher than 90%.
The writer of this blog will never, ever cloud issues with political correctness. I do not believe it benefits anyone except those who are trying to push an ulterior agenda. Political correctness is a dangerous, foolish game that I have no intention of playing, and people who do play that game only serve to make problems bigger.
Post a Comment