However, where does one draw the line?
Murderers should vote for your local Mayor? Your Chief of Police or Sheriff?
Not everyone in the pokey went for joyrides when they are nineteen. We forgive minors their stupidity but over a certain age existent stupidity is a foreshadowing of limited development.
Stripping the voting right from felons is an example of the necessary checks and balances a society needs to implement for self-preservation. In your world, everyone is a reformed felon unable to take their kids to the polls and talk about upcoming elections.
Sweet...really it is.
The reality is much harsher - most felons leave jail to commit more crimes. If they have kids they are likely illegitimate and ignored. They do not dream of going to the polls when they get out of prison - they dream of the next big score and hooking up with a friend of a friend they met in the slammer.
No, if the nineteen year old joyrider goes to 82 without voting - I won't shed tears for him. His sacrifice is part of a system that preserves our government from becoming like that of Mexico, where corruption is so pervasive that it controls every level and every branch of the government.
Taking away the right to vote gives the lasting impression of a society that has no forgiveness in its heart, and illustrates that even a reformed felon has absolutely no ownership of the process that governs him, so why the hell should he care about it?
The fact he/she committed a felony is evidence of a disregard for the system of laws. To forgive is noble - but it's stupid when attempting to form a more "enlightened" government. Excluding the public's lowest common denominator raises the bar of the politicians and laws which will be voted upon.
Increasing the burden of punishment on felony acts is a discouragement to committing them. If it is not - then you have a mentality which so disregards the system of government that they really deserve no part in the government's development. "Why the hell should he care" later if he already hasn't cared to begin with?
Oh yes...the great reformation.
Prisons are not real good at reforming. They are largely babysitters for folks who have poor development and social skills. They all too often harden criminals and simply cage an observed threat to society for X number of years before turning them back loose on society.
You claim that the rich can buy lawyers and get off the hook. But then they weren't really guilty if the courts say they are innocent are they? So your complaint is really a question of the fairness and ethics of the judicial system - not a question of convicted felons' voting rights. I daresay it also takes a prejudiced view towards the rich - that they are really guilty but buy their innocence. I don't know too many folks that can buy innocence. Perhaps OJ Simpson and a few S&L running multi-millionaires can - but the majority of the rich can only hope for a good lawyer who tries harder because he/she is getting paid more. However, once they are paid their retainer, a lawyer's motivation often is surprisingly absent unless you are a regular client who keeps encountering legal difficulties or unless your case promises to bring in further revenues or more business if they win it. In my opinion the number of rich who can buy innocence against a felony charge are few.
Your heart is in the right place but such liberal views would simply help foster greater crime in society - not create more responsible and caring citizens. If the felon is really reformed - they will appreciate their past errors and convince their children, if any, not to make the same mistakes as they did. Their newfound wisdom and its legacy will be to influence a child not to become a felon or commit serious crimes - and to fully appreciate and use the voting privilege they were denied.
SDAI-Tech1