Michigan will Have 2 ballot proposals : 10-2 will ask voters to consider amending the state constitution to prohibit certain felons from holding elective office and specified typesnpublic positions.
God idea? Why? If you "serve your time" why should your right tomoffice be limited or a right to a public job? Should you have the right to vote? Should all of these prohibitions be a lifetime ban?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think felons per se should be banned from serving in public office. Someone could possibly get possession for smoking cannabis twice and therefore have a felony and never get to serve in public office. Both President Obama and George W. Bush have used illicit drugs, including cannabis and cocaine. Should they not be in public service? I only think that someone should be banned from public office when they have an obvious conflict of interest such as Henry Paulson as Treasury Secretary or Dick Cheney working in the White House.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aaron 100 percent. Some people are convicted for felons that have no impact on whether you are fit to serve in public office. Plus our constitution says every citizen has the right to vote, I think it would be unconstitutional to change it. That's one of the liberties our Country will always offer cause we're a democracy, it would be wrong to deny people the right to vote. Serving your time is the only punishment someone should have to serve.
ReplyDeleteI believe that felons should not barred from voting and being able to be in public office. Lots of the felons that we have in this country are felons for minor crimes like having a fake Id. Voting in an election is a civil liberty and shouldn't have anything to do with something minor on their record. If they are in jail thats one thing but if they do the time then their fine to vote and hold public office. Every person in this country has a voice and they should be able to use it. Today in this world so many people smoke and use marijuana. If you get caught with this in some places you just get a minor ticket but in other places you will get a felony. So while some people can vote because of a minor ticket and others cant because of a felony over breaking the same law is absurd.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the punishment for some of these minor crimes does seem absurd, and shouldn't affect ones' civil liberties such as the right to vote or serve in a public office, however, where is the line drawn? How can it be determined which felonies have a conflict of interest to public service? How can we take away the rights of some, without taking away the rights of others? Unless there is a very concrete and accurate system for determining the hierarchy of felonies, i think it would be unwise to amend the constitution in this way.
ReplyDeleteThis is a confusing matter, to say the least. The ballot proposal itself is asking whether we should make a person ineligible for public office or public employment if "within the preceding 20 years, the person was convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust...".
ReplyDeleteI think that the ballot proposal is not specific enough. If we're going to prohibit certain felons from public office, we ought to know specifically which felonies are dishonest, deceitful, and/or fraudulent enough to warrant such a prohibition.
On another note, I am against prohibiting felons from running for public office or public employment and I'm certainly against restricting their right to vote. I do not think that it should be up to the Michigan government to place restrictions on public office concerning the character of the person running. It should be left to the people to decide whether or not they want a previously convicted felon to represent them or to work for them in public employment. I see this proposal as essentially restricting our right to choose who we want to represent us.
Also, if you want to look at the actual ballot proposal language, here is the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.michigan.gov/documents/Statewide_Bal_Prop_Status_145801_7.pdf
This should be based on the seriousness of the felony committed by the person running for office. If he is a repeat offender in embezzlement, then absolutely not. If he had been in the wrong place at the wrong time as a juvenile, it should be up to the courts to decide weather that person is eligible to hold a political office. Opening up voting and holding office to rehabilitated felons could bring forth better ways to "reduce felony cases, how to re-introduce them into the world after prison and give them some rights as citizens." This topic is on the fence for me, I think a select few of felons could tremendously help our policy and laws but their should be strict requirements and procedures to be followed. As of now, I'm saying yes, but with constant supervision and protocol they would have to follow. In the end, they are still felons and people have a hard time trusting anybody that has been marked with the title "FELON."
ReplyDeleteI think after looking at this proposal it is important to try to understand the intent of the law, and to read the actual language of the bill.
ReplyDeleteThis proposal specifically targets "felonies involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust."
It seems to me like the intention of the proposal is to specifically prohibit people who have committed crimes involving public deceit and fraud from running for public office. In that respect, I think that a law of this kind could be very important in ensuring that our politicians are held to strict standards of honesty in our legal system.
In this respect, I believe that making sure politicians can be respected to tell the truth in the decisions and policies they represent is a good thing.
On the other hand I have to agree with people who say it is important the language of the law be much more precise. I do not believe this law was meant to prohibit minor felony charges (such as possession charges and fake id charges) from preventing access to public office. If the language is not clear enough, however, it could present problems.
I agree with Katie. It is up to the courts to interpret the law ultimately. I think the intent and language of the law is to keep people with a history of lying or hiding the truth from the public out of our political system. For instance, who would want a former CEO of a bank like Citigroup in the U.S. Treasury if he was convicted of lying to all of his shareholders and laundering money? I think situations like this are the intent of the constitutional change. As for voting, I personally believe every person should be able to vote, even if currently behind bars.
ReplyDeleteI think that felons if they serve their time are just as much citizens as the rest of us. It doesn't seem fair that they should continue to be punished after they get out. And really if the felon was that bad who would really vote for them? I think people can change and we should not brand them the rest of their life as a criminal even though they served their sentence.
ReplyDeleteI think that felons should be able to run for office and vote. Our society makes it extremely hard for felons to succeed. Once they serve their time they are judged, its difficult for them to obtain jobs, and some even have difficulty attending school.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that felons should be able to vote and run for office, I see there being a lot of opposition. How can we say this group of felons can vote but this group can't. By doing so we'd be judging their crime on a system of morals, which is completely irrelevant to the law.
I believe that the gray area of different types of felons is so large, it would be impossible to put an absolute law banning them from either holding an office position or even a public job for that matter. Their are many smart people out there, some of whom may be convicted as "felons" but in reality, have never harmed a fly in their life. To me, there is a huge difference of being a murder/rape/child molester felon, compared to someone who has been in the wrong place at the wrong time for a marijuana or cocaine charge that has ended up receiving the felon connotation upon them. In that, I believe that discretion should be used when appointing or hearing a "felon" out, not just absolute prohibition from a lifetime of keeping away their rights.
ReplyDeleteMy belief has always been that if an individual has served his/her time and followed all of the stipulations in the sentence, then he or she should be able to live out a normal life just as you or I would. When a judge sentences someone to prison for a period of time, it is because that judge feels the specified amount of time was appropriate to the crime committed. Why should a person have to continue to pay for something that he or she has in essence already paid for. I do understand that there are insecurities about letting felons control public policy, in that there is a chance they might enact laws more lenient in cases where they were previously convicted, but those are issues that should be taken up by the voters and not a certain absolute rule.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to agree completely with the previous post.
ReplyDeleteInstead of focusing our attention on alienating felons from society even more, by banning them from public office and/or public employment, I think that we should look more towards providing services that allow them to assimilate back into society as productive citizens.
And as far as running for public office is concerned, I think it is an overreach of the government to presume that we're incapable of deciding which politicians or public figures are worthy of our trust. Basically, this ballot proposal seems to me that the government is saying, "we know best!".
I would have to say that i would agree Macrea when she said that "Why should a person have to continue to pay for something that he or she has in essence already paid for." I agree with this statement because its true you shouldn't have to pay the price after you already did. Making it illegal to vote after you received jail time is non-sense and shouldn't be allowed.
ReplyDeleteThis is over the top.To further take away the rights of a man or woman who served their time and paid their dues is completely unconstitutional. Why have set punishments anyways. This would be a slippery slope towards a complete hack job in our judicial system.
ReplyDeleteThe certain felons 10-2 refers to are "within the preceding 20 years, the person was convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust; AND the conviction was related to the person’s official capacity while holding any elective office or position of employment in local, state or federal government."
ReplyDeleteI suppose this goes back to the problem with the revolving door. On one hand, this person knows the loopholes, ways of conviction and motivation for certain crimes that others may attempt. This puts him/her in a position that he/she could spot problem makers, or know how to make the law less palatable to prospective felons. In short, this person has a sort of expert opinion. On the other hand, they may likely try to reverse the law in some way, "make friends on the inside" and attempt to get them out, commit the felony again (this time with previous experience- you learn best by failure)...
I don't want Kwame K. to run again for office, but then again, I highly doubt he would get elected anyway. So, as long as the public is made aware of past issues, I am ok with the felon running.
I think you should definitely have a right to vote, regardless.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Statewide_Bal_Prop_Status_145801_7.pdf
Felons should not be excluded from running for a state office after they have served their appropriate amount of time. I feel like the language is very broad on the topic matter. Should there be a certain amount of time after the person/felon gets out jail before he or she can run for an office. Also I do think that a person should be able to run for office because most people learn the character of a running candidate before making a decision on who to vote for. This may put a person at a disadvantage, but it still gives the opportunity to run for a office. Although already elected look at George W. Bush or President Obama they both have been found guilty of smoking marijuana, but that does not change their integrity as a person?
ReplyDeleteAfter looking over the proposal, I am in favor of this amendment. I see it not as over-reaching, vague or excessive. The language is very specific as to what types of felonies would be exclusionary for candidates running for an elected position: "IF within the preceding 20 years, the person was convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust; AND the conviction was related to the person’s official capacity while holding any elective office or position of employment in local, state or federal government." It has nothing to do with drugs or other types of felonies outside of breaking the ethical codes of holding a position of public office.
ReplyDeleteI would point to the current situation in Detroit Public Schools as an exemplary case of how this amendment could apply. Four employees of the state - a former principal, the accountant for her school, a police officer and the accountant's son - defrauded the school district out of nearly $150,000. They used their positions as public servants to commit a felony. The amendment, if enacted, would prevent these people from serving in a public position for the next 20 years. I think any judge who believes in the balance between protecting the rights of (former) criminals and upholding those in public office to high standards - or at least a standard higher than deceit, fraud, dishonesty or a breach of public trust - would find this amendment within Constitutional parameters and widely beneficial.
Reading through previous posts I really liked Aaron's post, the very first one, because it put a really good point using the two most recent presidents. I never considered them when looking at this proposal. I think that shows some of this could cause a lot of problems.
ReplyDeleteComing from an Illinois person, we have had our fair share of "corrupt" politicians. I however, do not think just because a person is convicted of a felony or a crime that they should lose rights. They are still Americans and part of being an American is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I feel as if most people choose what is best for the country when it comes to politics and what it comes down to is if the elected politician can uphold their commitment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Ivana brings up a great example in Kwame Kilpatrick. How do you feel about the 20 year ban for such people as expressed in the proposal? Granted, his record is exceptionally heinous in his deception of the public from his position. He certainly wouldn't be re-elected in this lifetime. But I think the chilling effect of the proposed 20-year ban would do more to prevent people serving in office from even committing such acts. Making the public aware of their past grievances is not enough for me in these cases.
ReplyDeleteI agree with John, someone who is a convicted felon still has the same rights as every other American after serving their time. Ethically I feel that it is wrong to judge someone based on their past mistakes but at the same time realistically American's tend to bring the past up to try and persuade the opinions of others so I definitely think that they would have a harder time earning their votes.
ReplyDeleteCallie,
ReplyDeleteI was just talking to someone else about Kilpatrick, and it was pointed out to me that some Detroiters still defend him despite everything that he's done. Perhaps you're right that the law should stand to protect people from their own, well, ridiculousness? It's possible that someone who is used to misuse of funds and such may still use campaigns for networking and fund raising, and why give them a platform to do so?
Looking at all the candidates for this election that have made poor decisions in the past, it's remarkable that they even won the primary.
Nonetheless, I just couldn't vote for the proposal. Some people may change, and that is what can be so great about voters- they can be forgiving. It's not always understandable or rational or logical, but at least it's a decision we're allowed to make.
I too agree with Aaron's post. Many of our current political office holders would not be able to run!
ReplyDeleteI feel that in most cases being a felon reflects on one's character and trustworthiness, so felons should indeed be banned from serving the public's interest by either running for office or voting. I do not think such bans should be lifetime; instead, they should be part of a sort of extended probation and be lifted after a track record of responsible behavior has been established.
ReplyDeleteThis amendment seems to be a bit more legitimate now that I know that the language of the proposal specifically mentions felonies involving dishonesty, fraud, and a breach of the public trust. However I do agree that no citizens' rights should be violated, and that it should be up to the people to decide who will govern them. If voters have no problem electing a felon, why should the law impede on them running for office?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh, it is the right of the people to vote for who they wish.
ReplyDeleteIt is a basic right we have to vote for who we wish. I feel that some people who did do bad at once can be fixed by a little time in the brink.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh also, if the people want someone in office, then they will vote them in. The past is the past, and regardless of someone being a felon, I believe that some may be still capable of upholding such position.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the general public would be able to judge the integrity of a felon when so many elected officials who do not have a criminal record turn out to be corrupt.
ReplyDeletei agree with kaley that the proposal is very misleading in the way the language is presented. i think before anybody makes a decision they should look at all the details before casting their vote.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe all felons should be barred from holding office but prohibiting certain felons might be a good idea.
ReplyDeleteIvana, I can somewhat sympathize with the Detroiters who still back Kilpatrick. Though his actions are heinous, he stood up for Detroit. Though spewing lies and some arguably off-kilter things, he gave voice to the ongoing struggles of Detroit. I don't believe he's a bad guy but he's done some pretty bad things.
ReplyDeleteI don't see this potential law as a way to "protect people from their own...ridiculousness," but rather as a means of enhancing the punishment for those in public office who commit a felony (involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust). I don't mean to make an inappropriate or inflammatory analogy here, but there is good reason for post-sentencing punishment for those who commit crimes of a sexual nature: they are often repeat offenders. Statistics show the same phenomenon occurs with the sorts of felonies the proposed bill seeks to prevent from reoccurring.
I am in most cases a very compassionate person and I truly believe in rehabilitation + giving people multiple chance. But in this case, I am in support of this measure. I consent that this has to do with a greater issue of prisons not serving as places of rehabilitation. Rather, they are simply a time-out. This reality weighs heavy on my decision to support this bill as does the recivity rate with these crimes.