CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Prisoners have the right to vote?
Recenlty there has been an on going debate whether or not prisoners should have the right to vote. From one side, it can be argued that prisoners are the members of the society, when the other can argue that prisoners are incapable of making right judgements. Let's come up with good ideas!
Prisoners are human beings. In fact, they are the member of the soceity. They are people who have lived a normal human life and went to jail for a particualr reason. The fact is every human has the right to vote and not giving them the right to vote means that they aren't human beings but animals that are incapable of making decisions.
They are incapable of making rational decisions, that's why they're in jail. I think that prisoners are just part of a group that in my warped opinion, shouldn't be allowed to vote. This group also incorporates the media, stupid people, and others. But going back to prisoners. Because they cannot think logically before they act, they should not be allowed to make a decision on something they may not think logically about.
By the way, human beings are animals. You're comparing the same thing, making that comparison worthless.
They are incapable of making rational decisions, that's why they're in jail.
Nonsense
I think that prisoners are just part of a group that in my warped opinion, shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Bravo for admitting that your opinion on the matter is warped. It'll make for a good first step in straightening it out so to speak. The next step is to realize that "illogical", or "untenable" better describes your opinion than "warped".
If you keep bringing up logic, at some point you might be called to actually apply it in your attempts at reasoning.
You argue as if no one is imprisoned for laws that are unjust. Perhaps someone in prison for violating an unjust law ought to be able to vote for candidates or legislation that support it's repeal.
I don't see what's illogical about it. Even I think my opinion is warped, but it's not illogical. Also, what are these "unjust" laws you keep referring to? I may revise my opinion if you show me a considerable amount of these laws.
As far as the opinion you expressed not having a logical basis, I'd be happy to expose that if you're game enough to directly answer a few questions.
As far as unjust laws, I could reference a plethora of them that are related to drug sales and drug use, and I wouldn't have to stop there. Show a bit of good faith by taking up the challenge of submitting to scrutiny the logical basis (or as I would wager, the lack thereof) of your opinion and I'll make a list of unjust laws for you. That is, if you haven't already revised your opinion by then.
OK, I accept your challenge! Fire away, my opinion isn't as rigid as you may think. I'm completely open to changing it, provided that I have fair reason.
OK, I'll give you that one. Sure, I find it unlikely that every single prisoner is incapable of such a thing. I would still argue that the reason many serious offences are committed is because a motive abstracts their reasoning, but there are definitely exceptions, yes.
In which case, "they" is a generalisation, and not accurate.
Assuming "some" means "prisoners", then yes, I agree with that. Those who commit less serious crime should be able to vote. I still don't believe murderers, rapists, etc should be able to. But petty criminals should, as long as they are in a fit mental position to vote.
You argue as if no one is imprisoned for laws that are unjust.
can you tell me how many prisoners who are imprisoned because unjust laws? you have no proof. You're the nonsense one.
most people who had committed crimes are imprisoned based on the judges' consideration and available proofs of crimes they committed. based on those things, a person can be imprisoned for 100% just laws. if there are too few evidences, a person wouldn't be imprisoned.
can you tell me how many prisoners who are imprisoned because unjust laws? you have no proof.
I can offer up some statistics, it would take me a couple of hops and a Google search, but I want to keep my effort commensurate with that of my opponent. So if you give an answer to the following two questions, I'll recognize that as proof of your willingness to reason and take you seriously.
1. Do you think that there are any unjust laws?
2. If so name at least one. If not what would make a law unjust?
You're the nonsense one.
I'm so embarrassed now!
most people who had committed crimes are imprisoned based on the judges' consideration and available proofs of crimes they committed.
How much is most? 60%?... 70%?.. 80%?...99%? Where are you getting your figures and where is your proof Mr. Kettle?
based on those things, a person can be imprisoned for 100% just laws. if there are too few evidences, a person wouldn't be imprisoned.
They CAN be, and I won't argue here that it's not ordinarily so, but please tell me, what makes you think the courts can do no wrong?
I can offer up some statistics, it would take me a couple of hops and a Google search, but I want to keep my effort commensurate with that of my opponent. So if you give an answer to the following two questions, I'll recognize that as proof of your willingness to reason and take you seriously.
So your answer is no? You can't give us any examples of unjust laws. Ones that are actually worth mentioning. You are the one making the claim, therefore the burden of proof lies on you my friend.
Also, before you give us some example of an unjust law that put 3 people in prison, please remember that you are arguing that this is a sufficient reason to allow prisoners to vote!
Well hello there SoapyTurtle, nice to meet you. I'd be happy to debate this subject with you. I can and will post some statistics if I feel like it. But what criteria should I use to determine whether or not an unjust law is worth mentioning?
You stated that a reason people in prison should be allowed to vote is that there are prisoners who have been put there unjustifiably. That being said I would expect this unjust law to be pretty prevalent because saying all prisoners should be able to vote due to the 0.01% who are imprisoned under unjust laws is a little far fetched.
I never said ALL prisoners should be able to vote, but I will state that all US citizens should be able to vote. If your crime wasn't bad enough to lose your citizenship over and you can be compelled to pay taxes, you ought to be allowed to vote. What have you to say to that?
Working with the presumption that any law that allows someone to be imprisoned for using or selling drugs is inherently unjust..
-debate THAT with me if you disagree-
108,000 people in federal prisons as of April 2010
280,000 people in state prisons across the country as of June 2007
31,500 people in California state prisons as of December 2008
Let's expand a bit by putting it into perspective, and that means understanding how many total people are incarcerated for all crimes:
211,455 inmates at federal prisons as of April 2010
1,395,916 inmates in state prisons as of June 2007
171,161 inmates in California as of December 2008
So that means around half of all inmates in federal prisons are there for drugs, around 20% of inmates nationwide in state prisons are there for drugs and around 18% of inmates in California state prisons are there for drugs.
I copy/pasted this from the site linked to below, but the statistics are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
That makes your .01% figure that you pulled out of your ass look a little silly doesn't it?
Working with the presumption that any law that allows someone to be imprisoned for using or selling drugs is inherently unjust.
Well you can't work with the presumption that any law that allows someone to be imprisoned for using or selling drugs is inherently unjust. How could you? Also, I graduated with a Criminal Justice degree, I know the statistics. Throwing all those numbers on here proves nothing. There are tons of people in the correctional facilities. We know this. I am interested to hear how these people imprisoned for drug charges were put there by unjust laws. A sob story about how it is not their fault they touched drugs is in no way warrant for calling the law unjust. So for now, that 0.01% figure I pulled out of my ass still looks great as you have not given me one example of an inmate in prison due to unjust laws. Unless you believe what you said earlier in that all drug charges are unjust. Luckily, no one I know, especially in the field of corrections, believe this.
It's really sad that someone such as yourself can graduate with a degree in criminal justice and remain so clueless about what justice is
So let's talk about justice then. The whole concept of justice is based on rights and the defense thereof. If I steal something, I've violated someone's right to private property. If I commit murder I have violated someone's right to life. If I kidnap someone, I've violated their right to freedom. I hope at some point you become astute enough to understand that in order for there to be an injustice (to be corrected or mitigated by way of our justice system), sound logic dictates that someone's rights must first have been violated. In the case of drug laws, people's right to liberty is taken from them even though they haven't violated anyone else's rights. That this is an injustice is plain to anyone who hasn't got their head up their ass (which apparently doesn't include the people you know in the field of corrections). In the case of "the field of corrections" They are committing a great injustice by imprisoning people for drug charges. Selling drugs and doing drugs is not violating anyone's rights. Drug law enforcement is a travesty of justice flat out.
I have not been on this site for a very long time but I decided to hop back on here this morning. I read multiple debates and a few of my opinions had changed. I would like to say that I see where you are coming from now. Although I do not completely agree, I agree that, in order for there to be a crime, there must be a victim - that's not why I am replying though. I am replying because the one thing that caught my attention was your style of arguing...so I decided to read more of your posts. Your inability to attempt to mock every person you debate with baffles me. I don't see how you can expect someone to take your point of view seriously with the way you speak to people on here. You come off like a complete punk who gets his jollies from telling people off rather than debating. What is the point of debating with someone who clearly walks into a room thinking he is the smartest person in there while everyone else is a pawn. Get a clue!
So let's see, after being irritated by my condescending style of argumentation, you decided to read more of my posts. Did you ever think that I might have been purposefully trying to rile you up? You are actually confirming that my "style of arguing" worked.
To be clear....I tend to assume that I am better informed about some things than many others, including you. However, I also assume that you and many others are better informed about some things than me. I am curious to learn from you. You say that you see where I am coming from, but don't completely agree. I think there is great opportunity to learn from genuine disagreement.
I think if you got to know me better, you'd find that I don't have the superiority complex you think I do. I am fully capable of (and even prefer) sticking to the issue and leaving out the little adhoms. Did you know, I once started a debate forum based on disallowing personal attacks? I am guilty of using these, what I call "disturbingly effective" techniques of rhetoric here with you in this discussion, and in some others. Although I like to think I use them judiciously, It bothers me a little that you think it's generally definitive of my "style of arguing".
If you ever engage me in discussion again, I promise not to attack your character.
There are benefits that can be brought by allowing them to vote.
First, in societal level, politicians and the government can have a wider view of opinions.
Since prisoners are citizens who have gone through such disasters, they would be able to show their opinions to them about the negative sides of a policy.
Second, in the individual level, prisoners can feel the sense of belongingness.
People would feel that they are members of the society and would not go against the governmet.
Do you really think that rapists should have the right and freedom to influence public policies. Do you really want people running for government to consider or even accommodate murders, and child molesters so they can get their vote?
You make it sound like prisoners are innocent civilians who have been wronged by an oppressive and unjust system when it is in fact (despite its flaws) it is the most just in the world.
People in prison are put there as a punishment. Make those people feel they are not welcome in our society or partake in our system if they continue disregard the laws that the rest of us have implemented and can somehow function with.
Yes. They are still citizens. Most of them have done 1/100th of the number of "bad" things the rich have done. These people just got caught. *These people would probably be our most educated voters to the subject matter because they would actually read papers and watch the news moreso than the rest of us.
I'm for killing them all, but since we're going to let them get out, them paying attention to the news and talking intelligently about societal issues will help them reintegrate into civilization.
I don't see why not. When people make a decision that could put them in jail they dont stop and think "If I go to jail, i wont be able to vote in 2012" so the restriction is not stopping them from commiting crimes. And they are still citizens, sometimes bad ones, but still citizens.
Five Nights at Freddys is a horror game today. In this game, you will play the role of an employee of a Pizza shop and must be on duty at this place. Unfortunately, this bakery is haunted by many kinds of ghosts and it always stalks you all night. fnf kbh games is a website that allows you to play this game for free without installing it on your device. Hope you will survive the evening at this game.
Giving them the right to vote is telling the people that murder and rape is not a severe crime. They are sending out a message that even though you kill, you can be treated as a right ful member of the soceity.,
What the hell? you said that murder and rape aren't severe crimes? are you crazy? just imagine that you got raped first, and then murdered, what will you feel in the afterlife? will you forgive them? will you be happy?
and about their right to vote...
ah well, you know that prisoners are bad people, they did steal things, rape, murder, etc.
do you think such people have good mentality? do they really have the ability to think clearly?
perhaps if they're allowed to vote, they'd vote the one who will give them remissions or even free them from jails
that will even increase the number of crime, since they'll commit it again, I've seen a lot of that stuffs in the TV, newspaper, etc.
I think you are a bit confused. Kari never said murder and rape aren't severe crimes. Also he/she believes they should not be allowed to vote. You sided with yes they should have the right to vote. I think you meant to say they shouldn't.
I understand your point but here is the reality, not all prisoners have actually committed a major crime some of them have just been accused of having done something when they haven't others are just robbers or are just extreme pressure groups but moving away from that, at the end of the day these are humans with enough mentality to make the right decision.
And why on earth would a obama or David Cameron suddenly make a mandate on freeing prisoners from jail. There is a reason why they were appointed as representative and I don't think the rest of the nation's citizens would be happy with such decision and they simply wouldn't get voted in. However, just for the sake on really showing the rest of the world that the US and UK are in fact countries that stands by their ideologies and not two faced liars! THIS IS WHY PRISONERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOTE
The point of being in jail is loosing some freedom fro the crime you committed. Voting would defy the purpose. What would it matter anyways, maybe if they got out, if they do, they could. too bad for them
I think prisoners are not entitled to vote. They stripped themselves of their right to vote when they committed a crime. If arguing makes you nervous then join Paper Minecraft with me and my friends.
wordle website is an very simple sport that requires no tools to play and could be performed by anybody, no matter age or talent degree. Right here’s the right way to play: There aren't any set guidelines for the right way to play, and the format is open-ended. You’re inspired to make up your individual guidelines or to easily improvise. The sport is performed by discovering patterns in phrases and phrases. In every spherical, a set of 4 random phrases is offered. You’re given a set period of time to write down down as many potential phrases as you possibly can utilizing these 4 phrases. You can be given just a few details earlier than every spherical to offer you some context. These is not going to have an effect on the way you play, however they might help you guess what the opposite gamers try to do.