Texas woman sentenced to 5 years in prison for voting while on probation(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Texas woman sentenced to 5 years in prison for voting while on probation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/30/texas-woman-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison-for-voting-while-on-probation/
156 コメント
How does such an attorney and judge feel after such a trial? Do they feel satisfied, fulfilled? Taking away 5 years of someone's life over a little mistake that didn't hurt anyone? I don't get it: why does a free people like the Americans allow for that kind of sinister figures to be their prosecutors and judges?
>How does such an attorney and judge feel after such a trial?
They feel ecstatic. They won. The good guys won again, yay! You have a 10oz pot brownie (with a very small amount of mj in it), that's distribution amounts, 30 years in jail for you. Yay! The good guys won again.
* I see I have downvoters... Maybe you don't believe me? I've been working around both the prosecution and defense for around 20 years now, have many family members that work for law enforcement and judges. This is exactly how many of them think.
They feel ecstatic. They won. The good guys won again, yay! You have a 10oz pot brownie (with a very small amount of mj in it), that's distribution amounts, 30 years in jail for you. Yay! The good guys won again.
* I see I have downvoters... Maybe you don't believe me? I've been working around both the prosecution and defense for around 20 years now, have many family members that work for law enforcement and judges. This is exactly how many of them think.
I think you have downvoters not because people don't believe you, but because there still are people who believe people you sarcastically ridiculed as "good guys" are actually good guys.
In the meantime a (white) woman in a different district was given a stern talking to for deliberately voting on behalf of her dead mother.
She was contrite and acknowledged the severity of her crime, we got her sentence reduced! Good guy wins again!
She was contrite and acknowledged the severity of her crime, we got her sentence reduced! Good guy wins again!
For me, it's impossible to respect these professions (prosecutor, police, and to a major extent, judges) or any of the people in it. They throw around words like "justice" and "fair" without having a single clue as to what they mean. Maybe one day, they'll be the ones on the other side of the bars for the cruelty and harm they've caused to society. This kind of simple minded "good vs. bad" thinking or "I'm just doing my job" thinking has no place in any legal system and certainly not in any justice system. [Insert comparison to Nazis "just doing their job" here because after all, we have a few million people locked up, most of them for no reason.]
Even from the outside this is obviously true. They consider themselves the good guys by definition, because they see themselves as representing justice, as defined by the criminal code. A noble calling. Once you accept that, pure job performance (convictions) becomes an easy metric. The thought of ruining some individual's (or family's) life over recreational amounts of pot is either justified or compartmented away. Or like aaronsw...once the prosecutors are on it, there's no more question of proportion or actual justice, it's a matter of looking for the conviction.
Edit: I want to amend this a bit. It is something of a noble calling. In a better world, the executive legal function could depend a lot more on legislative and judicial functions to produce a criminal code that served justice better, and just worry about prosecuting what they can according to the law. But in so many cases now, the law is an ass.
Edit: I want to amend this a bit. It is something of a noble calling. In a better world, the executive legal function could depend a lot more on legislative and judicial functions to produce a criminal code that served justice better, and just worry about prosecuting what they can according to the law. But in so many cases now, the law is an ass.
Prosecutors are zealously committed to convict, Texas has some pretty infamous wrongful convictions.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-...
Rick Perry had a death sentence carried out in spite of exonerating evidence - it turned out most of Texas arson investigators were trained incorrectly.
https://www.innocenceproject.org/cameron-todd-willingham-wro...
I would assume that if they had doubts about the job they would change careers. So I would guess that either they feel like she’s an unfortunate victim of an imperfect system that works correctly in other cases, or that she must be guilty of something else but that something else was never discovered.
Currently there is a lawsuit to overturn life sentences for juvenile offenders. One of the leaders in that movement is a judge who gave a teenage murderer a life sentence with the comment “I feel the same thing you felt for your victims: nothing.” She doesn’t admit to having changed her mind on harsh punishment in general, but based her change of heart on new scientific beliefs about how morally developed teenagers are.
Currently there is a lawsuit to overturn life sentences for juvenile offenders. One of the leaders in that movement is a judge who gave a teenage murderer a life sentence with the comment “I feel the same thing you felt for your victims: nothing.” She doesn’t admit to having changed her mind on harsh punishment in general, but based her change of heart on new scientific beliefs about how morally developed teenagers are.
I agree that the exact level of punishment may be disproportionate, but where do you get "hurt no one"? An invalid vote cancels a valid one. Is disenfranchisement not a big deal anymore?
Her vote was provisional and removed on review:
"Ultimately, her vote didn’t even count. Provisional ballots are subject to review, which ultimately led to an investigation of Mason."
"Ultimately, her vote didn’t even count. Provisional ballots are subject to review, which ultimately led to an investigation of Mason."
Why should criminals be denied representation? Does committing a crime suddenly make you no longer human?
Right, I can understand arguments for "you shouldn't lose the vote in that case", but that's a separate issue from "given that her vote wasn't valid, she was disenfranchising someone".
And "no franchise" does not imply "not human", unless you're saying that every country should allow foreigners to vote in their election or else they're deeming them non-human.
And "no franchise" does not imply "not human", unless you're saying that every country should allow foreigners to vote in their election or else they're deeming them non-human.
this seems to be devolving to word games. your use of the word "hurt" appears to be quite distinct from how "hurt" seemed to be used by the op.
It's not a word game; it's progressed into forcing the OP into clarifying why disenfranchisement can be such an atrocity but not "hurting" in any relevant sense, or (if I understand you) why all non-physical crimes should have some really low cap on punishment. Seems like progress to me, and unlike a word game.
Not only that, her children would lose a mother for a few more years.
[deleted]
Easy. This woman was black.
And I'm only half joking here. There's a similar case where a white woman purposely tried to impersonate her mother so that she could vote for Trump twice, and she was not charged.
And I'm only half joking here. There's a similar case where a white woman purposely tried to impersonate her mother so that she could vote for Trump twice, and she was not charged.
You're thinking under the assumption that there's no corruption in the judicial system, and also that every judge and jury and attorney intend to act for the good of every individual person, rather than for some other agenda. That's the kind of naivety I had too. That's not how the world works. The world is a horrifyingly evil place.
This is a feature, not a bug. The prison system is designed to drag you in and keep you in.
Just disgusting.
Just disgusting.
The US criminal system isn't meant to rehabilitate, and a corrections officer told me that directly once (after I asked for a Bible and he said no).
It's only meant to provide the public with a false sense of security. "Another scumbag has been locked up, key's been thrown away, you're all safe once again. Enjoy the rest of your evening."
But it's okay because people are easily forgettable. If you have 100 people on a block, and 1 is taken away unjustly, you still have 99 who can quickly forget about that 1, provided they're distracted with enough beer, books, movies and memes.
It's only meant to provide the public with a false sense of security. "Another scumbag has been locked up, key's been thrown away, you're all safe once again. Enjoy the rest of your evening."
But it's okay because people are easily forgettable. If you have 100 people on a block, and 1 is taken away unjustly, you still have 99 who can quickly forget about that 1, provided they're distracted with enough beer, books, movies and memes.
I don’t think it was intentionally designed, but I believe the criminal justice system is best described as handing out draconian sentences to the unlucky few actually caught committing crimes. I’m convinced there are better approaches ( https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-26/plea-barg... ).
I think Americans by and large see prison as this dungeon where we store people we don’t like for as long as possible rather than as a place where people who have made mistakes go to get the training and help they need in order to get back on track. That’s the simplest way to explain things like ultra long sentences compared to the rest of the civilized world, mistreating people after they’ve done their time (felon status for life and offender lists), and the extreme racial disparity among the prison population. It’s a system designed to permanently bifurcate the population into “normals” and “criminals”, often along racial lines, and to by any means keep the second group segregated for as long as possible, as often as possible.
Calling crimes "mistakes" is a terrible euphemism.
It may be accurate in some cases. But many criminals commit their crimes knowing full well what they are doing, and with no regard for those who are hurt by their actions, and show little or no remorse (unless they think pretending can reduce their sentence).
Now, many are in prison due to unjust laws, selective enforcement, or a flawed prosecution incarcerating the wrong person. But let's not lump those problems together with those who intentionally harm others without remorse.
It may be accurate in some cases. But many criminals commit their crimes knowing full well what they are doing, and with no regard for those who are hurt by their actions, and show little or no remorse (unless they think pretending can reduce their sentence).
Now, many are in prison due to unjust laws, selective enforcement, or a flawed prosecution incarcerating the wrong person. But let's not lump those problems together with those who intentionally harm others without remorse.
OK, while I get the sentiment, this story is about a crime that was a mistake.
I think many of us are aware that felons loose their right to vote. I guess I assumed you would be blocked from voting. So I never thought about what the penalty should be. Now that I’ve seen the penalty, I’m appalled.
Frankly, I think we should quit criminalizing everything. The governments responsible for jailing criminals, no-fly lists and a lot of other things. Why not take responsibility for blocking felons from voting?
I think many of us are aware that felons loose their right to vote. I guess I assumed you would be blocked from voting. So I never thought about what the penalty should be. Now that I’ve seen the penalty, I’m appalled.
Frankly, I think we should quit criminalizing everything. The governments responsible for jailing criminals, no-fly lists and a lot of other things. Why not take responsibility for blocking felons from voting?
I posted about my situation and difficulty finding a job on another social media website, and a commenter wrote "Those lists exist for a reason. You made your bed now sleep in it." That's literally what the public thinks they're for, as a permanent form of discrimination and condemnation to prevent people like me from having a job or a good life. It's meant to keep us down all our lives.
If that's what the voting public thinks it's for, then for all practical purposes, that's sure as hell what it's actually for.
If that's what the voting public thinks it's for, then for all practical purposes, that's sure as hell what it's actually for.
If I murdered someone out of curiosity and in doing so realized it was not fun at all should I be allowed to go free immediately since I will not murder again?
In other words the rehabilitation occurred during and as a result of the criminal act.
In other words the rehabilitation occurred during and as a result of the criminal act.
There's also 'fairness' in law - so you have to serve a sentence similar to others guilty of the same offense. And yes in this strawman case your sentence should perhaps not be a long one.
Except the sociopath angle - a person who commits crime for fun is quite likely to find another fun crime to commit.
Except the sociopath angle - a person who commits crime for fun is quite likely to find another fun crime to commit.
Retribution is inherent to punishment and by extension justice. It simply makes no sense to claim otherwise. Mercy makes no sense unless we accept that. A judge cannot show leniency or mercy unless it is, first, acknowledged that the criminal deserves something commensurate with the crime, and second, there is a real, deserved possibility (at least in principle, even if never realized) of receiving one's just deserts. Premeditated murder deserves the death penalty as a matter of principle, though we can decide legally never to manifest that as punishment.
Punishment has three purposes: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. We seem to be suffering from a contemporary bias against retribution [0]. However, these three purposes are intimately connected. When a punishment fits the crime, we communicate the severity of the crime to the criminal. In that way, we help facilitate rehabilitation by making it clear how grave his offense has been. Deterrence is facilitated by the same token. Obviously, these are not absolute measures. For example, a criminal may be unrepentant, but then rehabilitation is not possible. In any case, adequate remorse does not remove the possibility of retribution (though a sincerely remorseful criminal would accept that he deserves commensurate punishment), but it does allow for mercy.
[0] A common confusion here is that retribution entails hatred of the punished. It does not.
Punishment has three purposes: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. We seem to be suffering from a contemporary bias against retribution [0]. However, these three purposes are intimately connected. When a punishment fits the crime, we communicate the severity of the crime to the criminal. In that way, we help facilitate rehabilitation by making it clear how grave his offense has been. Deterrence is facilitated by the same token. Obviously, these are not absolute measures. For example, a criminal may be unrepentant, but then rehabilitation is not possible. In any case, adequate remorse does not remove the possibility of retribution (though a sincerely remorseful criminal would accept that he deserves commensurate punishment), but it does allow for mercy.
[0] A common confusion here is that retribution entails hatred of the punished. It does not.
Yes, but in America, a hatred of the punished is common regardless of whether you tie that to "retribution", and likely one of the many reasons rehabilitation is not a focus and/or strong outcome of our prison system.
And even if they do rehabilitate, our society is not properly set up to help them come back, so the retribution often outweighs the crime. They do their time in prison- but essentially they do time the rest of their life, because when they come back, they aren't treated as if their retribution is complete.
And even if they do rehabilitate, our society is not properly set up to help them come back, so the retribution often outweighs the crime. They do their time in prison- but essentially they do time the rest of their life, because when they come back, they aren't treated as if their retribution is complete.
in your description, what is the actual distinction between "retribution" and "deterrence"?
I think the law she is guilty of far pre-dates the corruption of the system. I do agree that parts of are prison system have very corrupt parts, but this is a much older law.
5 years seems too long though.
5 years seems too long though.
> 5 years seems too long though
Are you being sarcastic? 5 years for voting while on probation is "too long"?? How about:
1. Not preventing people who are in prison from voting
2. Not even having a "probation" time after people have been released from prison; they did their time, they are free again
Are you being sarcastic? 5 years for voting while on probation is "too long"?? How about:
1. Not preventing people who are in prison from voting
2. Not even having a "probation" time after people have been released from prison; they did their time, they are free again
> Not even having a "probation" time after people have been released from prison; they did their time, they are free again
I think you're mistaken about what probation is.
Probation is part of your time. You're sentenced for a given period of time, and at some point you may be released to serve the rest of that time in the community, on probation.
Their sentence isn't over, and they aren't 'free' while they are on probation. It's part of the original sentence still.
Probation allows people to serve part of their sentences back in the community when they are safe to do so. If you're arguing against having probation you're arguing for longer time spent in prison.
I think you're mistaken about what probation is.
Probation is part of your time. You're sentenced for a given period of time, and at some point you may be released to serve the rest of that time in the community, on probation.
Their sentence isn't over, and they aren't 'free' while they are on probation. It's part of the original sentence still.
Probation allows people to serve part of their sentences back in the community when they are safe to do so. If you're arguing against having probation you're arguing for longer time spent in prison.
> Probation is part of your time.
Yes, but it's a part that is substantially different from imprisonment: you are given a chance to prove yourself (Latin probo, probatio, French prover) to society. It should be as close to the life of a virtuos citizen as possible - and exerting a right to vote, far from being a personal gain, is exactly the type of pro-social behavior we should encourage.
I can understand why she should be reprimanded for violating her probation, but it's revolting that voting during probation could be considered a violation. Something is seriously wrong in a society that does that.
Yes, but it's a part that is substantially different from imprisonment: you are given a chance to prove yourself (Latin probo, probatio, French prover) to society. It should be as close to the life of a virtuos citizen as possible - and exerting a right to vote, far from being a personal gain, is exactly the type of pro-social behavior we should encourage.
I can understand why she should be reprimanded for violating her probation, but it's revolting that voting during probation could be considered a violation. Something is seriously wrong in a society that does that.
I think you're mistaken about how probation is used in practice.
Many small offenses will get you put on probation for ten years. Parole and work release are more often used as alternatives to incarceration.
The main issue here is whether or not people on probation should be allowed to vote. I don't see why they shouldn't and I can't see any justification for putting them in jail if they do. It's absolutely absurd.
Many small offenses will get you put on probation for ten years. Parole and work release are more often used as alternatives to incarceration.
The main issue here is whether or not people on probation should be allowed to vote. I don't see why they shouldn't and I can't see any justification for putting them in jail if they do. It's absolutely absurd.
The US frames prison as primarily revenge, it's about taking things away from "bad" people. Take away their nice things, destroy their family, make sure they'll never get a decent job and so on.
The EU (and most modern actual thinking on the issue) says prison primarily lets us force convicts to reform, we can impose structure in their lives, show them how to be good - and in the worst case we keep them there if they refuse to reform.
The British government fought and lost a legal battle to retain the status where prisoners can't legally vote (and many people who are in jail but aren't convicted of any crime don't end up being able to vote even though it's legal). The EU said that's not OK. You can target criminals who e.g. are in prison for vote tampering, but you can't take away people's vote just because they're in prison since they're still citizens.
The EU (and most modern actual thinking on the issue) says prison primarily lets us force convicts to reform, we can impose structure in their lives, show them how to be good - and in the worst case we keep them there if they refuse to reform.
The British government fought and lost a legal battle to retain the status where prisoners can't legally vote (and many people who are in jail but aren't convicted of any crime don't end up being able to vote even though it's legal). The EU said that's not OK. You can target criminals who e.g. are in prison for vote tampering, but you can't take away people's vote just because they're in prison since they're still citizens.
[deleted]
Many people feel that probation is inherently unethical. X years of probation seems less harsh than X years in prison but often amount to the same thing.
Without the option of probation prison time is not going to increase 1:1 and depending on the ratio total time in prison may actually decrease.
Without the option of probation prison time is not going to increase 1:1 and depending on the ratio total time in prison may actually decrease.
Who are these people? How many of them are ex-convicts?
When you're on reporting probation you essentially lose all of your rights. The rules are incredibly strict and your probation officer can come find you any time of day. If they call you and you don't answer the phone that can be considered a violation of your probation. Straight to jail. They can come in your house and search 24/7. They can send you to jail indefinitely for any reason or no reason at all.
Body cavity search any time they want.
Speeding ticket? Straight to jail.
Late to work? Straight to jail.
Outside of your house after 10pm? Straight to jail.
Didn't go to enough AA meetings this week? Straight to jail.
Not able to pay court fines? Jail.
Left city limits without permission? Guess what.
Attempt to vote? Five fucking years!
[deleted]
If you're arguing against having probation you're arguing for longer time spent in prison.
Not necessarily.
edit: It's entirely possible to oppose halfway programs and also advocate for shorter sentencing...
Not necessarily.
edit: It's entirely possible to oppose halfway programs and also advocate for shorter sentencing...
I think you meant parole.
Probation is a "probationary" period that prevents you from going to prison, by substituting it with a period of time where you do classes, have a job, go to school, and/or community service also.
Parole is a period of time after you are released from prison where you are still technically a "prisoner" but you are being let loose to see if you do well in society for a little while, but with extremely high restrictions that can put you back if you sneeze wrong. The federal prison system no longer supports federal parolees.
In my state, Arizona, if you wait 2 years after you are "off paper" (completed parole/probation) you can have your rights restored so you can vote (this is for state felonies, not for federal felonies as far as I know). You can also have your record "sealed" where it still shows you are a felon, but as long as you didn't do anything dangerous(violent) or sexual in nature you can have the court hide what you did. This works out for people that performed financial crimes and are having a hard time getting a job as a cashier or anything to do with money. Or a person who stole a car and is trying to get hired as a driver.
Probation is a "probationary" period that prevents you from going to prison, by substituting it with a period of time where you do classes, have a job, go to school, and/or community service also.
Parole is a period of time after you are released from prison where you are still technically a "prisoner" but you are being let loose to see if you do well in society for a little while, but with extremely high restrictions that can put you back if you sneeze wrong. The federal prison system no longer supports federal parolees.
In my state, Arizona, if you wait 2 years after you are "off paper" (completed parole/probation) you can have your rights restored so you can vote (this is for state felonies, not for federal felonies as far as I know). You can also have your record "sealed" where it still shows you are a felon, but as long as you didn't do anything dangerous(violent) or sexual in nature you can have the court hide what you did. This works out for people that performed financial crimes and are having a hard time getting a job as a cashier or anything to do with money. Or a person who stole a car and is trying to get hired as a driver.
Is corruption really a new phenomenon? Or, are we romanticizing history?
I’m not an expert and I wasn’t there so I don’t know what the actual answer is. With just a cursory knowledge of history though, I don’t think the corruption of this or any system of control is very new at all.
I’m not an expert and I wasn’t there so I don’t know what the actual answer is. With just a cursory knowledge of history though, I don’t think the corruption of this or any system of control is very new at all.
[deleted]
Yep, that's exactly what a private prison system leads to. You can see the system working as intended here. 5 years is... just ridiculous. There's no words for this kind of injustice.
Private prisons have basically nothing to do with this. They house very little of the prison population (less than 10% IIRC)
Private prisons lead to lobbying for harsher convictions to improve the bottom line of those prisons, that is why they often come up.
So do police and prison guards' unions, and they're much larger: https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/02/are-for-profit-prisons-or....
Prison guard unions and private prisons are effectively the same thing. They are both groups that directly benefit by increasing the prison population.
>>Private prisons have basically nothing to do with this.
Incorrect. Private prisons have lobbyists that contaminate the system further upstream to ensure a steady supply of inmates. They do this by lobbying legislators for harsher prison sentences on trivial crimes.
Incorrect. Private prisons have lobbyists that contaminate the system further upstream to ensure a steady supply of inmates. They do this by lobbying legislators for harsher prison sentences on trivial crimes.
While I am completely opposed to the quasi not really private prisons (they should not be called Private, a Private company has competition, these corporations are Government Contractors)
The idea their lobbying efforts have had any effect on punishment guidelines is laughable.
1. The Public in General Votes for "Tough on Crime" politicians, the Public wants "criminal" to pay, they are just to ignorant to understand who "criminals" are as they picture the person is a ski mask robbing and raping them, not some person filling out a government form incorrectly
2. The Police Unions, Guard unions, and various other Non-Profit Groups lobby far far far more effectively than any of the For-profit Government Contractors for very very harsh punishments, and for the creation of new laws and regulations to make even more criminals every year.
The idea their lobbying efforts have had any effect on punishment guidelines is laughable.
1. The Public in General Votes for "Tough on Crime" politicians, the Public wants "criminal" to pay, they are just to ignorant to understand who "criminals" are as they picture the person is a ski mask robbing and raping them, not some person filling out a government form incorrectly
2. The Police Unions, Guard unions, and various other Non-Profit Groups lobby far far far more effectively than any of the For-profit Government Contractors for very very harsh punishments, and for the creation of new laws and regulations to make even more criminals every year.
I find five years a bit surprising, but what do you think the proper penalty would be for a felon committing voter fraud should be?
Edit: I'm utterly amazed that this comment has been downvoted to silence. Disenfranchising felons — i.e., those who have committed extremely serious crimes — is while somewhat controversial a long-standing practice. The woman in question committed voter fraud by voting without being legally permitted to. This raises some questions. Are felons seriously not told they may not vote? Why not? Is five years a reasonable sentence (I don't really think so in this case, but for someone who commits large-scale voter fraud it might be)? Certainly the woman seems hard-done-by. At the end of the day, though, she did commit a crime under the laws of the state, and while the sentence seems harsh some sentence is necessary.
Edit: I'm utterly amazed that this comment has been downvoted to silence. Disenfranchising felons — i.e., those who have committed extremely serious crimes — is while somewhat controversial a long-standing practice. The woman in question committed voter fraud by voting without being legally permitted to. This raises some questions. Are felons seriously not told they may not vote? Why not? Is five years a reasonable sentence (I don't really think so in this case, but for someone who commits large-scale voter fraud it might be)? Certainly the woman seems hard-done-by. At the end of the day, though, she did commit a crime under the laws of the state, and while the sentence seems harsh some sentence is necessary.
I would prefer 0 days in prison because I don't think voting while a felon should be a crime. But, if we still want to call this situation voter fraud, how about we sentence them to community service? This person is not a danger to society, so I see no reason to put them in prison. More prion just messes up their life further and costs everybody a lot of precious tax dollars.
While I agree that what this woman did shouldn't be voter fraud, community service isn't sufficient deterrent for actual voter fraud. People put in lots of volunteer hours to help get their preferred candidate elected, so they'd probably be willing to risk community service too. Voter fraud is very dangerous to society, as society depends on our trust in institutions.
In-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare (0.0003 percent to 0.0025 percent, according to a recent meta-analysis[1]). A severe penalty in this sort of case serves no meaningful deterrent function.
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud...
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud...
Are you saying that the rarity of voter fraud is evidence that current deterrent measures don't work?
I'm saying that rarity of voter fraud means deterrent measures like this are unnecessary. It's a solution in search of a problem.
I agree that we don't need any new measures against voter fraud, but I don't see how it follows that existing voter fraud laws need to be removed or not enforced. Do you have any evidence of what the effect would be if the punishment for voter fraud were community service?
It's not nearly as dangerous as privatised corporate justice, or jailing people for five years for essentially trivial offences.
An isolated case of voter fraud isn't dangerous. The danger is what would happen if fraud became widespread.
What's widespread mean? I bet more people drive drunk than are tempted to vote illegally. The penalty for first time intoxicated driving is often just a fine.
The max jail time in Texas for first time DWI is 180 days (or as little as 3 days).
The max jail time in Texas for first time DWI is 180 days (or as little as 3 days).
If you come from a country (like most European countries) where people are allowed to vote both on probation, and also in prison, then the whole act of voting wouldn't even be a fraud in your home country. But different countries have different practices on what is a crime.
You would also be required to present photo ID in order to vote.
You are begging the question.
She voted in a way that was contrary to the law, but it was (likely) a mistake rather than fraud.
In any case, the penalty should be something like losing the right to vote in a single future election, especially lacking any evidence of an organized scheme to corrupt an election.
She voted in a way that was contrary to the law, but it was (likely) a mistake rather than fraud.
In any case, the penalty should be something like losing the right to vote in a single future election, especially lacking any evidence of an organized scheme to corrupt an election.
I think it's undemocratic to take away felons' right to vote.
Looking at the statute, it's not illegal unless you know you aren't eligible to vote (Sec. 64.012. ILLEGAL VOTING):
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.64.htm
Maybe some other law applies?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.64.htm
Maybe some other law applies?
Amongst all the crazy comments in this thread, this may have been the only one we should all be discussing.
I'm not convinced with the basic premise that a felon shouldn't be able to vote, so why any penalty at all?
It's also believable she didn't know this law existed.
It's also believable she didn't know this law existed.
How is this voter fraud?
The issue is with them not being allowed to vote in the first place.
> How is this voter fraud?
Because she wasn't legally allowed to vote, and she did. That's voter fraud.
I'm fine with forbidding felons to vote, and of course any law forbidding something has to have penalties. I'm very surprised that the penalty in this case was so high and that it appears to have been a strict-liability crime. Honestly, six months or even less for a first offense would seem reasonable to me — but I'm not a judge.
Because she wasn't legally allowed to vote, and she did. That's voter fraud.
I'm fine with forbidding felons to vote, and of course any law forbidding something has to have penalties. I'm very surprised that the penalty in this case was so high and that it appears to have been a strict-liability crime. Honestly, six months or even less for a first offense would seem reasonable to me — but I'm not a judge.
I never quite understood voter disenfranchisement.
Some quick googling tells me that 6 million people are disenfranchised in the US, which out of 235 million voting-aged population means 2.5% of the US voting-aged population is disenfranchised.
It is also majority targeted towards black voters (despite 18% of voting population, 34% of disenfranchised are black)
Putting it together for me it's clear that police brutality, redistricting and rigid voter disenfranchisement all serve the same purpose. To disenfranchise black voters to the maximum extent possible while remaining constitutional.
This should become a supreme court matter someday.
It is also majority targeted towards black voters (despite 18% of voting population, 34% of disenfranchised are black)
Putting it together for me it's clear that police brutality, redistricting and rigid voter disenfranchisement all serve the same purpose. To disenfranchise black voters to the maximum extent possible while remaining constitutional.
This should become a supreme court matter someday.
Sounds like it should be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment, even if it's currently the status quo and therefore very usual.
Well, the only reason I can think of that voting while disenfranchised would be a felony would be to extend the total period of disenfranchisement.
Surely voting by itself doesn't warrant a 5 year jail sentence
Surely voting by itself doesn't warrant a 5 year jail sentence
Some options:
Hey, you're not on the list, you can't vote.
Hey, you're not on the list, use the computer in the corner to enter your details and see if you're eligible.
Hey, you're not on the list, here is a provisional ballot, we will verify your info and if it clears, your vote will be counted.
You should not get 5 years in prison because the election board is incapable of securing their processes.
Hey, you're not on the list, you can't vote.
Hey, you're not on the list, use the computer in the corner to enter your details and see if you're eligible.
Hey, you're not on the list, here is a provisional ballot, we will verify your info and if it clears, your vote will be counted.
You should not get 5 years in prison because the election board is incapable of securing their processes.
The final option (provisional ballot) is what happened. The problem is she also signed an affidavit stating that she was eligible. It is a completely victimless crime and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Not victimless. That fraudulent vote cancelled a legitimate one.
The punishment is excessive, but there is a real crime here.
The punishment is excessive, but there is a real crime here.
Yes victimless: the vote was removed on review.
Felon disenfranchisement by state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#In_t...
As soon as I saw the headline I thought "I bet she's black". And it turns out she is.
What a disgusting story. How come the State is so vindictive towards the weak and so powerless against people who starts unjustified wars or brings down the financial system ?
Their hope is that maybe they'll be able to change the future for the better by making an example of someone, even if they have to be excessive, cruel, or unjust toward that person. They're justifying the means by the hoped end.
A more prosaic and more likely explanation is that states controlled by the Republican party seek to suppress black voting by any means possible because it's a threat to their hold on power.
I find that explanation unlikely.
First, the vast majority of states have some type of voting restrictions on felons, with Maine and Vermont being the only exceptions.
Second, some states historically and modernly controlled by the Republican party (e.g. Montana) return the right to vote after release.
Third, among states with harsher restrictions (ending after parole or probation) that are historically OR modernly Republican controlled (ignoring the first point-that many such states are Democrat controlled), the demographics are, in many cases, such that all other races combined could not muster even the perception of a threat to the white, Republican voting bloc.
First, the vast majority of states have some type of voting restrictions on felons, with Maine and Vermont being the only exceptions.
Second, some states historically and modernly controlled by the Republican party (e.g. Montana) return the right to vote after release.
Third, among states with harsher restrictions (ending after parole or probation) that are historically OR modernly Republican controlled (ignoring the first point-that many such states are Democrat controlled), the demographics are, in many cases, such that all other races combined could not muster even the perception of a threat to the white, Republican voting bloc.
Probably centuries of institutionalized racism.
Why in the world is this a felony? If it's "mere" disenfranchisement you're going for, why not simply… don't count the vote?
Disenfranchisement can be achieved on a greater scale if you make an example of people. If you take one person and throw them in jail for voting, you get a classic chilling effect.
The vote wasn't even counted in the end.
[deleted]
The goal of that would be to extend the total disenfranchisement period
I can't quite figure out what the major differentiating factor is between that case and this one where someone intentionally tried to vote twice and just got 2 years of probation: https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/979519186820128768
I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually.
I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually.
Isn't the whole point of probation that you're under a microscope and face greater penalties for wrongdoing, in exchange for an early release or bypassing jail for an earlier offense?
The whole point of probation is that you are trusted enough to not be put in prison.
The major difference is skin color.
Different state, Iowa vs Texas?
Putting aside the whole "why voting disenfranchisement is even a thing in the first place" argument, this situation should have been just
— Sorry maam, it seems like you can't cast a ballot this time due to being on probation. Have a nice day.
— Sorry maam, it seems like you can't cast a ballot this time due to being on probation. Have a nice day.
> “I don’t think I’ll ever vote again,” she told the news outlet after her indictment. “That’s being honest. I’ll never vote again.”
This reminds of an article I read about a city government considering fining people for putting non-recyclables in their recycling containers. If there is a risk of getting punished for doing the right thing and no risk if you don't try to do the right thing, then guess which one I'm choosing.
This reminds of an article I read about a city government considering fining people for putting non-recyclables in their recycling containers. If there is a risk of getting punished for doing the right thing and no risk if you don't try to do the right thing, then guess which one I'm choosing.
This is likely a very old law, or old sentence. I wonder if more of our school system could be focused on teaching people every single law that could screw them over.
We learn the rules of math, science, etc, but not our own system?
We learn the rules of math, science, etc, but not our own system?
Ideally, you would not allow people who don't have (additionally) Ph.D.'s in either Math or Physics make laws, but that's not how the world currently works.
Why Math or Physics?
Reminds me of the monetary damages levied against people who shared music files.
There was a wrong-doing, but the punishment is excessive.
There was a wrong-doing, but the punishment is excessive.
Man the US just disgust me. Land of the free my ass. The amount of inhumane policies is just staggering. The most brutal and unjust “justice” system in the free world.
That American put up with this system is the biggest puzzle. It seems like the only freedom Americans care about is to carry a gun. Any other freedom they are cool with flushing down the toilet.
Sorry for the angry rant, I know there are lots of good and decent people in the US, but how on earth can you stand by year after year and be so chill about the inhumanity of the system?
That American put up with this system is the biggest puzzle. It seems like the only freedom Americans care about is to carry a gun. Any other freedom they are cool with flushing down the toilet.
Sorry for the angry rant, I know there are lots of good and decent people in the US, but how on earth can you stand by year after year and be so chill about the inhumanity of the system?
>The most brutal and unjust “justice” system in the free world.
I generally agree with you about the state of our criminal justice system, but I think you'll find US freedoms are a mixed bag when compared to the rest of the "free world." If you take a step back from just our criminal justice system, let's compare us to the UK. If you want to be more like them you'll need to restrict abortions to the first trimester, lose your gun rights, lose your free speech rights, lose separation of church and state, still can't vote while in prison, gay marriage is a states rights issue (not available in Northern Ireland), gain some consumer protections around privacy and returns, censor the internet, and heavily weigh immigration towards "ability" based candidates rather than "diversity."
>It seems like the only freedom Americans care about is to carry a gun.
The two rights I hear most about in the US are guns and abortion, but that's because those two are the most consistently under attack. I think free speech and privacy is going to be getting more mainstream attention soon because of what's going on in the tech industry.
I generally agree with you about the state of our criminal justice system, but I think you'll find US freedoms are a mixed bag when compared to the rest of the "free world." If you take a step back from just our criminal justice system, let's compare us to the UK. If you want to be more like them you'll need to restrict abortions to the first trimester, lose your gun rights, lose your free speech rights, lose separation of church and state, still can't vote while in prison, gay marriage is a states rights issue (not available in Northern Ireland), gain some consumer protections around privacy and returns, censor the internet, and heavily weigh immigration towards "ability" based candidates rather than "diversity."
>It seems like the only freedom Americans care about is to carry a gun.
The two rights I hear most about in the US are guns and abortion, but that's because those two are the most consistently under attack. I think free speech and privacy is going to be getting more mainstream attention soon because of what's going on in the tech industry.
Because when it comes down to it, a lot of these things are supported on a local or state level. HN is California-heavy and reflects the politics of the state (and the Bay Area specifically). As such, the prevailing opinion is likely to be that this is voter suppression/racism in action/terrible policy.
The fact of the matter is though, this is a Texas law, passed by Texan politicians, elected by Texan people, who probably on a general level consider voter fraud to be a bigger problem than voter suppression.
While other parts of the US may not like this kind of thing, they're not in a place to do anything about it. Much like if France wants to pass laws outside of the domain of the EU that Germany doesn't like, Germany can't really do much about it besides writing some news articles.
And to some degree, I'm of the opinion that things are better this way. If other states want to shit on their education systems or fail to invest in public health or (insert other policy here), they'll reap what they sow (which is probably, to some degree, exactly what they want). I'd rather that their decisions and policies by limited to themselves rather than being applied at a federal level to everyone.
The fact of the matter is though, this is a Texas law, passed by Texan politicians, elected by Texan people, who probably on a general level consider voter fraud to be a bigger problem than voter suppression.
While other parts of the US may not like this kind of thing, they're not in a place to do anything about it. Much like if France wants to pass laws outside of the domain of the EU that Germany doesn't like, Germany can't really do much about it besides writing some news articles.
And to some degree, I'm of the opinion that things are better this way. If other states want to shit on their education systems or fail to invest in public health or (insert other policy here), they'll reap what they sow (which is probably, to some degree, exactly what they want). I'd rather that their decisions and policies by limited to themselves rather than being applied at a federal level to everyone.
While I 100% agree about the amount of inhumane policies and do not believe the US (or any other nation) are free.
It is completely untrue that the only freedoms Americans care about is guns, that seems like that because
1. The Mainstream media loves to cover it
2. Guns are a taboo or unusual Topic for many nations
3. Given the US is one of the last if not the last first world nation that has few regulations on owning Auto-Loading guns it is common for other nations to us that as a sign post to express how "backwards" the US is, and virtue signal how much "better" they are in comparison because they outlawed the evil gun
4. The US has made lots of process in the progression of liberty even in my life time. Drugs laws are beginning to loosen, More expansions on Free Speech over the protest of the "hate Speech is not free speech" people, and others
Over all there is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more work to be done for the cause of liberty, but the idea that Americans only care about guns is simply incorrect or rather incomplete probably based on biased news coverage
It is completely untrue that the only freedoms Americans care about is guns, that seems like that because
1. The Mainstream media loves to cover it
2. Guns are a taboo or unusual Topic for many nations
3. Given the US is one of the last if not the last first world nation that has few regulations on owning Auto-Loading guns it is common for other nations to us that as a sign post to express how "backwards" the US is, and virtue signal how much "better" they are in comparison because they outlawed the evil gun
4. The US has made lots of process in the progression of liberty even in my life time. Drugs laws are beginning to loosen, More expansions on Free Speech over the protest of the "hate Speech is not free speech" people, and others
Over all there is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more work to be done for the cause of liberty, but the idea that Americans only care about guns is simply incorrect or rather incomplete probably based on biased news coverage
virtue signal how much "better" they are in comparison because they outlawed the evil gun
No, it's much more common for some Americans to virtue signal how free they feel by the number and caliber of the guns they own. People in other countries don't hate guns, they just recognize their destructive potential and limit their availability on that basis. To the extent that they think they're better, it's because they have so few episodes of mass or casual murder by comparison.
The US has made lots of process in the progression of liberty even in my life time. Drugs laws are beginning to loosen,
You mean the drug laws that the US instituted in the 70s and then kept ratcheting up penalties on for a couple decades afterwards? If you were born in the 90s I realize it's hard to conceptualize variations in the law prior to that, but you should probably look into the political roots of the drug war and the economics involved in its export.
More expansions on Free Speech over the protest of the "hate Speech is not free speech" people, and others
It's odd that the people who've championed the freedom to express support for genocide under the rubric of free speech have been entirely absent from just about every other free speech cause in recent memory. You might want to broaden your scope a little bit.
No, it's much more common for some Americans to virtue signal how free they feel by the number and caliber of the guns they own. People in other countries don't hate guns, they just recognize their destructive potential and limit their availability on that basis. To the extent that they think they're better, it's because they have so few episodes of mass or casual murder by comparison.
The US has made lots of process in the progression of liberty even in my life time. Drugs laws are beginning to loosen,
You mean the drug laws that the US instituted in the 70s and then kept ratcheting up penalties on for a couple decades afterwards? If you were born in the 90s I realize it's hard to conceptualize variations in the law prior to that, but you should probably look into the political roots of the drug war and the economics involved in its export.
More expansions on Free Speech over the protest of the "hate Speech is not free speech" people, and others
It's odd that the people who've championed the freedom to express support for genocide under the rubric of free speech have been entirely absent from just about every other free speech cause in recent memory. You might want to broaden your scope a little bit.
>>People in other countries don't hate guns
Hate probably not, irrationally scared by an inanimate object is a better description.
>>they just recognize their destructive potential and limit their availability on that basis
Same irrational justification is used for all manner of restrictions on liberty, but my rights should not be infringed upon simply because other people do bad things that goes for all rights from free speech, to self defense, to many many many others
>>You mean the drug laws that the US instituted in the 70s and then kept ratcheting up penalties on for a couple decades afterwards?
History of Drugs laws go back far further than just the 70s
>>If you were born in the 90s I realize it's hard to conceptualize variations in the law prior to that
I was not, I predate the 90's by a good margin, and I also know a good deal about American History from our inception. But please continue to try to educate me, I love when people make themselves look foolish saves me the trouble
>>It's odd that the people who've championed the freedom to express support for genocide under the rubric of free speech have been entirely absent from just about every other free speech cause in recent memory. You might want to broaden your scope a little bit
Given you do not know me, or what issues have I have or have not supported it is highly unlikely you know if I was "absent from just about every other free speech cause in recent memory" it is likely I was not given I am a Philosophical Left-Libertarian that values individual liberty over all else including what is best for "society" and I largely reject all forms of collectivism and "the greater good" which is often used as the basis for the suppression of speech and individual liberty
Hate probably not, irrationally scared by an inanimate object is a better description.
>>they just recognize their destructive potential and limit their availability on that basis
Same irrational justification is used for all manner of restrictions on liberty, but my rights should not be infringed upon simply because other people do bad things that goes for all rights from free speech, to self defense, to many many many others
>>You mean the drug laws that the US instituted in the 70s and then kept ratcheting up penalties on for a couple decades afterwards?
History of Drugs laws go back far further than just the 70s
>>If you were born in the 90s I realize it's hard to conceptualize variations in the law prior to that
I was not, I predate the 90's by a good margin, and I also know a good deal about American History from our inception. But please continue to try to educate me, I love when people make themselves look foolish saves me the trouble
>>It's odd that the people who've championed the freedom to express support for genocide under the rubric of free speech have been entirely absent from just about every other free speech cause in recent memory. You might want to broaden your scope a little bit
Given you do not know me, or what issues have I have or have not supported it is highly unlikely you know if I was "absent from just about every other free speech cause in recent memory" it is likely I was not given I am a Philosophical Left-Libertarian that values individual liberty over all else including what is best for "society" and I largely reject all forms of collectivism and "the greater good" which is often used as the basis for the suppression of speech and individual liberty
[deleted]
[deleted]
ocfx(2)
coding123(3)