The Supreme Court Just Stopped 1 Million Floridians From Voting in November

[TheRedComet]

All minorities are criminals?

[conan]

I think he meant all criminals are minorities.

[markdido]

@JayJay

If the state didn’t keep track of what was actually owed, how can they claim the person hasn’t completed all the terms of his sentence?

Who said the State isn’t keeping track?

[Snow96]

@Safiel

I personally would support allowing for the restoration of the right to vote, when the defendant is making good faith progress on his legal obligations but has not paid them outright. If a defendant is indigent and can’t pay at all, I would allow him to vote. If a defendant is poor, but can pay even a minimal amount ($5.00 a month), I would allow him to vote if he makes minimal payments in good faith, in relation to his income.

On the other hand, if he is a Roger Stone, Jeffrey Epstein, etc, (in other words fully capable of paying his obligations) then I would require 100% satisfaction of all legal obligations prior to registering to vote.

So the law/constition shouldn’t apply to poor people. Gotcha.

One law for some, another law for others.

[WildRose]

The link supporting the histrionics is broken.

[WildRose]

A group of well-trained, highly educated individuals—a professor specializing in this field with a team of doctoral candidates from a major research university—made diligent efforts over a long period to obtain [court debt] information on 153 randomly selected felons. They found that information was often unavailable over the internet or by telephone and that, remarkably, there were inconsistencies in the available information for all but 3 of the 153 individuals.

So much garbage here.

When you are convicted the fines and fees are spelled out in the documents recieved by the convict and their counsel.

Any convict who loses that paperwork can contact the court in which they were convicted or their atty’s to get another copy.

[Borgia_dude]

@SixFoot

There were smokers aged 19 when they were told they legally had to quit again.

Incorrect. From 2019. Grandfathered in.

People under 21-years-of-age will not be able to buy tobacco, cigarettes or e-cigarettes starting Sept. 1, 2019. There is an exception for military members, and people who were born on or before Aug. 31, 2001.

[Paul_Thomson]

@tzu

Were they imposed with an eye to limiting franchise?

It’s called upholding law and order. If you don’t like it, get representatives to change the laws *they and/or their fore-runners wrote and passed".

[STODR]

@Auto129

The people voted to restore voting rights to ex-felons in 2018. Republicans passed a law that added this extra condition in 2019.

It was absolutely meant to limit franchise.

Yes they did because the Libs can not understand plain English in the ammendment “on COMPLETION OF ALL terms of the sentence”.

You give them a foot they try and take a mile.

[WildRose]

Because unfortunately it needs to be repeated.

“on COMPLETION OF ALL terms of the sentence”.

[bigtwnvin]

Eessh, that’s a Pandora’s Box.

[WildRose]

Personally I think we need to review all the statutes relating to What is/Isn’t a felony.

Felonies are supposed to only be the most notorious and egregious types of crimes. We have expanded that to be so broad millions of people now have felony records that never should have had one to start with.

When we’re done sorting out what is/isn’t a felony in the future there should be a retroactive clearing of records.

Once you have a felony record your options for the future become extremely limited and you’re pretty well damned to the bottom 10-20% of jobs with the lowest pay and little or no benefits.

[bigtwnvin]

Like “mandatory minimums” for 2nd offense? Then no.

[WildRose]

Why would you not want stronger punishments for repeat offenders particularly those who are accelerating the seriousness of their crimes with each subsequent offense?

[JayJay]

@markdido

@JayJay

If the state didn’t keep track of what was actually owed, how can they claim the person hasn’t completed all the terms of his sentence?

Who said the State isn’t keeping track?

Did you not read the article linked in the OP?

[highroller]

And his is why I don’t vote for Republicans anymore. The people voted and they didn’t like the result so they overturned it. The right wing in this country does not believe in democracy in principle. If it coincides with their agenda, they allow it, but they do not believe in having the people decide any issue even if is their right

[bigtwnvin]

You saved me from an ignoramus rant , I had to look up some facts. They used to bang weed users in Maryland with a felony possession with intent charge for having more than 10 grams of certified cannabis. One of my boys caught his 2nd charge in 2008, it carried a mandatory minimum of 5 years. All the a la carte charges (paraphernalia etc) were nolle prosecu. He was out in 18 months and the remainder on PO. His crime was in possession of 18 grams, a little more than 1/2 ounce (party pot). BUT the statute has been amended, the felony charges start at 50 lbs. Unfortunately for thousands of people like my son who have served marijuana time under the old statute, they would have been charged with a misdemeanor, paid a fine or maybe caught some community service time for the same crime today. The felony charges do remain on the criminal record and I’m told can now be expunged after 10 years. Expungements of felonies used to be a no go.

[JayJay]

@WildRose

Why would you not want stronger punishments for repeat offenders particularly those who are accelerating the seriousness of their crimes with each subsequent offense?

Let that be decided in court…not automatically.

Justice should never be boilerplate…that’s papering over root causes and not addressing them.

[komobu]

@WuWei

Should I get my guns back before I’ve paid my fines?

only if you pay 5 dollars a month towards them unless you are indigent.

[bigtwnvin]

@komobu

only if you pay 5 dollars a month towards them unless you are indigent.

“Indigent” is used as a noun or adjective. Are you suggesting an “indigent” (poor or needy) person does not have to pay but can still get their property back?
Or the same person is a known “indigent”, so they automatically just receive the benefit?
I know, it’s a slow morning.