ΚΚΚ "I am indeed uneasy about comparing ex-felons, how
had committed crimes -- sometimes horrific (e.g., rape,
child molestation, etc.), often brutal, and sometimes
merely serious -- to innocent children"
I see the root of the problem, particularly insofar as
we're talking about people who have "paid their debt to
society," i.e., who are not in prison and no longer on
probation or parole. What percentage of those people
are rapists? What percentage committed some crime we
would agree was "brutal"? Indeed, what percentage
committed a crime that a good chunk of the population
not only wouldn't consider "serious" but has engaged in
(without getting caught) themselves, e.g., marijuana
possession?
If you assume that the question is whether we want
rapists running the country, that tends to bias you
toward a particular outcome. If you actually work with
ex-felons and have seen them act almost like actual
human beings, holding down jobs, paying taxes, and so
on, you tend to be biased towards a different outcome.
Judging from the evidence in the various
felon-disenfranchisement lawsuits around the country,
the people who actually know what they're talking
about--not just the do-gooders and the bleeding-hearts,
but also the penological experts, the prison wardens,
the law enforcement people--as a group seem to be much
more comfortable with the enfranchisement of ex-felons
than do people who know ex-felons only as a faceless
group of bad people who've done bad things.