Hot answers tagged

297

The most trite answer is a civil rights protection against the following algorithm: Win a legislative election. Pass any law which disproportionately imprisons the supporters of your opponents. Profit. This is relatively hard to prevent through other constitutional means, since the law doesn't need to be exclusively or primarily politically targeted to ...


124

Democracy: Criminals (including those in jail) are affected by the results of the political process. Allowing them to vote gives their an option for their opinions to be heard. If you want to signal criminals that they are not full members of the society, do it coherently: convicted criminals cannot vote, but they get to pay less taxes, too. On the other ...


101

According to CNN, the emails were released by Donald Trump Jr. shortly before they were going to be published by the New York Times. From this article, we read: Trump Jr. tweeted that he was releasing the emails to be "totally transparent," but his release came moments before The New York Times published the content of the emails. The only options for ...


58

Here are some actual arguments given in cases around the world, extracted from a paper focusing on the Irish case: Israel: after Yigal Amir assassinated Rabin, there was a court case asking for Amir's voting rights to be curtailed. The Israeli supreme court refused stating that Amir's imprisonment was his punishment and that in denying the right to vote ‘...


42

It's reported that The New York Times already had gotten the emails and Trump Jr. published the emails to preempt their publication. As the NYT mentions in an article: After being told that The Times was about to publish the content of the emails, instead of responding to a request for comment, Donald Trump Jr. posted images of them on Tuesday on Twitter....


36

The law in Iceland dates from the 1940s, and is modelled on Danish laws of the period. Pre-1940, an adult convicted of a serious crime (one which is "outrageous to public opinion" and leads to a prison sentence of 4 months or more) would lose their "honour". This had various consequences, including losing the right to vote in Althing elections. The 1940 law ...


33

A few points not brought up by the other answers: Criminals are not uniformly of one party. In certain cases reformed criminals, or even unreformed criminals, might be much wiser voters who are less easily beguiled than the innocent. For example: Suppose a white collar criminal employs some blue collar criminals to perpetrate some unlawful deed. The ...


27

Citizens who are convicted of crimes don't stop being citizens and start being criminals arbitrarily, and voting is not a privilege: it is a civic duty. It makes sense that the default should be preserving an individual's civil liberties so that they can carry out their larger duties as a citizen unless (as in the case of France, Germany and others, where a ...


25

It was a way to deny the New York Times a scoop. When a news outlet gets a story like this you have to do a lot of investigative journalism to validate and verify your sources. If you've managed to keep it quiet, your paper stands to make a lot of money because you are now the source for all of this information. By tweeting out the emails ahead of the story,...


24

Basically, this article by The Atlantic explains that Rob Goldstone likely mixed up the titles. Crown Prosecutor is a title commonly used in Commonwealth realms, that refers to a prosecutor that works for the Crown, i.e. a federal prosecutor or a state prosecutor in the context of a state. However, there is no such position in Russia, so he's likely ...


20

First and foremost: The question is ill-considered because universal suffrage is considered now a basic human right. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21 (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. There is the word: "Everyone". A basic human right means by ...


15

The judiciary is in charge of interpreting the law while the executive branch, through the Ministry of Justice, Justice Department, etc., is in charge of enforcing the law. The judiciary is mainly comprised of courts and the functions needed to operate them and does not investigate activities leading to litigation or litigate cases before the courts. For ...


13

There are various reasons: Societal mechanisms - Lower levels of trust. This is a common social approach - if someone shows themselves as willing to break the social contract (laws), they have lower level of trust. In terms of franchise, it means they can't be trusted with the responsibilities of said franchise - as a concept, not necessarily out of ...


11

This isn't actually a political question; it's more a social one. When damaging information about yourself is about to be made public, you have two choices: Wait for someone else to tell everybody about your actions Tell everybody yourself It's human nature to give somebody a bit of a reprieve for owning up to their mistakes; you look a lot worse if you ...


11

Updated answer based on discussion with OP (see comments). First, a disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so there's a good chance I'll mess something up here. I'll begin by noting that a special counsel, such as Robert Mueller, is considered an attorney for the government. As such, the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice apply to him just as they ...


11

A contemporary NY Times Article described what happened succinctly and in detail. No, fmr President Clinton does not have a criminal conviction. Nor was he charged with a crime. Napolitano is wrong on the facts of the deal to which he refers. Independent Counsel Robert Ray made a deal with fmr President Clinton on Clinton's last day in office. The deal ...


10

For a trial to occur, a US Attorney needs to file a charging document with a court. The attorney in question can do that either on instructions from the Department of Justice or if he or she determines that the facts presented in the whatever report the organization compiled and published confirm that the crime has been commited. The trial would proceed in ...


10

Googling this question produced good answers, but I'll sum them up here anways. First and foremost, the use of many agents is not abnormal. From former agent James Gagliono "In the FBI, we tend to defuse situations by removing the fight-or-flight inclination, via our overwhelming presence. To arrest one, we bring 10. For 10, we'll bring 100," (source) ...


9

Two issues: It really depends on if your goal with incarceration is that of punishment, rehabilitation, or both. If one of the latter categories, that means that these people are going to re-enter society at some point, and thus should have a say on how that society functions. How does one reform one's treatment of prisoners/law breakers if those who have/...


8

There may be some reason to think that charges like this are unusual. David Mason, a former FEC commissioner, noted I don't know why or how his case even came to the prosecutor's attention, because in the world of campaign finance this is very small, and it's completely insignificant, So how, why this particular case came up and the prosecutor ...


8

The new Attorney-General will take over the investigation unless the new AG recuses himself too. This is because Jeff Sessions recused himself and that does not mean that all future AG need to recuse themselves. The special counsel is overseen by the AG, the Deputy AG only took over the investigation because the AG recused himself.


8

Yes This topic is quite delicate and politically contentious, but there seems to be some sort of consensus in the direction of "Yes, minorities are not treated in an equal and just manner by the US Judicial System". According to the good people at the ACLU: There are significant racial disparities in sentencing decisions in the United States. Sentences ...


8

This is really four separate questions, or at least four separate parts. 1) Why didn't Mississippi ratify the 13th amendment when it was first proposed? This one is pretty simple: Not every state legislature liked the amendment, and four out of the 36 states at the time rejected it (New Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky, and Mississippi). Of those four, NJ ...


8

There were effectively 3 reasons why a state might want to ratify the 13th Ammendment. Roughly in order of how quickly it would motivate them to take action: Its residents agreed with it and wanted it to become law. The state was a former member of the Confederacy, and wanted its own full voting rights restored. It had passed anyway, but the state wanted to ...


7

You mentioned this practice in relation to the US; the legal basis at least would be section 2 of the 14th amendment: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice ...


7

From this answer on Why allow convicted criminals to vote?, @origimbo gave one reason to allow them to vote as being protection against the following algorithm: Win a legislative election. Pass any law which disproportionately imprisons the supporters of your opponents. Profit. conversely, one reason to keep them from voting would be to ...


7

The untested premise here is that males receive harsher sentences for these kinds of crimes than females. To address your question and provide you with references you can read, I won't cite anything behind a paywall, which is tough. Luckily, someone posted their M.A. thesis on exactly this subject online for free. It was completed in 2012 under the faculty ...


7

Property does not tie directly to a particular person, nor is that mapping at all uniform for all members of society. Police still need to get a search warrant to investigate the crime for several reasons, including: Police could uncover evidence of other crimes, perhaps committed by other individuals living or associated with the deceased in some way. ...


7

I'll take a stab at this but it's not a very well referenced answer, so someone with a better clue is more than welcome to provide a better one. There are two reasons for this counterargument to be invalid in a vast majority of cases where someone is taxed: The main reason this is not necessarily a valid counter-argument is that a vast majority of the ...


7

The judicial system is declared by the United States constitution, but it isn't defined by it. The judicial system is defined by laws passed over time. Those laws establish the district and circuit (appeals) courts. Only the Supreme Court is actually mentioned by name in Article III of the US constitution: The judicial Power of the United States, ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible