Texas woman sentenced to 5 years in prison for voting while on probation
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
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.
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.
She was contrite and acknowledged the severity of her crime, we got her sentence reduced! Good guy wins again!
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.
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.
"Ultimately, her vote didn’t even count. Provisional ballots are subject to review, which ultimately led to an investigation of Mason."
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.
Just disgusting.
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.
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.
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.
The max jail time in Texas for first time DWI is 180 days (or as little as 3 days).
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud...
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.
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.
It's also believable she didn't know this law existed.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.64.htm
Maybe some other law applies?
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.
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
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.
Not necessarily.
edit: It's entirely possible to oppose halfway programs and also advocate for shorter sentencing...
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
In other words the rehabilitation occurred during and as a result of the criminal act.
Except the sociopath angle - a person who commits crime for fun is quite likely to find another fun crime to commit.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Surely voting by itself doesn't warrant a 5 year jail sentence
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 punishment is excessive, but there is a real crime here.
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.
I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually.
— Sorry maam, it seems like you can't cast a ballot this time due to being on probation. Have a nice day.
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.
We learn the rules of math, science, etc, but not our own system?
There was a wrong-doing, but the punishment is excessive.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.