Texas and Democracy

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-woman-crystal-mason-sentenced-five-years-prison-voter-fraud/

-> Texas doesn't give back the right to vote to people who serve jail-time
-> Woman isn't aware of this
-> Woman votes
-> Is sentenced to five years in prison
-> Denied appeal

Opinion 1: Anyone who supports the enforcement of this legislation should be impeached

Opinion 2: This is cruel and unusual punishment setting aside that this law is a form of oppression

Opinion 3: Voting laws need to be identical nationwide. States have no right to enact special restrictions on people's right to participate in our democracy. Such legislation is the primary injustice that needs to be eradicated in our country.

First off, we're not a democracy.

Secondly, it's quite common that convicted felons can't vote. And Texas restores voting rights after the completion of the sentence, parole, and/or probation. After that time is served, it's automatically restored.

Looks like Somebody didn't do their homework.

Originally posted by Playmaker
First off, we're not a democracy.

I honestly don’t know why people don’t know this.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-woman-crystal-mason-sentenced-five-years-prison-voter-fraud/

-> Texas doesn't give back the right to vote to people who serve jail-time
-> Woman isn't aware of this
-> Woman votes
-> Is sentenced to five years in prison
-> Denied appeal

Opinion 1: Anyone who supports the enforcement of this legislation should be impeached

Opinion 2: This is cruel and unusual punishment setting aside that this law is a form of oppression

Opinion 3: Voting laws need to be identical nationwide. States have no right to enact special restrictions on people's right to participate in our democracy. Such legislation is the primary injustice that needs to be eradicated in our country.

I agree, identical laws. Every state needs to require an ID to register to vote.

Originally posted by Surtur
I agree, identical laws. Every state needs to require an ID to register to vote.

Originally posted by Surtur
I agree, identical laws. Every state needs to require an ID to register to vote.

Originally posted by Playmaker
[B]First off, we're not a democracy.

Secondly, it's quite common that convicted felons can't vote.

It also makes it that the Rights of the Minorities Do not Exceed the Rights of the Majority.

Which is something the Democrats would like to change for the worse.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Only if the id is easy accessed by everyone, otherwise, nah.

They already are. Stop acting like getting an ID is some massive hassle.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-woman-crystal-mason-sentenced-five-years-prison-voter-fraud/

-> Texas doesn't give back the right to vote to people who serve jail-time
-> Woman isn't aware of this
-> Woman votes
-> Is sentenced to five years in prison
-> Denied appeal

Opinion 1: Anyone who supports the enforcement of this legislation should be impeached

Opinion 2: This is cruel and unusual punishment setting aside that this law is a form of oppression

Opinion 3: Voting laws need to be identical nationwide. States have no right to enact special restrictions on people's right to participate in our democracy. Such legislation is the primary injustice that needs to be eradicated in our country.

Opinion 2 is factually incorrect. That's not what "cruel and unusual punishment" means. For examples of what constitutes (pun intended) Cruel and Unusual punishment, as intended by the 8th Amendment, look at at few cases:

Hudson v McMillian (1992):
Compliant and docile man beaten, while in handcuffs, while in prison (beatings are a form of torture and explicitly prohibited under the 8th Amendment). This case would not have ruled this way had the inmate been fighting the prison staff while in cuffs.

Also, in the United States, we do not have to prove means rea for many crimes. Any crime that falls under 'Strict Liability' means that they will get the criminal penalties for violating that law. Almost all felonies fall under this Strict Liability. All you have to prove is that the person was of sound mind. Only when we get into areas of murder do we have to start grading what type of murder it was (proving pure accidents, for example, would be required to get out of a murder charge and that's why people who accidentally kill someone - and gross-negligence is not part of the reason why the death occurred - is why those people are not even indicted).

So, in this case, the USA is more concerned with "actus reus" than it is "mens rea."

Here is the position that you hold:

actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Which roughly means "the act does not make one guilty without a guilty mind."

In Canada, in general, you must prove both actus reus and mens rea. Which is what I think you believe:

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Actus_Reus_and_Mens_Rea

Also, here is the reason why I do not believe even a little bit that she did not know: there are dozens and dozens of times she was notified that she cannot vote. Forms she had to sign, statements made by people like judges and officers, briefings she would have been given by lawyers, an 'exit' briefing she would have been given exiting prison and the like. Ask any free-felon how many times they were notified that they cannot vote (or what the specific voting laws are for felons) and they will be able to tell you. It's not a secret. This is why the judge threw the book at her. She already committed fraud and she commits it again as soon as she gets out. She should have been in big-doo-doo for committing fraud very quickly after leaving prison for committing fraud.

IMO, there is no defense case, here. But I don't think she should go back to prison. I think she should be fined. Tax fraud? Fines. Voting fraud? Fines. No prison time for fraud or any crimes where no one is physically harmed.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Only if the id is easy accessed by everyone, otherwise, nah.

That’s idiotic.

99.9% of the populace walks around with a form of id.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So?
The difference between a democracy and a republic is that the rights of the minority are protected. Rights like the ability to vote.

Umm, no. There was vast differences between a republic and a democracy. The founders never believed in democracy. The founders believed in republicanism. The founders despised the idea of democracy. The idea that the people know best in every situation never crossed the founders' minds.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy." -John Adams, 1814

The entire purpose of a republic isn't to protect the rights of the minority. That happens in a republic, yes. But the purpose of a republic is to have a system of checks and balances that prevent the people from simply usurping all power. If you believe that the people are always right then you wouldn't need a constitution, you wouldn't need a Senate or the House or the Presidency or a judiciary.

The entire purpose of a republic is to create a division of power. There's a division of power among the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government as well as a division of power among the people. This is why we have things like the electoral college. It was designed to stop the people from putting bad people into high office.

Chief Justice John Marshall said, "between a balanced Republican and democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

A balanced Republic is designed to check out the excesses. James Madison wrote this in Federalist 10 saying, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

So, no. There's a few major differences between a democracy and a republic.

You're not fooling anyone, Star.

Originally posted by Surtur
They already are. Stop acting like getting an ID is some massive hassle.

That’s idiotic.

99.9% of the populace walks around with a form of id.

Millions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification.1

IMO, there is no defense case, here. But I don't think she should go back to prison. I think she should be fined. Tax fraud? Fines. Voting fraud? Fines. No prison time for fraud or any crimes where no one is physically harmed.

Originally posted by Playmaker

The entire purpose of a republic isn't to protect the rights of the minority. That happens in a republic, yes. But the purpose of a republic is to have a system of checks and balances that prevent the people from simply usurping all power.

And again, none of these distinctions between a direct democracy and a republic are relevant to the thread.

nd Texas restores voting rights after the completion of the sentence, parole, and/or probation. After that time is served, it's automatically restored.

Lemme check this...

https://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/#Washington

Texas
Individuals convicted of a felony are ineligible to vote while incarcerated, on parole, or on probation. Voting rights are automatically restored upon completion of all supervised release. Ex-offenders should re-register to vote.

Fair enough then. Guess my outrage was largely directed at the wrong state (5 years is still a ridiculous sentence given that rape offenders have been handed shorter sentences), so I shall redirect the outrage of opinion one towards these states:

Voting rights restoration is dependent on the type of conviction and/or the outcome of an individual petition or application to the government in:

Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

Voting rights can ONLY be restored through an individual petition or application to the government in:

Florida, Iowa, and Kentucky

#Getmadbros

Opinion 2 is factually incorrect. That's not what "cruel and unusual punishment" means. For examples of what constitutes (pun intended) Cruel and Unusual punishment, as intended by the 8th Amendment, look at at few cases:

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It helps to be informed of what you speak of surt. Give it a try:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Kettle and Pot fam:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

If you're going to act indignant on the basis of knowledge. Make sure you know what you're talking about.

It's not relevant. If she doesn't have the right to vote, why should she follow laws she had no say in.

Kiddo, nothing there suggests it is a major hassle to get an ID.

Also some of the shit on there seems dumb as hell.

"States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards."

Lol. Now...list what one needs to get a concealed weapon permit. Go on. Does it involve having an ID?

Do you need an ID to get a student ID card? Think carefully. Do you need to be a legal citizen to obtain a student ID card? Given I've heard about illegals going to college...I'm guessing no. Unless they lied to get the card.

Yep, confirmed:

https://professionals.collegeboard.org/guidance/financial-aid/undocumented-students

Some colleges do require you be a citizen to attend. Not all do and it is not law. Do better.

Surt and reading:

Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID.
Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.2
The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.3

Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6
States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.

And here's the best part:

In-person fraud is vanishingly rare. A recent study found that, since 2000, there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation – the only type of fraud that photo IDs could prevent – during a period of time in which over 1 billion ballots were cast.9

vs

Voter ID Laws Reduce Voter Turnout. A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points,4 which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.5