I think being a convicted felon is worse than being a good citizen of 34. I also think that no normal American political party would nominate and support someone who had been adjudicated guilty of massive fraud and sexual assault. trump is a pitiful human human being and the adherents of the MAGA party are knaves and fanatics.
I agree, but I do also feel that barring someone with a felony conviction could be abused.
That said, it remains my opinion that our political divide has as much to do with petty grievances nurtured over several decades as it does any substantive difference in policy. And those grievances tend to lead us to mistrust the opposition or see legitimate concerns they have as just a witch hunt.
For example, when Republicans launched the Whitewater investigation against Bill Clinton, many Democrats saw it as payback for the Watergate investigation that forced Nixon to resign. It didn’t help that Ken Starr used his power as independent prosecutor to dig into any salacious rumor that came along, and by the time Clinton was impeached for lying under oath it seemed obvious to Democrats that he was being rail-roaded.
In hindsight, Bill Clinton was a bad guy who got away with some shady dealings. He shouldn’t have been nominated, let alone elected. Trump is an even worse person in my opinion, but his supporters feel he’s being unfairly treated now the same way Democrats thought Clinton was in the ‘90s. Probably the same way Republicans felt in 1960 when Kennedy “stole” the election from Nixon, or maybe even when Hoover got trounced in 1932.
I agree with your overall sentiments, John, but I'm pondering your assertion that many Republicans saw the Whitewater investigation. as payback for the Watergate investigation. I lived through both events, and come from somewhat of a traditional Republican family, and I have never heard anyone connect the two in terms of one as a motivation for the other. Have others heard, or remembering hearing, Republicans in the 1990's voice such? Whitewater struck me as significantly partisan, whereas Watergate was justice being served.
That could be said about just any regulation or power of government. We have government and judicial power abused on a daily basis in this country. All we can do is strive to pass the right rules, vote in a higher quality of officials, and hope that the population won’t go overboard on selfish personal choices.
Were you galled that Ted Kennedy continued to slop away at the public trough (and made a bid for the Presidency, no less) for forty years after Chappaquiddick? Were the citizens of Massachusetts “knaves and fanatics” for continuing to send him there every six years until he croaked?
Leaving aside the verbiage "slop away" and "croaked," that is a puerile way of thinking and a crime against logic. Because, in your view, Senator Kennedy got away with bad things, therefore trump should not have to answer for his many crimes?
It is possible that the citizens of Massachuetts re-elected Senator Kennedy because he was a highly effective senator. My guess is, since we have now left reality, that if Senator Kennedy had been convicted of a felony, he would not have been re-elected or would not have had the gall to run.
I didn’t say that Trump shouldn’t have to “answer for his many crimes”. You said that he shouldn’t be allowed to hold office because of them.
You think Kennedy lacked gall? He presented himself every six years as the Democratic party’s candidate for representing the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate in every election from 1970 to 2006, and made an insurgent bid for the party’s Presidential nomination in 1980 despite the public knowledge that he left a young woman (whose pants he was no doubt trying to get into) to drown trapped inside a vehicle at the bottom of a pond, then neglected to report it for nine hours to avoid getting pinched for drunk driving. That’s not gall?
However awful Trump may be, he’s never done anything as monstrous to another human being as what Kennedy did to Mary Jo Kopechne. But maybe being a highly effective senator is all that counts.
Perhaps, in voters minds, being effective at your job is enough. I will not be put in the position of defending Senator Kennedy or parsing your accusations--that is what "whataboutists" always want others to do.
trump is a convicted felon because a jury found him so. Supposing the felony were murder or aggravated rape or treason, would you say that was cause for being ineligible? Or are no felonies disqualifying?.
There's are several other points being missed. Kennedy was not found guilty of anything. Should we bar people due to political innuendo? We members of the public often compare apples and oranges. A second point is tit for tat. Original sin is attached to that. One could take it back all the way to George Washington. If charges are brought against a politician from one side, can we ever again bring charges against politicians from the other side or is it revenge politics? Can politicians only be charged and prosecuted by those on from their own side in order to be fair? It would be just as legitimate to accuse those of voting in Trump's favor of misusing the system as those against him. Has Trump been prosecuted merely because the Biden team wanted it done or because it was thought he did something wrong? We Americans are just as guilty of misusing the system as the politicians we blame. Was Ciinton guilty of Whitewater? How many based their view on political support rather than facts? How many MAGAs have been quoted as saying that even if Trump was guilty of something that it was minor picadillos and it was too important to get him back in office?
I really don’t see your point. Do we need to go back to the Founding Fathers and point out every politician that has ever offended us to justify criticizing anyone knew. Kennedy caught hell for what happened whether or not a crime was committed. Should he have been barred from “the public trough”? I don’t know- of what was he convicted? What does it have to do with Trump? Donnie made his own life choices. Why do others need to be brought up any time anyone judges him?
Knaves are that bad? I think of the of MAGAnese as churlish and lots at minimum on a spectrum that rises (drops?) to dangerous, savage doodyheads. Not all the people that voted for t.rump did so out of bad intentions but they still should have known better. We'll call that group of fifty to sixty voters knaves. Carry on.
Agree. I have made this point time and time again. Out of all the things the president does, the most important thing he/she does is serve as leader and example for the country. We have spent a lot of time over the years lecturing other countries on the way they do things. Why should they listen to us when we elect a convicted criminal and sex abuser to be in charge? We want to opine about North Korea, Iran, Putin, and other places we see in a negative light? What should they think about us with our choices for leadership and te restrictions many want to put on our personal freedoms?
I found the little library for rocks visual funny, not for it says about rocks but for what it says about me (and probably lots of people). It mocks my ignorance about the beauty, diversity, and significance of rocks (and probably about nature generally). This hit home for me three weeks ago when we visited the Rice Museum of Rocks and Minerals in Hilllsboro, OR (definitely near Portland). It's a small but impressive place--I highly recommend it.
I wonder how many convicted felons didn't have the money and legal resources to avoid their convictions. The legal system is so unfair I don't see why felony convictions should be held against people wanting to vote or run for office unless you want to create a sliding scale to cover the most egregious crimes.
I agree that the category of folks who are convicted felons has to be viewed as 'suspect' due to the wildly racist and classist system of criminal prosecution. Making crack cocaine a felony for tiny amounts while powdered cocaine required 100 times as much to turn it into a felony suggests that race played a role in the legislation. And from arrest to plea deals to trials and convictions and sentences race is the determining factor.
So, until the whole criminal justice system gets a lot more fair, I cannot support the exclusion of convicted felons from the right to run for elective office.
There are far too many felony laws and aggressive prosecutors. Also minor felonies by minors and young adults seem of little consequence in the long run. Car theft, criminal mischief, an 18 year old and a 17 year old is a sex crime, prostitution, et al. I may not support anyone with a felony because there is an alternative that does not have a record, but I wouldn't bar someone from trying. Also, I think that the Trump convictions are an excellent example of prosecutorial contortion act to convert misdemeanor record keeping crimes into felonies.
Like many others, I thought that the fact that a candidate has criminal convictions would be enough to get another candidate with similar views but less baggage to run and win. Shows what I know.
Why? Do you think it will be enforced? CPD not enforcing it now. Neighborhoods see people speeding down side streets and running stop signs as a matter of course. Changing the speed limit will be expensive just in terms of replacing signage. For what purpose?
I am skeptical of any study that chooses odd or short periods of time for data. This tends to hide random fluctuations and alternate interpretations and, at worst, it facilitates supporting a predetermined conclusion. I am also skeptical when no detail is provided. Such as how many collisions occurred in the speed range of interest (25 to 30) vs collisions at higher speeds. Similarly, are there any geographic correlations? Maybe some neighborhoods are worse for other reasons or there is an issue with certain types of street configuration. Finally, were there any increases in other behavior - running stop signs, inappropriate passing, and of course speeding citations.
These studies have been done for decades, around the world, and are very consistent. I am going to recommend this book, again, Killed By A Traffic Engineer. We have built a deadly transportation system and until we recon with that people will continue to die.
Eric, thanka for coming around to this! Idk what it is about cars that gets people to deny things so strongly, but gopefully this ia your first break.
Car-based transportation systems are like cigarettes, they seem wonderful and make you happy in the moment, but theyre slowly killing you and making society worse. The evidence is overwhelming and growing.
I don't doubt that lowering speed limits might save a few lives, though I bet that a 5 mph reduction will have minimal effects, especially if it's not very well enforced. One study in support of the reduction found a small positive effect only in the downtown area of Seattle and no effect anywhere else in the city.
What's more, if you don't like cars, you might consider what this will do to buses. Most cars exceed the speed limit routinely, but buses tend to stick to the rules. So, this will only serve to slow down and thus make more irritating public transportation!
In my ideal world, we would have sane speed limits that matched the nature of the roadway (nobody should feel like they're crawling on a four-lane highway) but -- a big but -- those limits would be rigorously enforced everywhere. They would cease to be fictions to be more-or-less ignored wherever possible. (One of my unpopular opinions is that traffic cameras are great and they should be absolutely ubiquitous.)
To people who think they can’t play an instrument, I can only reiterate the wonderfulness of the Old Town School (nominally) of Folk Music, but actually of lots of different kinds of music. At the class showcase at the end of an 8-week session, I am routinely blown away by what Guitar 1 has accomplished in a couple of months.
I first took classes at OTS in the early ‘60s when I was in high school and the school was actually in Old Town. After a long hiatus I returned to taking classes in around 2002 and have been doing so ever since. Anybody can learn to play the guitar.
Some of us have no rhythm. I cannot even snap my fingers or clap my hands to the beat of any particular song. I have tried and always seem to be out of time. Only when in a crowd and I see other people clap can I clap at the same time as everyone. I would have to disagree that anyone can learn to play a musical instrument.
We need more organs to be available; maybe we should raise the speed limit? (See also the Gil the Arm stories by Larry Niven where the state made jaywalking, and probably misdemeanor record keeping, capital crimes to make organs available for harvesting.)
Our go to for folk music was the Barbarossa to listen to Fred Campeau sing "The Cat Came Back." I definitely prefer the old-timey stuff. Springsteen's Seeger Sessions is one of my favorites.
If people know someone is a convicted felon and they vote for them, whaddya gonna do? Voters knew a lot of bad stuff about Trump and elected him anyway. Let us all enjoy the presidency of someone with no moral compass and Alzheimers.
The discussion around felony conviction and running for public office appears to be centered around the presidency.
I believe this would require a constitutional amendment,. It has been noted many times in this forum that a likelihood of any amendment being passed is moot.
I also disagree with Eric Zorn’s statement to let convicted felons vote as well. I would put the following requirements in place:
1. They served their time and punishment.
2. They request to have their voting status reinstated.
3. They sign a statement indicating remorse for their crimes and a desire to avoid criminal behavior in the future.
I disagree. I don’t think that convicted felons should have any restrictions on their right to vote. So someone’s son or daughter gets caught with a small amount of magic mushrooms or cocaine. Possession of those substances is a felony. It’s a felony to slap someone in the face or spit at them on a public street. Why should people who do those things lose their right to participate in the democratic process? They should have to sign a statement expressing remorse before being allowed to vote? I’ll go further than that. Even in the case of serious felonies, convicted people should be allowed to vote. They should be allowed to vote while they are in prison. Prison conditions are an important public policy question. Why should people experiencing those conditions not have a say? I understand the need for punishment or sanctions for law breaking, but why should taking away the right to participate in democracy be part of the punishment?
There is our difference, I see voting as a privilege and not a right.
And the thought of folks like Charles Manson or Ted Bundy participating in our democratic process by exercising their right to vote does not excite me.
You bring up cocaine possession, but what about contract killers, serial rapists or child abusers?
The distinction between a “privilege” and a “right” always seems artificial to me. There is a constitutional right, for example, to interstate travel, but that right can be taken away if someone is incarcerated for a criminal conviction. So rights can be taken away by the government just as privileges can be taken away. The issue is should the particular right or privilege be taken away. I think everyone should be allowed to vote, whether they jaywalked, got a speeding ticket, rolled through a stop sign, possessed a small amount of a Schedule 1 or 2 drug, committed an armed robbery, or murdered someone. They are still citizens, and we live in a participatory democracy. What is the penological justification for taking away the right to vote? Do you think that will make them better citizens when they are released? Do you think that taking away their right to vote will reduce recidivism? It seems to me that participating in democracy would make someone less likely to be a repeat offender.
First, I would not even bring up the issue of voting for jaywalkers, stop sign rollers or other minor traffic violations.
And we live in a participatory democracy with limits. Should children be allowed to vote? After all, many laws have a direct impact on them.
What about illegal immigrants, we have lots of them should they be allowed to vote?
You ask if putting my requirements on felons will make them better citizens.
My reply, absolutely. They learn they must pay for their crimes, that voting is a privilege and they need to at least acknowledge that they will avoid criminal behavior in the future.
If I can vote whether I commit a felony or not does seem to be any kind of barrier to being a repeat offender.
Maybe it should be an option at sentencing - in addition to jail time or fine or community service the judge would have the option to suspend the convict's right to vote either for a set number of years or permanently. Clearly, some felonies (like treason at least) warrant losing the right to vote while others may not.
Agree that convicts should be allowed to vote once they have completed their sentences, parole, or probation. Incarcerated felons should have completed some portion of their sentences, earned a GED or finished their high school diploma.
But convicted felons should not be allowed to run for office. Do not allow sealed convictions or 'minor felonies' to be excused. No expunging records or hiding behind statute of limitations. Character counts.
why? if someone serves their time after committing a crime, why shd they not be allowed to vote? you do the crime, you serve the punishment, you're released - why shouldn't you recover the rights you had prior to your incarceration?
or at least your voting rights. i'm not suggesting convicted sex criminals shd be 'free to roam' upon release from incarceration.
Sure, if they are not incarcerated, why not? It might be that one of the litigants would use a peremptory challenge to kick them off the jury, but serving on a jury is a civic duty. Just ‘cause someone got busted for possessing cocaine at some point does not, in my mind, justify preventing them from performing that civic duty.
Would you want a cocaine user on your jury? Would it be ok if they were only holding personal use weight? Or if they were holding it for a friend would that make them more qualified to be jury foreman?
I said if someone had a prior conviction for possession of cocaine, I would have no problem with that person serving on a jury. As to your question about a cocaine user, I imagine there have been thousands of juries where one or more jurors use cocaine from time to time, though not while they are serving as jurors. If you think otherwise, you must not have lived through the ‘80s.
Cocaine is illegal. Cocaine is bad for children and other living things. Cocaine is responsible for ridiculous amounts of violence, bad fashion, rampant egomania, and poor social skills. Which of those makes a good juror?
Why not even if they are incarcerated? That's what I had in mind. I agree that people convicted of felonies who have served their sentences, "paid their debt to society" as they say, should be able to vote and serve on juries if they're not struck, i.e., should be legally treated as equal citizens in good standing. One's history might hamper one's job prospects or other prospects, as it can for anyone, but there's no avoiding that in a free society. From the standpoint of the law, though, I say, yes, you did your crime, you did your time, and now we're good again. But until then, when you've been grounded, I'm okay with saying, part of the cost here is that you don't get to participate as a citizen in good standing. You're not in good standing, after all.
You repeatedly raise as your model, your example, the most trivial of felonies. My impression is that the vast majority of people in prison -- not all, but a very high percentage -- did something non-trivial to get themselves sent to their room. Perhaps your experience tells you otherwise, and I'm genuinely curious about that. But assuming I'm wrong, as I am with some regularity, that seems like an argument not for treating prisoners like citizens in good standing but rather for not sending them to prison to start with.
I think having people convicted of felonies who are still incarcerated serve on juries would present an insurmountable “location” problem. The trials are held in courthouses, and incarcerated people can’t get to the courthouse obviously. In addition, if such a person were on a jury, there would have to be prison personnel present to prevent them from escaping. And that would be a harmful distraction to the jury’s process.
I don’t know the percentage of incarcerated felons who are incarcerated for felonies that you would consider serious. I remember when I worked at the Appellate Defender in Elgin in the early 1980s, we were assigned a case from Lake County in which the defendant had been sentenced to prison for stealing a package of Buddig meats from a grocery store. He had prior petty theft convictions. I personally represented a person sent to the penitentiary for growing marijuana at his home. (See the opinion below.) I even had a misdemeanor case assigned to me after the defendant was sentenced by Judge Nelligan in DuPage County to one year imprisonment for the offense of hitchhiking. So you would be surprised how many relatively decent people are in prison. Did you ever watch Orange Is The New Black?
I agree that a felony conviction of any sort should not bar someone from office. I do, however, believe that we should have a provision, perhaps a constitutional amendment, that prohibits someone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion -- say, by, trying to steal an election -- from holding the office of president. I think that would be perfect rule to have. Oh wait....
We do have that in the 14th Amendment. But both the utterly incompetent Merrick Garland refused to ever charge with insurrection & the equally incompetent Jack Smith brought his case in Palm Beach, where the fat orange traitor stored the stolen documents & not in DC where he actually stole them!
Every theft case I've ever heard of was charged where the stuff was stolen from, so why did Smith do differently? I actually wonder if that moron deliberately wrecked his own case because he's a closet supporter of the fat orange traitor!
I think being a convicted felon is worse than being a good citizen of 34. I also think that no normal American political party would nominate and support someone who had been adjudicated guilty of massive fraud and sexual assault. trump is a pitiful human human being and the adherents of the MAGA party are knaves and fanatics.
I agree, but I do also feel that barring someone with a felony conviction could be abused.
That said, it remains my opinion that our political divide has as much to do with petty grievances nurtured over several decades as it does any substantive difference in policy. And those grievances tend to lead us to mistrust the opposition or see legitimate concerns they have as just a witch hunt.
For example, when Republicans launched the Whitewater investigation against Bill Clinton, many Democrats saw it as payback for the Watergate investigation that forced Nixon to resign. It didn’t help that Ken Starr used his power as independent prosecutor to dig into any salacious rumor that came along, and by the time Clinton was impeached for lying under oath it seemed obvious to Democrats that he was being rail-roaded.
In hindsight, Bill Clinton was a bad guy who got away with some shady dealings. He shouldn’t have been nominated, let alone elected. Trump is an even worse person in my opinion, but his supporters feel he’s being unfairly treated now the same way Democrats thought Clinton was in the ‘90s. Probably the same way Republicans felt in 1960 when Kennedy “stole” the election from Nixon, or maybe even when Hoover got trounced in 1932.
I agree with your overall sentiments, John, but I'm pondering your assertion that many Republicans saw the Whitewater investigation. as payback for the Watergate investigation. I lived through both events, and come from somewhat of a traditional Republican family, and I have never heard anyone connect the two in terms of one as a motivation for the other. Have others heard, or remembering hearing, Republicans in the 1990's voice such? Whitewater struck me as significantly partisan, whereas Watergate was justice being served.
I was saying many Democrats saw it as payback for Watergate. (I will edit my post to reflect that.)
That could be said about just any regulation or power of government. We have government and judicial power abused on a daily basis in this country. All we can do is strive to pass the right rules, vote in a higher quality of officials, and hope that the population won’t go overboard on selfish personal choices.
Were you galled that Ted Kennedy continued to slop away at the public trough (and made a bid for the Presidency, no less) for forty years after Chappaquiddick? Were the citizens of Massachusetts “knaves and fanatics” for continuing to send him there every six years until he croaked?
Leaving aside the verbiage "slop away" and "croaked," that is a puerile way of thinking and a crime against logic. Because, in your view, Senator Kennedy got away with bad things, therefore trump should not have to answer for his many crimes?
It is possible that the citizens of Massachuetts re-elected Senator Kennedy because he was a highly effective senator. My guess is, since we have now left reality, that if Senator Kennedy had been convicted of a felony, he would not have been re-elected or would not have had the gall to run.
I didn’t say that Trump shouldn’t have to “answer for his many crimes”. You said that he shouldn’t be allowed to hold office because of them.
You think Kennedy lacked gall? He presented himself every six years as the Democratic party’s candidate for representing the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate in every election from 1970 to 2006, and made an insurgent bid for the party’s Presidential nomination in 1980 despite the public knowledge that he left a young woman (whose pants he was no doubt trying to get into) to drown trapped inside a vehicle at the bottom of a pond, then neglected to report it for nine hours to avoid getting pinched for drunk driving. That’s not gall?
However awful Trump may be, he’s never done anything as monstrous to another human being as what Kennedy did to Mary Jo Kopechne. But maybe being a highly effective senator is all that counts.
Perhaps, in voters minds, being effective at your job is enough. I will not be put in the position of defending Senator Kennedy or parsing your accusations--that is what "whataboutists" always want others to do.
trump is a convicted felon because a jury found him so. Supposing the felony were murder or aggravated rape or treason, would you say that was cause for being ineligible? Or are no felonies disqualifying?.
Steven, also add the Kennedy family made sure there was no autopsy to insure the crime got buried.
There's are several other points being missed. Kennedy was not found guilty of anything. Should we bar people due to political innuendo? We members of the public often compare apples and oranges. A second point is tit for tat. Original sin is attached to that. One could take it back all the way to George Washington. If charges are brought against a politician from one side, can we ever again bring charges against politicians from the other side or is it revenge politics? Can politicians only be charged and prosecuted by those on from their own side in order to be fair? It would be just as legitimate to accuse those of voting in Trump's favor of misusing the system as those against him. Has Trump been prosecuted merely because the Biden team wanted it done or because it was thought he did something wrong? We Americans are just as guilty of misusing the system as the politicians we blame. Was Ciinton guilty of Whitewater? How many based their view on political support rather than facts? How many MAGAs have been quoted as saying that even if Trump was guilty of something that it was minor picadillos and it was too important to get him back in office?
I really don’t see your point. Do we need to go back to the Founding Fathers and point out every politician that has ever offended us to justify criticizing anyone knew. Kennedy caught hell for what happened whether or not a crime was committed. Should he have been barred from “the public trough”? I don’t know- of what was he convicted? What does it have to do with Trump? Donnie made his own life choices. Why do others need to be brought up any time anyone judges him?
Knaves are that bad? I think of the of MAGAnese as churlish and lots at minimum on a spectrum that rises (drops?) to dangerous, savage doodyheads. Not all the people that voted for t.rump did so out of bad intentions but they still should have known better. We'll call that group of fifty to sixty voters knaves. Carry on.
Agree. I have made this point time and time again. Out of all the things the president does, the most important thing he/she does is serve as leader and example for the country. We have spent a lot of time over the years lecturing other countries on the way they do things. Why should they listen to us when we elect a convicted criminal and sex abuser to be in charge? We want to opine about North Korea, Iran, Putin, and other places we see in a negative light? What should they think about us with our choices for leadership and te restrictions many want to put on our personal freedoms?
I found the little library for rocks visual funny, not for it says about rocks but for what it says about me (and probably lots of people). It mocks my ignorance about the beauty, diversity, and significance of rocks (and probably about nature generally). This hit home for me three weeks ago when we visited the Rice Museum of Rocks and Minerals in Hilllsboro, OR (definitely near Portland). It's a small but impressive place--I highly recommend it.
Now I know the category of storytelling into which I've stumbled. I'm beginning to see that I have a problem.
This is the first time I've laughed at every single visual joke. (Indeed, it's the first time in a few weeks that I've laughed at any of them.)
I wonder how many convicted felons didn't have the money and legal resources to avoid their convictions. The legal system is so unfair I don't see why felony convictions should be held against people wanting to vote or run for office unless you want to create a sliding scale to cover the most egregious crimes.
I agree that the category of folks who are convicted felons has to be viewed as 'suspect' due to the wildly racist and classist system of criminal prosecution. Making crack cocaine a felony for tiny amounts while powdered cocaine required 100 times as much to turn it into a felony suggests that race played a role in the legislation. And from arrest to plea deals to trials and convictions and sentences race is the determining factor.
So, until the whole criminal justice system gets a lot more fair, I cannot support the exclusion of convicted felons from the right to run for elective office.
I would expect lowering the speed limit to 25mph would be safer for bicycles and pedestrians.
There are far too many felony laws and aggressive prosecutors. Also minor felonies by minors and young adults seem of little consequence in the long run. Car theft, criminal mischief, an 18 year old and a 17 year old is a sex crime, prostitution, et al. I may not support anyone with a felony because there is an alternative that does not have a record, but I wouldn't bar someone from trying. Also, I think that the Trump convictions are an excellent example of prosecutorial contortion act to convert misdemeanor record keeping crimes into felonies.
Like many others, I thought that the fact that a candidate has criminal convictions would be enough to get another candidate with similar views but less baggage to run and win. Shows what I know.
A couple more radio show suggestions for Folk / Americana / Rootsy, with an emphasis on local artists & shows:
1) "Somebody Else's Troubles" on WLUW Saturdays at 11AM https://wluw.org/
2) "Both Kinds" on WNUR Sundays at Noon. https://wnur.org/
Why? Do you think it will be enforced? CPD not enforcing it now. Neighborhoods see people speeding down side streets and running stop signs as a matter of course. Changing the speed limit will be expensive just in terms of replacing signage. For what purpose?
When was the last time you saw a 30 Mph speed limit sign? I can't for the life of me remember seeing any (and I live in the city).
Dennis, you make sense. As to enforcement, whether a sign says 25 or 30 matters little.
Neighborhoods have their own method of enforcement, they are called speed bumps!
Someone ran the numbers and the cost to replace the signs was less than $5 million and IDOT would cover it
Second... who cares what cops dont enforce? Has that ever been a reason to implement laws before???
Keep up the good work. It helps to keep us from dozing off.
I am skeptical of any study that chooses odd or short periods of time for data. This tends to hide random fluctuations and alternate interpretations and, at worst, it facilitates supporting a predetermined conclusion. I am also skeptical when no detail is provided. Such as how many collisions occurred in the speed range of interest (25 to 30) vs collisions at higher speeds. Similarly, are there any geographic correlations? Maybe some neighborhoods are worse for other reasons or there is an issue with certain types of street configuration. Finally, were there any increases in other behavior - running stop signs, inappropriate passing, and of course speeding citations.
These studies have been done for decades, around the world, and are very consistent. I am going to recommend this book, again, Killed By A Traffic Engineer. We have built a deadly transportation system and until we recon with that people will continue to die.
Eric, thanka for coming around to this! Idk what it is about cars that gets people to deny things so strongly, but gopefully this ia your first break.
Car-based transportation systems are like cigarettes, they seem wonderful and make you happy in the moment, but theyre slowly killing you and making society worse. The evidence is overwhelming and growing.
I don't doubt that lowering speed limits might save a few lives, though I bet that a 5 mph reduction will have minimal effects, especially if it's not very well enforced. One study in support of the reduction found a small positive effect only in the downtown area of Seattle and no effect anywhere else in the city.
What's more, if you don't like cars, you might consider what this will do to buses. Most cars exceed the speed limit routinely, but buses tend to stick to the rules. So, this will only serve to slow down and thus make more irritating public transportation!
In my ideal world, we would have sane speed limits that matched the nature of the roadway (nobody should feel like they're crawling on a four-lane highway) but -- a big but -- those limits would be rigorously enforced everywhere. They would cease to be fictions to be more-or-less ignored wherever possible. (One of my unpopular opinions is that traffic cameras are great and they should be absolutely ubiquitous.)
Its much more than one study, i cited a book. Everything you bring up gets discussed in that book. Its well worth a read!
To people who think they can’t play an instrument, I can only reiterate the wonderfulness of the Old Town School (nominally) of Folk Music, but actually of lots of different kinds of music. At the class showcase at the end of an 8-week session, I am routinely blown away by what Guitar 1 has accomplished in a couple of months.
I first took classes at OTS in the early ‘60s when I was in high school and the school was actually in Old Town. After a long hiatus I returned to taking classes in around 2002 and have been doing so ever since. Anybody can learn to play the guitar.
Some of us have no rhythm. I cannot even snap my fingers or clap my hands to the beat of any particular song. I have tried and always seem to be out of time. Only when in a crowd and I see other people clap can I clap at the same time as everyone. I would have to disagree that anyone can learn to play a musical instrument.
So much to comment on, so little time.
We need more organs to be available; maybe we should raise the speed limit? (See also the Gil the Arm stories by Larry Niven where the state made jaywalking, and probably misdemeanor record keeping, capital crimes to make organs available for harvesting.)
Our go to for folk music was the Barbarossa to listen to Fred Campeau sing "The Cat Came Back." I definitely prefer the old-timey stuff. Springsteen's Seeger Sessions is one of my favorites.
If people know someone is a convicted felon and they vote for them, whaddya gonna do? Voters knew a lot of bad stuff about Trump and elected him anyway. Let us all enjoy the presidency of someone with no moral compass and Alzheimers.
The discussion around felony conviction and running for public office appears to be centered around the presidency.
I believe this would require a constitutional amendment,. It has been noted many times in this forum that a likelihood of any amendment being passed is moot.
I also disagree with Eric Zorn’s statement to let convicted felons vote as well. I would put the following requirements in place:
1. They served their time and punishment.
2. They request to have their voting status reinstated.
3. They sign a statement indicating remorse for their crimes and a desire to avoid criminal behavior in the future.
I disagree. I don’t think that convicted felons should have any restrictions on their right to vote. So someone’s son or daughter gets caught with a small amount of magic mushrooms or cocaine. Possession of those substances is a felony. It’s a felony to slap someone in the face or spit at them on a public street. Why should people who do those things lose their right to participate in the democratic process? They should have to sign a statement expressing remorse before being allowed to vote? I’ll go further than that. Even in the case of serious felonies, convicted people should be allowed to vote. They should be allowed to vote while they are in prison. Prison conditions are an important public policy question. Why should people experiencing those conditions not have a say? I understand the need for punishment or sanctions for law breaking, but why should taking away the right to participate in democracy be part of the punishment?
There is our difference, I see voting as a privilege and not a right.
And the thought of folks like Charles Manson or Ted Bundy participating in our democratic process by exercising their right to vote does not excite me.
You bring up cocaine possession, but what about contract killers, serial rapists or child abusers?
The distinction between a “privilege” and a “right” always seems artificial to me. There is a constitutional right, for example, to interstate travel, but that right can be taken away if someone is incarcerated for a criminal conviction. So rights can be taken away by the government just as privileges can be taken away. The issue is should the particular right or privilege be taken away. I think everyone should be allowed to vote, whether they jaywalked, got a speeding ticket, rolled through a stop sign, possessed a small amount of a Schedule 1 or 2 drug, committed an armed robbery, or murdered someone. They are still citizens, and we live in a participatory democracy. What is the penological justification for taking away the right to vote? Do you think that will make them better citizens when they are released? Do you think that taking away their right to vote will reduce recidivism? It seems to me that participating in democracy would make someone less likely to be a repeat offender.
First, I would not even bring up the issue of voting for jaywalkers, stop sign rollers or other minor traffic violations.
And we live in a participatory democracy with limits. Should children be allowed to vote? After all, many laws have a direct impact on them.
What about illegal immigrants, we have lots of them should they be allowed to vote?
You ask if putting my requirements on felons will make them better citizens.
My reply, absolutely. They learn they must pay for their crimes, that voting is a privilege and they need to at least acknowledge that they will avoid criminal behavior in the future.
If I can vote whether I commit a felony or not does seem to be any kind of barrier to being a repeat offender.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Agree🙂
Maybe it should be an option at sentencing - in addition to jail time or fine or community service the judge would have the option to suspend the convict's right to vote either for a set number of years or permanently. Clearly, some felonies (like treason at least) warrant losing the right to vote while others may not.
Agree that convicts should be allowed to vote once they have completed their sentences, parole, or probation. Incarcerated felons should have completed some portion of their sentences, earned a GED or finished their high school diploma.
But convicted felons should not be allowed to run for office. Do not allow sealed convictions or 'minor felonies' to be excused. No expunging records or hiding behind statute of limitations. Character counts.
why? if someone serves their time after committing a crime, why shd they not be allowed to vote? you do the crime, you serve the punishment, you're released - why shouldn't you recover the rights you had prior to your incarceration?
or at least your voting rights. i'm not suggesting convicted sex criminals shd be 'free to roam' upon release from incarceration.
Should they serve on juries?
Sure, if they are not incarcerated, why not? It might be that one of the litigants would use a peremptory challenge to kick them off the jury, but serving on a jury is a civic duty. Just ‘cause someone got busted for possessing cocaine at some point does not, in my mind, justify preventing them from performing that civic duty.
Would you want a cocaine user on your jury? Would it be ok if they were only holding personal use weight? Or if they were holding it for a friend would that make them more qualified to be jury foreman?
I said if someone had a prior conviction for possession of cocaine, I would have no problem with that person serving on a jury. As to your question about a cocaine user, I imagine there have been thousands of juries where one or more jurors use cocaine from time to time, though not while they are serving as jurors. If you think otherwise, you must not have lived through the ‘80s.
Cocaine is illegal. Cocaine is bad for children and other living things. Cocaine is responsible for ridiculous amounts of violence, bad fashion, rampant egomania, and poor social skills. Which of those makes a good juror?
Why not even if they are incarcerated? That's what I had in mind. I agree that people convicted of felonies who have served their sentences, "paid their debt to society" as they say, should be able to vote and serve on juries if they're not struck, i.e., should be legally treated as equal citizens in good standing. One's history might hamper one's job prospects or other prospects, as it can for anyone, but there's no avoiding that in a free society. From the standpoint of the law, though, I say, yes, you did your crime, you did your time, and now we're good again. But until then, when you've been grounded, I'm okay with saying, part of the cost here is that you don't get to participate as a citizen in good standing. You're not in good standing, after all.
You repeatedly raise as your model, your example, the most trivial of felonies. My impression is that the vast majority of people in prison -- not all, but a very high percentage -- did something non-trivial to get themselves sent to their room. Perhaps your experience tells you otherwise, and I'm genuinely curious about that. But assuming I'm wrong, as I am with some regularity, that seems like an argument not for treating prisoners like citizens in good standing but rather for not sending them to prison to start with.
I think having people convicted of felonies who are still incarcerated serve on juries would present an insurmountable “location” problem. The trials are held in courthouses, and incarcerated people can’t get to the courthouse obviously. In addition, if such a person were on a jury, there would have to be prison personnel present to prevent them from escaping. And that would be a harmful distraction to the jury’s process.
I don’t know the percentage of incarcerated felons who are incarcerated for felonies that you would consider serious. I remember when I worked at the Appellate Defender in Elgin in the early 1980s, we were assigned a case from Lake County in which the defendant had been sentenced to prison for stealing a package of Buddig meats from a grocery store. He had prior petty theft convictions. I personally represented a person sent to the penitentiary for growing marijuana at his home. (See the opinion below.) I even had a misdemeanor case assigned to me after the defendant was sentenced by Judge Nelligan in DuPage County to one year imprisonment for the offense of hitchhiking. So you would be surprised how many relatively decent people are in prison. Did you ever watch Orange Is The New Black?
https://casetext.com/case/people-v-freeman-251
I agree that a felony conviction of any sort should not bar someone from office. I do, however, believe that we should have a provision, perhaps a constitutional amendment, that prohibits someone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion -- say, by, trying to steal an election -- from holding the office of president. I think that would be perfect rule to have. Oh wait....
We do have that in the 14th Amendment. But both the utterly incompetent Merrick Garland refused to ever charge with insurrection & the equally incompetent Jack Smith brought his case in Palm Beach, where the fat orange traitor stored the stolen documents & not in DC where he actually stole them!
Every theft case I've ever heard of was charged where the stuff was stolen from, so why did Smith do differently? I actually wonder if that moron deliberately wrecked his own case because he's a closet supporter of the fat orange traitor!