Anonymous #1 1d

But this is a good hot take

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Yes

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

Pedophiles should be able vote on what?? Chemical or surgical castration?

19

Anonymous #3 1d

People can be wrongly convicted

8

Anonymous #5 1d

and what does that have to do with the who majority aren’t.

10

Anonymous #1 1d

Obviously, some of y’all don’t understand what a HOT take is supposed to be

6

Anonymous #7 1d

You’d be surprised actually a lot of formerly incarcerated individuals suing for their rights back, since they’ve repaid their debt to society.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

right, the point of this hot take is that this is wrong and should not be the case

1

Anonymous #7 23h

I know that's how it is now but I think it should change! They are affected by the laws so they should have a say. The way it works now is inherently corrupt in a way. It's especially cruel to not restore their rights after they've served their sentence. But letting them vote even while in prison could act as a theoretical check against unjust laws.

6

Anonymous #3 23h

The exceptions do matter though. They're thousands of real people.

5

Anonymous OP 23h

The exception to the rule doesn’t make it invalid. We don’t let 16-17 yr olds who are working may have graduated hs and are in college early, vote cause they don’t have autonomy by govt standards. At 16 i had my first job, paying taxes but not legal allowed to vote; taxation without representation much. Prisoners don’t have autonomy they are subject to rules of the govt which says if you are actively incarcerated you can’t vote.

1

Anonymous #3 23h

An exception to the rule is an exception to the rule. It's not nothing. I think a more apt comparison for the age example would be an adult not being able to vote because the government wrongfully accuses them of being 17. Also, I'm aware that I'm asking for something that the US does not currently have. I'm not sure why multiple comments are just telling me how things already work.

4

Anonymous OP 22h

It’s not that it’s nothing, it doesn’t invalidate the rule. Yes a working 16 yr old or 17 yr old college freshman is a reasonable comparison because you’d both think the 18 yr old in high school can vote and the 17 yr old college freshman. But one has govt autonomy and the other doesn’t. I’m not telling you how things work, I’m telling why they are and it’s autonomy and that’s why PREA is a major thing in institutions cause prisoners don’t have autonomy.

1

Anonymous #3 22h

Well I don't think autonomy is this perfectly consistent and clearly defined standard you're making it out to be. Age, meanwhile, is. It doesn't disproportionately affect any group and the government can't get it wrong. I think "all 18+ citizens can vote" is as equal as it gets. Also voting rights and rape protections do not need to be mutually exclusive.

3

Anonymous #6 22h

Thank you omg 😭

8

Anonymous #3 22h

Also I'm still not really seeing much of a normative argument here. You're still mostly just appealing to the way things already are. The way you're framing things doesn't seem to leave much room for new ideas.

1

Anonymous OP 22h

It’s not about voting and prea being mutually exclusive, I never said they were but they are mutually congruent because of the acknowledgement of autonomy. They have no autonomy due to being subjugated to the system they are in, they are incarcerated. There are 18+ people who are on the outside who don’t have the right to vote why should someone on the inside; I’m not appealing to the way they are but it’s how it is.

1

Anonymous OP 20h

Yea I agree with OP, if you start making exceptions it defeats the point of this hot take

13