The Idiocy of Sam Reed and The Columbian never ceases to amaze - In our view April 16: Progress for Felons

.
As stated here, here, here and here, the sheer unadulterated idiocy of restoring voting privileges before the completion of a sentence, with it's decreased likelihood of the payment of restitution to a criminal's victims or government, is obvious.

The leftist moron who wrote this editorial supporting this bizarre nonsense fails to address, in his haste to restore the felon's "rights," that the felon violated the victim's rights without a second thought.

We're lied to:

First, regaining the right to vote could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.

Utter nonsense. They provide not one shred of proof that recidivism is influenced in any way by voting rights. Not one. It sounds good, so they print it.

But I just can't feature any of these clowns going, "Gee, if I rob this 7-11, I won't be able to vote in the upcoming school bond levy."

Second, it would encourage participation in the democratic process. After being under government's thumb (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to vote a way to help elect those who serve in that same government.

This non sequitur is a right they voluntarily gave up by violating the rights of their victim. And who would they vote for? A candidate more likely to get tough on crime? Or a candidate more likely to be lenient while the public gets caught in the middle and screwed?

Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state's current prohibition of voting by felons after incarceration is not only malicious, it's essentially a poll tax, denying to poor felons the right to vote that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot vote until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to vote as long as they stay current on payments.

I'm touched by the concern expressed here for the criminal. But when it comes to the victim?

Not so much. What this law "signals" to a criminal is that when you shoot someone, either killing them or crippling them, this newspaper is going to be far more concerned about your right to vote then it is your requirement to pay your restitution.

They falsely equate restitution, which is, after all, an effort to at least partially make your victim whole, with a bogus poll tax. That is a crock of pure, grade A BS.

When the "new law" fails because felons WILL NOT "stay current" on their restitution payments, how long will it be before this newspaper leads the charge to remove even THAT requirement?

And what mechanism has that waste of skin Sam Reed implemented to enforce any of these requirements?

Reed will make sure that all felons are registered as a part of their release program, and then do absolutely nothing to make sure that they ARE current. If he couldn't set up a program that would keep track of convicted felons that haven't had their rights restored, how can anyone expect this incompetent boob to set up a program to keep track of these felon's payments?

This bill is sheer idiocy. I wonder when we're going to see this rag write an editorial demanding that convicted felon's gun rights be restored?

After all, the Second Amendment isn't the second suggestion, and all these arguments for restoring felon voting rights can certainly be applied to restoring felon gun rights.

In fact, substitute the word "gun," for the word "vote," and you come up with a pretty persuasive argument... right?

First, regaining the right to possess guns could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.

Second, it would encourage participation in firearms training. After being under government's thumb unarmed for so many years (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to own firearms to help protect others from criminals.

Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state's current prohibition of denying felons the right to possess or own firearms after incarceration is not only malicious, it's essentially a requirement for felons to remain helpless and unarmed, denying to poor felons the right to self defense that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot own or possess firearms until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to own or possess firearms as long as they stay current on payments.

That, of course, is "different" somehow. Right?

But is it?

A "right" is a "right." Voting is a "right," and so is owning or possessing a firearm. How can anyone supporting this bill oppose the restriction of ANY "right" by these people?

The fact is that the primary driver for this bill, our utterly worthless leftist-masquerading as a Republican Secretary of State, Sam Reed, has shown a monumental level of incompetence when it comes to administering the issue of keeping felon voters of the rolls.

Of course, that incompetence is, in part, driven by his agenda which has included the elimination of the felon voter rules for years now. To that end, Reed has done absolutely nothing to set up a system to identify felon voters to keep them from voting.

Well, he HAS whined, repeatedly, about how HARD it is to do that particular task, but besides that, he's done absolutely nothing to implement that requirement, and in the last election, he was directly responsible for sending out 10's of thousands of ballots to felon voters disqualified from voting by their felony conviction.

And now, we expect this clown to implement a far more exacting, far more complicated and cumbersome system than a blanket prohibition?

Ohhh. I'm really confident. Aren't you?

The leftist rag sickeningly claims racism as the basis for the opposition to this issue, contending that because of the "disproportionately" high percentage (I guess the idea that a "disproportionately" high percentage of people committing crimes just happen to be "of color" doesn't enter in to their world) of criminals are "of color," that could "conceivably" ("Conceivably?" Is this guy smoking crack? What was the minority vote in the last election?) favor Democrats.

I oppose this bill ONLY because those who will benefit from it are those who cheerfully and willingly violated the rights of their victims without concern to voting rights.

The ONLY question to consider is this: Will this bill make it MORE likely... or LESS likely that restitution will be paid?

The restoration of rights should ONLY be granted after the COMPLETION of ALL of a sentence. To complete incarceration... mandatory... required incarceration because YOU have VOLUNTARILY committed a crime or crimes, EARNS you nothing.

Again, I seriously doubt that any of the morons supporting this travesty face the possibility of restitution from a convicted felon. I seriously doubt that any of the women who had voted for this had been rape victims. I seriously doubt that any man who voted for this had a murdered wife or child. I seriously doubt that any of these people have had a knife held to their throat, had their house burned down or have been robbed at gun point.

Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't about race. This is about holding those who would victimize us fully accountable for their actions... not scamming the system with $5 per month payments so we can get more criminals voting.

And this newspaper presents NOTHING... and those supporting this garbage present NOTHING that eliminates the need for accountability... and to make the victims whole.

You want to crank this up?

Then put these people on a repayment schedule and LOCK THEM BACK UP WHEN THEY FAIL TO STICK TO IT.

But don't even think they'll give a damn enough about this precious right to avoid recidivism just because a bunch of liberals got together and decided to remove yet another layer of accountability.



In our view April 16: Progress for Felons
Those who have completed incarceration are one step closer to regaining right to vote

Thursday, April 16 1:00 a.m.

State senators correctly voted on Wednesday to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of felons once they complete their incarceration. The decision was as decisive as it was logical. The vote was 29-19, basically along party lines, with Vancouver Democrat Craig Pridemore wisely voting for the measure and local Republican senators Joe Zarelli and Don Benton opposing it.

The bill returns to the House, where it passed last month, for a vote on an amended version. Senators on Wednesday approved an amendment that would allow voting rights to be revoked again if a felon intentionally fails to comply with legal financial obligations. We're not sure that amendment contributes much to the bill. It would seem to place on felons who no longer are incarcerated an additional financial requirement to vote that nonfelons do not face. Even so, the imperfect bill would be an improvement over the status quo. We hope it is approved by the House, where its sponsors include Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver.

Arguments both for and against felons regaining voting rights (after incarceration) are rational and reasonable. Two opposing views are presented in capsulized forms accompanying this editorial.

If this change occurs, Washington will become the 14th state (joining Oregon) to restore voting rights to felons who complete their incarceration. Two states — Vermont and Maine — allow even incarcerated felons to vote. That's too lenient, in our view, but once a felon comes out from behind bars, regaining the right to vote could accomplish three things.

More:
.