How about this freak? Should he be allowed to vote?
"Neighbors reported that he often slept naked in the doghouse with the family dog, Mayra, the statement said. They said they saw Huizar sexually assault the animal with a broom handle and his hand and heard the dog cry in pain when he was in the doghouse, the statement said.
Neighbors also reported seeing Huizar in his back yard dressed in a woman's bra and panties, dancing with a broom handle, police said."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
My inclination is that yes, once he has completed his sentance. These behaviors constitute crimes. But only judges and juries can -- and should -- have the capacity to convict him of committing these crimes, and consequently suspend some of his rights, including voting rights.
And convicted of a crime or not, is sick twisted behavior or even mental defect a reason that someone should be barred from the polls?
This guy needs to be locked up for life so he never exposes himself to children, sexually assualts animals or votes for Republicans again!
So, Nadir and I agree that disenfranchisement should end when a convict leaves prison. Nadir seems attracted to the notion of prisoners voting. I have no strong opinion on this matter. I am open to either side convincing me.
Two people who have been invited to join this list (I will not say if either of them has accepted) have spent time in prison, one for drug dealing, the other for armed robbery. If either should post, I will leave each to decide how much to reveal; one just got out of prison about a year ago after serving about 20 years. Both are close friends from high school. Several others have been invited, so if you see any new posters, that does not indicate neccessarily one of those guys.
Post a Comment