Talk politics.

In the United States we have a surplus of prisoners, more than modern-day China does. This despite having not even half the population China does. Most of these prisoners, even the felons are in prison for non-violent offenses, chiefly drug-related, ones that will not make them a clear and present danger to the rest of society. Why, if our modern legal system is designated one of rehabilitation, do we then deny felons the right to vote? It does not seem rehabilitating to me to take a democracy and disenfranchise what is now 1 in 100 Americans. That instead seems a closet way to disfranchise people without getting called on it.

Now, before certain people accuse me of wanting to create anarchy, I am not suggesting the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer or that Garrido fellow get turned loose. Such men in fact are being turned loose because our prisons are already overstuffed with non-violent felons, which makes it difficult to keep tracks of the ones really needing watching. But surely if we were to release non-violent offenders on drug charges and legalize (and tax, let's not forget the taxation) certain drugs we could handle the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer or Garrido (whose first name I've forgotten) easier? And avoid the unfortunate implications of for-profit prisons that often hold felons who are denied the vote? And again, I do not mean to imply that we should turn loose people like Garrido who are clear and present dangers.