I think there's something odd about saying that incarcerated felons shouldn't be allowed to vote, but should have their voting rights restored the day they get out of jail. I don't have data at hand to back up my thoughts here, but isn't a poor person quite a bit more likely to be charged with a crime than a wealthy person? And isn't that poor person less likely to be able to procure a good enough attorney to have a realistic chance of fighting the charges? And I don't know whether there even is data, but I've got a funny hunch that a poor person is less likely to get a suspended sentence than a wealthy person, as well as quite possibly less likely to be granted parole at a parole hearing. And really, if even one of those things is true, then stripping incarcerated prisoners of suffrage and restoring them the day they get out of prison seems like an unfairly greater burden on the poor.
Honestly, I'm not sure I have an opinion. I don't think I have a particular issue with stripping suffrage from prisoners, but I also think that if you do that, in order to be fair, it needs to apply to convicted felons serving parole and suspended sentences and similar as well.
And frankly, I'm not sure that I understand why allowing prisoners to vote is so crazy.
As for fines, taking away someone's suffrage because they can't pay a fine is some serious bs.
