> Now, not knowing what you’re doing is a crime isn’t a legally sound defense argument, but it does raise serious questions about how we view punishment and those we deem should be punished.

Isn't it a Mens Rea defense?

Mens rea is more intention to do the act, not knowledge of criminality. For example intentionally killing someone is murder even if you didn't know murder is a crime (because the act or killing was intended). The mens rea is intention to kill (if you lack the mens rea you end up with manslaughter or something equivalent).

It could be, but in order to sign a provisional ballot you have to sign a form that tells you you can't vote as a convicted felon. So even if she honestly didn't read the form (which wouldn't surprise me!) it severely undercuts her argument.

Many crimes do not require intent, they're strict liability. Some do.

That distinction isn't relevant here. She had mens rea -- she knew she was voting. She didn't know she was breaking the law.

Fascinating to me that it is humanly impossible for any individual to remember ALL the laws yet ignorance of the law is not a defence.

:)

I'm more upset that ignorance of the law IS a defense for police officers, whose job is to know it.

What's the idea behind convicted felons not being allowed to vote?

>What's the idea behind convicted felons not being allowed to vote?

Disenfranchisement, and the 13th amendment. The "justice" system in the United States, especially enabled by laws surrounding drug prohibition (created for the purpose of suppressing Nixon's political opposition, hence why cannabis is schedule 1 federally), is the modern embodiment of the Jim Crow system that was supposedly abolished.

Prisoners are specifically exempted from the slavery protections provided by the 13th amendment. Allowing prisoners, who are being housed at the expense of the tax payer, to be forced to work for pennies as literal slaves, often for private corporations.

Despite marijuana use being equally prevalent among white and black populations, blacks are several times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. Despite cocaine and crack being literally the same drug, the only difference being if it's in its hcl salt or freebase form, crack is prosecuted by a weight ratio of 18:1 compared to cocaine. Before the "fair sentencing act" was passed in 2010, this ratio was 100:1. Low level crack dealers caught with 10g were prosecuted the same as somebody caught with a kilo of coke, triggering mandatory minimums of decades for drug trafficking.

Can you guess why this prosecutional disparity existed (and still exists) between two different forms of the same drug?

Hint: it's the same reason why felons are politically disenfranchised.

I find it crazy (among the other things mentioned too) that taxpayers are subsidizing cheap prison labor for major corporations. Also crazy to me is the cost to house inmates in many states being more than the national average in terms of income[0] considering the poor conditions of these institutions.

[0] https://www.vera.org/publications/price-of-prisons-2015-stat...

To the best of my knowledge:

Officially, that they've proven themselves to be untrustworthy and "evil", and we shouldn't allow evil people to be deciding the course of our nation.

Unofficially, at least to a large extent, straight-up racism.

Felons are less likely to vote for the system that put them in jail, the system that put them in jail has the power, so the system that put them there stops them from voting so it can stay in power.

> In my observations of the American public, people generally seem to be fine with the extreme sentences and punishment that the system doles out.

Many thousands have been marching across the nation for weeks now, precisely because they are not fine with these extreme sentences, and other abuses of law enforcement.