> And well, this was done for a very simple reason: almost all criminals vote Democratic.
Criminals deserve human rights as anyone else does, but, all the same, I think it's important not to buy into the framing imprisoned → criminal. (To be clear, these charges would still be wrong even if we lived in a world where only the guilty were imprisoned, but that's not our world.)
I also doubt your statistic. Do you have a reference?
I have no objection to calling "almost all criminals vote Democratic" a "claim" rather than a "statistic," although I'm not sure what it changes. I still doubt the claim, and, even if there is no pre-defined numeric threshold at which one can say precisely that one more criminal voting Democratic would mean "almost all" do, and one less would mean the contrary, then there are certainly quantitative data that could be judged to refute it—for example, if fewer than half do—or that could be judged to be evidence for it—or example, if 90% do. I think it is reasonable to ask for a reference to some confirmatory evidence for such a statement.
Criminals deserve human rights as anyone else does, but, all the same, I think it's important not to buy into the framing imprisoned → criminal. (To be clear, these charges would still be wrong even if we lived in a world where only the guilty were imprisoned, but that's not our world.)
I also doubt your statistic. Do you have a reference?