Disenfranchisement In Prisons

One of the more controversial debates in today’s political arena, especially around election times, is that of felon disenfranchisement. The disenfranchisement of felons, or the practice of denying felons and ex-felons the right to vote, has been in practice before the colonization of America and traces back to early England; however, it has not become so controversial and publicized until recent times. “In today’s political system, felons and ex-felons are the only competent adults that are denied the right to vote; the total of those banned to vote is approximately 4.7 million men and women, over two percent of the nation’s population” (Reiman 3).

It is an assumption that race is a main factor in felony disenfranchisement because it prevents political involvement from African Americans and other minority races who are convicted of crimes that offenses are underlined in Felony Disenfranchisement laws that Haygood suggest are “offenses considered to be committed by the majority of blacks.” It could be supported that “more than one-third of the total disenfranchised population are black men” (Fellner). Due to these numbers the minority is disproportionally represented because of the astronomical amount of people in one race who are prohibited from voting due to their criminal activity.

About 6.1 million Americans convicted of a felony have been barred from voting by the law in most states (Chung 1). The condition regarded to as felon disenfranchisement is controlled by laws provided for by the individual states within the US. Unlike the states of Maine and Vermont which allow felons the right to vote while in incarceration, most other states have withdrawn the right from convicts. Ten states in the country have permanently restricted specific felons from participating in elections. With the argument that the country’s legacy in safeguarding democracy through felon disenfranchisement, opponents of the idea assert that by completing their sentences, felons have paid the debt owed to the society and should have their privileges and rights fully restored. They further assert that part of the efforts to uphold democracy is to get rid of unfair provisions such as laws advocating for felon disenfranchisement. On the other hand, proponents note that felons and ex-felons should be allowed to vote due to the expression of their poor judgment. While the debate continues to elucidate divergent views, numerous factors illustrate that felon disenfranchisement is inconsequential and does not contribute to the betterment of the country.

Felon disenfranchisement is the loss of the right to vote for people who have committed felonies. When researching deeper into felon disenfranchisement, there is an underlying racial factor that consistently comes up. Some say disenfranchisement of felons is racially oppressive and a threat to democracy, while some argue that it’s functional and that race has no relevance. To start this paper I will give a brief background on felon disenfranchisement in relation to race. I will examine and analyze those who believe that “yes,” disenfranchisement of felons is heavily rooted in racial persecution. I will then examine and analyze those who say “no”, felon disenfranchisement is necessary and has no racial impact. After copious amounts of research, I have come to agree with the “yes” side, because their facts are more persuasive and their use of history is in depth, and as a whole this side delivered a well rounded argument.

The author proves that racism thrives by highlighting the African Americans ' reality as it is today. Virtually in many states, convicted felons cannot vote resulting in an extraordinary amount of African Americans barred from voting. A large number of blacks have served time in prison as a result of

Restoring voting rights for felons is important in a democratic society. The Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits excessive sanctions. This means that a felon should be punished in proportion with the felon’s offense.

The voice of millions of Americans can’t be heard due to the disenfranchisement laws, which is vital living in a country that depends on votes for elected officials. There are many supporters and non-supporters of the disenfranchisement laws, and “since 1975 there have been 13 states that liberalized their laws, 11 states have passed further limitations on felons, and 3 states have passed both laws” (Manza, 2004). There is an on going debate among citizens and states whether or not to amend the disenfranchisement laws and allow more convicted ex-felons to use their voting rights. Some believe their voting rights should not be restored, because they are criminals, and it’s a part of being a criminal. Others are fighting that their voting rights should be restored, that people make mistakes, and if they have completed their sentence then they have served their punishment. Research shows a consensus

In an article, “Convictions and doubts: Retribution, Representation, and Debate over Felon Disenfranchisement” by Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford School of Law, it states that “Florida disenfranchises… approximately 827,000. Slightly over 600,000 of those individuals are people who have completed their sentences… ex-offenders who had completed their sentences been permitted to vote, Al Gore would have carried Florida by more than 31,000 votes” (Karlan, P., n.d, pg. 11-13). The election race was between George W. Bush and Al Gore and Florida is the state that gave Bush more than enough electoral votes to win the election. America would have had a different leader if the ex-felons could restore their right to vote, and which also means that America would have been different now. This supports the claim that ex-felons’ political affiliation will change America’s future because of the impact it will have politically because it shows the effect of what could have happened, hypothetically, in the election. Seeing that felons’ votes will take America’s future in a different turn by having a little less than half of the 1.4 million disenfranchised felons that finished their sentences shows how important the felons’ votes are. The felons’ unique insight regarding politics because of their experiences, felons will be able to guide politicians to make better laws that will make laws like felon disenfranchisement

The practice of prohibiting felons, especially former felons, from voting is anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, and antipathetic. A felon should be permitted to vote, assuming the felon is not a psychopath. Psychopaths are irresponsible, untrustworthy, and if they were allowed to vote, they may influence society in negative ways by voting for the politicians less tough on crime, for example. However, if a democracy is so frail that it cannot withstand the votes of those who are incarcerated, then something is very wrong with the democracy and needs rectifying.

Miles focuses on the impact of felon disenfranchisement on state‐level voter turnout First, the paper expresses that the number of disenfranchised felons is so large that conventional measures of voter turnout, which fail to correct for the ineligibility of disenfranchised felons, significantly understate the participation rates of African‐American men who would otherwise be eligible to vote Second, the paper demonstrates the triple‐difference backdrop to test whether disenfranchisement actually reduces the turnout of African‐American men

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe recently gave an order that would restore voting rights to hundreds of thousands of felons prior to the upcoming general election, but the Supreme Court of Virginia is currently reviewing a case that could ruin McAuliffe’s order. A Republican attorney for the state argued that the order was an unconstitutional overreach, while the opposing side said that the order was a daring, but perfectly legal use of his power. Nearly a quarter of Virginia’s African American population is not allowed to vote due to convictions and Virginia is only one of eleven states that requires individual exemption to vote after felons completed their sentence. Over eleven thousand ex-convicts have registered to vote since McAuliffe

First and foremost to support the author’s ideas that felon disenfranchisement is enacted to exclude black and Latino citizens from election as the article statistically highlighted the whole nation with the percentage of blacks or Latino citizens with whites and the general population, on the national level, 36 percent of the disenfranchisement population is black, compared to 12 percent of the general population(Fellner and Mauer 1998:1) that is number of blacks is higher than the general population and the white as well. The above statistics can be supported that 13 percent of adult male African American are disenfranchised from voting but only 2 percent of the Adult population as a whole (Fellner and Manuel 1998:2) and lastly more than 25 percent of adult black men are permanently disenfranchised in Alabama, Iowa, Mississippi, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming(Fellner and Manuel) and in order to incorporate it with the Latino citizens

A common belief in the United States is that if a felon commits a serious enough crime, then they have to “fully” pay for their crime. Unfortunately, there is a significant grey area when attempting to determine how a felon could actually completely pay for their crime. The standard way is incarceration, but felon disenfranchisement in some states force the felon to continue paying for crimes, long after the completion of sentence and beyond parole. Uggen, Behrens, and Manza, generated an explanation for why people support felon disenfranchisement. They believed that people support felon disenfranchisement because people view a criminal act as a breach of the social contract, and a person would

This meaning that they want to get a job and start contributing to society. Allowing many ex-felons the right to vote will signify to them that they are being taken account for, and that they can have a second chance in life. Not to mention that many ex-felons have already served their time in prison and to be able to start their life again they need to their rights restituted. According to a website called “Newsmax” Allowing ex-felons to vote would help in their reintroduction into society. They learn the value of the law to strengthen their participation in common practices.

The justification for the laws that prevent convicted felons the right to vote is that since they have committed a felony, they should not have the right to vote. Voting may be a right for U.S. Citizens in this country. However, once you commit an act of crime, that right will be taken away which is referred to as “disenfranchising convicts”. The disenfranchising of convicts is justified because since they have committed a crime, they lose some of their rights voting being one of them. If a criminal commits a crime, there is prison which serves as punishment for the criminal act. Since prison must be a punishment, criminals do not have the right to vote because they have not abided by the laws, hence their right to vote as they once saw it,