Disenfranchisement Of The Votes Of Felons

However, that leaves a whole 33percent of ex felons that do not commit another crime and want to be productive members of society an ‘’earn’’ there voting rights back. Granted, being that statistics show a greater number of reoffending felons this is good cause to why society and the communities these ex felons reside are against felons voting. On the contrary State data shows that most prison admissions are for probation or parole violations. Maybe that's because punishment is so light: 79 percent of state inmates are released before reaching their maximum sentences. In other words, maybe they aren't afraid of being reincarcerated because they know they'll never serve their full terms and continue to commit certain crimes as a cry for help.

In the article, "Felons and the Right to Vote," claims of fact, value, and policy are used. The author's first claim sets the subject for the rest of the piece, "Denying the vote to ex-offenders is antidemocratic, and undermines the nation's commitment to rehabilitating people who have paid their debt to society." This is a claim of value, stating that not allowing ex-offenders to vote is against the philosophy of our democratic government and dismisses the time they have served for their crimes. This is a claim of value because the evidence used, later on, argues that the current actions of the government relating to the suffrage of ex-felons, is morally wrong. The speaker challenges the audience to think about right vs. wrong, good vs. bad.

Since the beginning of the United States government, Americans have had the right to vote. This right is entitled to most citizens of America, but it is not entitled to citizens that have been convicted of felonies. This is called disenfranchisement; where an ex-felon cannot vote, own a weapon or go into the army. Specifically, voter disenfranchisement; only two states in the US are not subject to this law. In the past 40 years due to disenfranchisement the United States criminal justice system has withheld the voting rights of 6.1 million Americans due to their convictions. Maine and Vermont do not hold restrictions due to past felonies. With over 3.1 million civilians out of prisons or other facilities this hurts the overall point of democracy, making it unconstitutional to withhold these rights that are stated in the amendments for the knowledge of American citizens.

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).

About 5.26 million people with a felony conviction are not allowed to vote in elections. Each state has its own laws on disenfranchisement. Nine states in America permanently restrict felons from voting while Vermont and Maine allow felons to vote while in prison. Proponents of felon re-enfranchisement believe felons who have paid their debt to society by completing their sentences should have all of their rights and privileges restored. They argue that efforts to block ex-felons from voting are unfair, undemocratic, and politically or racially motivated. Opponents of felon voting say the restrictions are consistent with other voting limitations such as age, residency, mental capacity, and other felon

Individuals convicted of a felony should not lose their right to vote. The right to vote is a

Anyhow, there are people who believe that felons should not be given the right to vote once they are out due to the fact that they have broken the law and don’t have the right to choose a leader. For instance, the declaration of Independence states that unalienable rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say life, liberty and the right to vote. John Locke, who played an important part in the founding of America, also believed that each individual had certain rights that by nature they were entitled to, however, he also believed that the government had a duty to protect those rights. If someone violates another’s rights to life, liberty and property, then they forfeit their own rights to these things and society can punish him by removing their rights. The criminal has broken their social contract and violated the trust of their fellow citizens. In addition, not everyone is allowed to vote. Children, non citizens and those mentally incompetent are among those whose rights. “Voting requires certain minimum, objective standards of trustworthiness, loyalty and responsibility, and those who have

Throughout the years, many citizens have fought for the right to vote. Immigrants that are in our country view this as being lucky just to have the opportunity to make a change. Felons have taken the privilege for granted. Many of the supporters of a felons right to vote believe it’s unfair to punish from taking their vote. But the real question is if you can trust the felon for making the right call.

Many views have been made on ex-felon’s voting right. People debate on whether or not the people who have committed these crimes should be able to vote or if that right should be taken away. The majority of people believe the individuals who commit these crimes should still retain their right to vote, which is true.

Felons need voting rights too! Felons and voting rights are starting to become a big deal. Felons are wanting the right to vote, but some states will not give them that right. All states should let felons vote depending on how severe their crime was. It is not right to deny someone the right to vote. There are multiple reasons for why they shouldn't vote, but there are also some good reasons or why they should be able to vote. Felons deserve the right to vote for multiple reasons.

In 12 different states, former ex-felons even after serving their term have a large chance on losing their voting rights for good; don’t you think that is too harsh? 19 states give the ex-felons a chance to redeem their rights after their term of incarceration, parole, and probation, while another 19 states give their rights back after their term is up. In this case you can conclude that no matter how large or small the charge, the ex-felon was convicted of that their rights for voting should not simply be given back to them after their term, although the ex-felons should have the right to earn back their legal, vote it should not be that easy. The NAACP is talking to the U.N. to make sure all former convicted felons in the United

In Florida alone, more than 750,000 persons who have completed their sentences are ineligible to vote” (King, 2009). Those states who choose not to allow felons to vote feel as though they do not have the right to vote, because they have committed felony acts. Having that many people who can’t vote harms the U.S. due to the fact that they are unable to voice their opinion or input by voting.

Although some states believe that voting is a privilege that can be taken away after intolerable behavior, ex-criminals should be given voting rights because they are heavily impacted by government decisions, the vote is consequently taken away from low income, minority factions, and the US has a historical record of disenfranchising people regarding their race, color, previous servitude, and sex, so we have reason to question the disenfranchisement of other minorities.

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

More studied than the effect of felon disenfranchisement on individuals is the effect on the wider community. These laws diminish the voice of the Black community in multiple ways. First, they generally dilute the power of the Black vote, particularly because the disenfranchised population of a city tends to be concentrated in relatively few neighborhoods. For example, a 1992 study “showed that 72% of all of New York State's prisoners came from only 7 of New York City's 55 community board districts,” and a 2003 study showed that “53% of Illinois prisoners released in 2001 returned to Chicago, and 34% of those releases were concentrated in 6 of 77 Chicago communities.” This is problematic because, as law professor Debra Parkes summarizes: “When the views of one group are systematically cut out of the political process, the public debate will be skewed.” When the disenfranchised are concentrated in few neighborhoods, the political power of those neighborhoods is reduced.