Essay On Felony Disenfranchisement

The root of Felon Disenfranchisement can be traced back to Greek and Roman laws. Where any person convicted of an infamous crime would lose his or her right to participate in polis. In Rome they would lose their right to participate in suffrage and to serve in the Roman legions. With the founding of the United States of America, the US Constitution gave the right to establish voting laws to the states. From 1776 - 1821 eleven states included felony disenfranchisement in their laws (Voter Registration Protection Act). By 1868 when the fourteenth Amendment was enacted eighteen states had adopted disenfranchisement laws. After the Civil War felony Disenfranchisement laws were used along with poll taxes and literary test to exclude African

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

Having the right to vote is a privilege, and if you lost the privilege why should you gain it back? Although people say it’s unfair, that person made his/her decision. According to Roger Clegg article called “If You Can’t Make the Laws, You Shouldn’t Help Make Them”, “The unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in” (Clegg1). Even though felons served their time, they’re most likely to commit a crime again which means that they took their vote for granted again. The

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.

They have opinions too and they are citizens. They might have committed a crime but that doesn’t mean you have to take away all of their rights. Some of the felons might change while their in prison. If you allow them to vote then that is 2% more people who can vote now. Without them voting not all citizens are voting. All citizens might not vote anyways but at least they get the option.

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.

The citizens of the United States of America have a long history of having to fight for their right to vote, and while women and people of color do have the right, another group of people is facing a difficult time being able to vote. This other group is the felons, but understandably so: a felon’s ability to make critical decisions for the United country is sure to be questioned. Felon disenfranchisement serves as a barrier between individuals who are qualified to vote and those who are not. The reasons that felons are not qualified to make such important decisions for Americans is that their actions show a lack of good judgement and they show a disregard for the social contract. The ignorance toward the social contract, the types of felonies committed, and the judgement that felons have is questioned, and exactly what the impact may be in regard to our society and the future of our country is explained. There should be a few exceptions, and not all felons should suffer the same fate that those who committed a serious felony do.

The votes of felons are also relevant enough that if they were permitted to engage in democracy, they could change political outcomes. While disenfranchised felons only make up a little over 2% of the voting age population, their votes have been found to have enough influence to affect elections. Since those convicted of felonies are likely to be of a minority race or poor, it is likely felon disenfranchisement laws take away votes from the Democratic party and Independent votes. People of color make up roughly 60 percent of the prison population in the U.S. and make up larger proportions of the Democratic party than they do Republican or Independent (Kerby, 2012). Nearly 90% of the Republican party is white, 70% of Independent parties are

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.

Denying convicted felons their right to vote really impacts because it doesn’t allow a big portion of the population to vote. Democracy is all about power of all the people, but that is impacted if convicted felons can’t vote. If convicted felons cannot vote, it puts the power into certain people and not all of the people. Many convicted felons are African American, showing that one-eighth of the black male voting age population are unable to vote. That means African Americans are not getting equal representation when it comes to voting.