Should ex-offenders be given a second chance in society?
The belief in a new beginning is a tenet of religions morals and ethics, which allows sinners to repent and be fully redeemed, to be reborn. The idea that people deserve a second chance is an important value in life, few times a lot of young men and women even grown adult make certain mistakes whether due to economic circumstances, immaturity, lack of adult mentor guidance or simple peer pressure. Sadly, most of them could have done something meaningful with their lives, if given the chance to prove themselves. As humans, we seek insights into our failings so we can learn to overcome them and achieve a new start, cause as we all know, no one is perfect.
I am
…show more content…
But these conditions can be altered, and then these people will be able to lead good lives. Under the right situation, criminals can pay their debt to society and be rehabilitated, sex offenders can be reformed, and others who have flunked out can pass another test. Just give them a second chance.
But I know my opposing motion will say the ex-offended should not be giving a second chance just for the fact that, they make the society a dangerous place to leave and they committed a crime and should pay for, but I will counter your point by saying, this ex-offender have committed an offence and they have already paid their debt to society, and should be forgiven, but remember one thing, This offender could be you someday.
I hope I have been able to convince you beyond reasonable doubt but not confuse you in any way that ex-offenders should be giving a second chance, because that offended could be you. In conclusion, your past is not your present, neither will it will be your future. everyone deserves to have another chance to make the world a better
The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)
If we thought that prisoners could not be rehabilitated, then they should not be released. If felons are released, we make a judgment that they are fit to live in society; therefore, they are capable of making trustworthy decisions.
Many would say that offenders are hopeless and if one looks at the rate of recidivism, one would definitely think that our nation’s offenders are indeed hopeless. However, what if there was a way to reduce the rate of recidivism and at the same time rehabilitate offenders in order to make them functioning members of the community? Reentry programs that are implemented correctly cannot only reduce the rate of recidivism but at the same time help to rehabilitate an offender through education, treatment, and therapy. The Second Chance At is a law that went into effect April 29, 2008 (P.L. 110-199) and it allows government agencies to provide services to offenders that will help to reduce the rate of recidivism as well as improve the
The first problem that can be solved with giving felons their rights back is giving them a way back out of trouble ,and away to be a modeled citizen. For example, in this article Vikki Hankins a convicted felonies tells of her quest to get her rights back. She has tried multiple times with no positive outcome. Her dream is to become a lawyer but because of her record she can’t take the bar exam (Penaloza 1). This here leads to some individuals going back to life they know better such as crime. Since they can no longer progress at a scholarly level into a professional level people tend to settle for less or even reform to crime(Penaloza 1).
Back in 1974 three individual ex-felons, disenfranchised even after their sentences and paroles were completed, came to the Supreme Court believing that their fourteenth amendment right to equal protection of the law was violated by three different California county officials and the Secretary of State who denied them voting registration due to their ex-felon status. When the case was brought forth to the Supreme Court, the defendants, as in the three officials and the Secretary of State, acquiesced and decided henceforth that they would register ex-felons who have completed their sentence and paroles. But the Supreme Court case was not obsolete because the case persisted to be on behalf of all disenfranchised ex-felons in the state of California who were under similar situations.
I believe felons can change or become a better person. Examples, Ethea Farahkhan who is now 55 years old once was a felony, but now a change person with a six grandchildren and working with The NAACP to help restore former felons the right to vote. However, Farahkhan is still lacking the right to vote after being released a month in 1985 up to now, she has not been given the right to vote. Although, she is a self-esteem woman who is doing all she can (1). She still away from trouble and other illegal act but she has not been given the right to vote yet. Another person who is struggling with the same problem is Joseph Hayden an ex-felons who is now a changed person working as director of NLPCA to help people with drug abuse problem, but he too have is still denied the voting rights (1). As Conyers said diminishing the legitimacy of our democratic process, denying voting rights to ex-offenders is inconsistent with the goal of rehabilitation
no doubt about that. However, once they have completed their time they deserve this right to be given back. The question of whether they can vote on parole or probation is different as that should be up to the states. In the book The Disenfranchisement of Ex-felons by Elizabeth Hull, she speaks “Stripping prisoners of the right to vote will not deter crime, provide restitution to victims, nor promote rehabilitation” (138). I agree with Hull completely, as giving them the right to vote is nothing but beneficial as it does not persuade someone to commit a crime again. Giving them back suffrage can only give them something to gain and to learn how to be an essential part in society.
Ex-offenders face many challenges after being released into society after prison. This prolonged issue has gone on for quite some time in the United States, and it has been since recent decade that the United States has discovered reentry for prisoners (Johnson & Cullen, 2015). In 2007, the Second Chance Act of 2007 was introduced to break the cycle of recidivism; to rebuild ties between offenders and their families before and after incarcerated to encourage and support offenders; to protect the public; to provide and promote law-abiding conduct; to assist offenders in establishing a self-sustaining and law-abiding life providing sufficient transition
Winning the lottery should not be dictated by the action of an individual. Although many felons don’t turn their lives around, there are a significant portion of inmates who successfully rehabilitate their lives upon release. For instance, there are many felons who leave behind their life of crime, wanting to live a normal life. Furthermore, banning all felons for the actions of recurrent offenders only further criminalizes felons in today’s society. In the end, lotteries are not a moral litmus test, rather it is simply a form of
Furthermore, a new beginning is willing to go on with life; it is seeking to improve something in our life that we don't like, or we might know that there are other options with greater results. Once, I failed in finding the correct answer for a math problem; however, I decided to redo the procedure and I ended up with the correct answer.
An extreme topic of importance in America would involve employment for former convicts. For former convicts, employment in America has become an issue on being able to obtain a stable job to support former convicts; while many debate on this topic of weather or not to provide ex-cons with a much stronger chance of acquiring a job. Researchers have come to possible theories, some believe assisting ex-cons will prevent recidivism, and people also believe this is false, and there are people with a neutral stance in these debates and look at this topic with a statistical view. Those who happen to disagree may believe to keep the employment involving former convicts the same laws set in place. The sources may have their different standing points
that fail. I think that the only way that the prison service can rehabilitate offenders is if
Non citizens marijuana non serious offenders are unfairly deported. The implications that a non citizen have to face is not only the payment of a fine, but also an injust deportation. According to “the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA’s) INA section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) makes a noncitizen who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of any law or regulation relating to a controlled substance deportable” (Cunning 531- 532). Any minor marijuana offense will make legal non citizens deportable with any chance to sort out their migratory status. Permanent residents who have committed a marijuana offense ...will often be deported and prevented from applying for several types of relief from deportation for which they would otherwise
Everyone Can Change People, in general, reject the young rehabilitated offenders because many people worry about that they will never change and only cause troubles. However, as they become more mature due to their past experience, it is possible that they change from how they were. In The First Stone, Don Aker proved that everyone is possible to change, no matter what background he
During my time at Trenton, under many different circumstances I have seen that many of the inmates there struggle with language, and using the proper language skills. Many of these inmates have not graduated high school. Many of them have even dropped out at early ages. The article “Hearing, Auditory Processing, and Language Skills of Male Youth Offenders and Remandees in Youth Justice Residences in New Zealand.”, by Lount and her fellow colleagues discusses the comparison between youth offenders and non offenders based on research they have done. The article starts off by explaining the correlation between offender status and history of being in a lower socioeconomic state. This is logical point, because people who are on the lower end of the stratification system do not have much access to good or sufficient education. This could lead to other resources and opportunities that they also can be excluded from, because of the lack of access.