Example Of 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

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.

Those that are against such a disenfranchisement, however, have arguments of their own. The first such argument observes that not all felons are evil or immoral to the same degree; in many cases, those that are arrested are average citizens and do not deserve such harsh treatment. According to statistics of the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) of the Federal Bureau of Investigations of 2007 approximately 14,380,370 arrests were made nationwide, or 4,832.5 of every 100,000 people. Arrests and convictions are not made solely on murderers, molesters, and rapists; common nonviolent crimes, such as shoplifting or drug possession, are included in these statistics as well. Sanford McLaughlin, a Mississippi resident, was disenfranchised for life because he was found guilty of passing a bad check for $150 (“Losing” 5). The law automatically assumes that McLaughlin is a criminal; in reality, he could be an upstanding citizen that made one poor decision that affected his entire life. Unfortunately, disenfranchisement laws do not look at crime itself, just at the occurrence of such an incident. There is no regard for felon’s criminal history, or lack thereof, or the type of crime he committed. Another factor regarding the lack of wisdom is the age of

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

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

A felon is a person who has been convicted of a crime, serving time for it in a prison and could go as far as being sentenced to life or death. Those convicted of a felony can be categorized as those who have committed murder, rape, or aggravated theft or assault; it is because of this that prisoners, especially felons are believed and prohibited from the right to vote — a right that has been fought for which led to bloodshed in the United States. Those in favor of the prohibition of the prisoners’ right to vote believe that they are unfit to do so because of the poor choices and bad judgements which led them to their associated predicaments. Although there are others that believe that the price is paid for the prisoners’ gain reciprocity by being

“The United States has among the world's most restrictive felon disenfranchisement laws” (Green). The areas in the United States that do not allow ex-felons the right to

Felons should be allowed to vote because everyone else can. Women and blacks weren’t able to vote, but now they can. If everyone else can vote why can’t they. They are citizens too. We can’t take their freedom away. After they get out we let them drive, buy beer and drive, but we don’t let them vote. Now if someone can go and buy beer and drive they could hurt people, but if you do drugs then you can’t vote. Not all felons did terrible crimes, Some of them just messed up once and now they can’t vote for the rest of their lives.

“There is an estimated number of 5.85 million Americans who are prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses.” (Uggen). Varying by state, each disenfranchisement law is different. Only 2 out of 50 U.S. states; Vermont & Maine, authorize voting from convicted felons incarcerated and liberated as shown in (Fig. 1). But of the 48 remaining states these rights are either prohibited or authorized in at least 5 years succeeding to liberation. This disenfranchisement needs to be retracted due to fact that convicted felons; incarcerated or liberated, are U.S. citizens who are guaranteed constitutional rights that should allow them as citizens to have equal opportunity in political and social

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 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

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.

After felons leave a prison or a jail, they sometimes have a hard time fitting and becoming an active part of society. “If felons are given the right to vote they are three times less likely to commit future crimes” (Kander 6). If felons are voting and becoming active members of society, then they will not be committing crimes and will not be going back to prison. The main purpose of prisons and jails is rehabilitation and voting will give felons a second chance. “Studies have shown that people with felony convictions who vote had a lower recidivism rate than non-voters.” (Kander 5). That proves that if given a second chance felons will more than often choose the righteous path and rehabilitate themselves.