Felon Disenfranchisement Case Study

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

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

is one of only a few states that allow convicted felons to vote upon their release from prison

“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 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.

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).

Recent sociological studies have focused on pressing social issues such as urban crime and mass incarceration, and examining the invisible link between urban crime, poverty and race. Research indicates that mass incarceration has always worked to the detriment of African Americans, especially the low-income earners (Western, 2006). The aftermath of this trend is that the employment prospects of former felons are significantly diminished (Pager, 2007). Felon disfranchisement in turn distorts the local and national politics of the county (Uggen, 2006). This paper focuses on addressing the contemporary trends and ramifications of mass incarceration of African Americans, and elucidating on the criminal justice policy and the factors contributing to the intangible but real racial divide.

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.

But the reality is many past felons go through their life not knowing that they can actually vote upon completing their sentence. Once they are in prison, they hate the system and have lost their rights to be a part of society again. So they must be educated on when they can gain this right amongst other if it is possible. Although, those ex-felons who previously could not vote and now can, the journey to vote is long and difficult. Depending on the state and their laws some felons can gain their right after completing their sentence and parole or probation. However, some states make it harder for those who re-register for voting more complicated. They create barriers where ex-felons must go through that ultimately make it nearly impossible to vote again. There are a lot of things to take into account such as the date of the crime, the conviction and the nature of the crime. It adds more unnecessary time to grant them their right back. Even after all that, felons must fill out lengthy paperwork and the inconsistency the law is even if it is stated clearly. The lack of information plays an essential part in their understanding of whether they gain this fundamental right back. This must be changed in order to give past felons their best shot in voting in the future. In prison there should be classes where they can go and get the knowledge they need. After being released from prison as well, there should be a pamphlet or book that they can read to understand how to gain their voting rights or any other right back. They are still citizens of the United States and should not have to have that jeopardized or

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.

The author goes on to discuss the facets of the restoration of civil rights for a felon who was released yet in doing so the right to possess a weapon is not allowed by the federal governments law. As the writing goes on, the author explains that the subject “Mr. Richard Raymond Glaser” is described as unknowingly violated a felony possessing a fire arm in spite of being renewed as a citizen of Washington State (Stavis, 2010, p.656). Additionally, the author reveals that the travesty in this case is the state’s effort to renew the civil rights of Mr. Glaser in- spite of the laws that are on the books. Their inference, that Mr. Glaser would be renewed is a good thought but not the true reality of integration into society. Many felons face not only public isolation but also financial exclusion to credit or even the ability to rent an apartment that hinders their ability to re-enter successfully. So when a company excludes a felon from potential employment, it becomes clear that the playing field is not balanced or even fair to felons of lesser crimes. In conclusion, the idea that all felons are coupled together where heinous crime and simple drug possession felons face the same challenges is ridiculous. Our society must find better ways to support these felons where a structured release embodies all of the support that these people need to be successful. Felons of all types of crimes should not be released and set out on their own with $100 and allowed to fend for themselves and begin the act of failure all over again. We as a society must change our past practices and support the idea of change for the betterment of our country through viable opportunities for our incarcerated

In the United States more than two million people are incarcerated and seven million are under correctional supervision. There are 13 million adults that have been convicted of a felony and 47 million American have something on their record. Having a felony has attained a newfound relevance in the United States (King, 2006) . In many states begin a felon come with obstacles both informal and formal in the lives of people with a felony convicted. In the midst of the growing civil right movement, the augmented by racially disparate law enforcement and corrections policies the word “felon” is commonly linked to the African American community. Having a felony conviction limited housing, employment and educational opportunities. The barriers that of begin a felon limited the accessing to opportunities that is available to the general population (King, 2006).

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.

In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are imprisoned. But in Florida, Iowa, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote. I personally don't think felons should be able to vote if it was bad enough that they had to go to prison. They shouldn't have the choice to vote because people under 18, non-citizens and the mentally incompetent people can't vote, because of standards involving trustworthiness and responsibility. The same requirements should apply to felons. Today I will go over why it isn't a good idea for felons to vote, how felons, not voting will benefit us, and how permanent felon disenfranchisement is a good solution for anyone who is convicted of a more serious crime.