Felon Disenfranchisement

Felony disenfranchisement operates contrary to the goals of ensuring public safety and reducing reoffending by alienating from society those individuals that the criminal justice system is simultaneously attempting to reintegrate. Further, as the Committee has noted, state disenfranchisement laws are problematic not only due to the vast numbers of potential voters they affect, but also their disproportionate impact on racial minorities, particularly African Americans and Hispanics. Further, many of these laws extend punishment beyond the walls of the prison by continuing to disenfranchise individuals who are on probation, parole or have completed their full sentences. For this reason, it is particularly important that the Committee urge the United States to provide its rationale for continuing to deprive individuals with felony convictions of the right to vote after they are no longer

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.

Felon disenfranchisement conflicts with goals of rehabilitating felons through the existent criminal justice systems. Currently, 12 states entirely restrict ex-felons from voting. According to the laws in these

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.

Restoring voting rights for felons is important in a democratic society. The Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits excessive sanctions. This means that a felon should be punished in proportion with the felon’s offense.

Millions of Americans lose the right to vote due to past felony convictions. While majority of Americans have completed their sentence, they are still not afforded the opportunity to vote. In some states voting rights of felons are terminated all together while other states allow felons who have completed their sentence to regain their voting rights. Felon disenfranchisement is not being allowed to vote after committing a felony. Felon Disenfranchisement takes a toll on our society by placing limits on the amount of possible state votes, and discontinues voting rights in some states. A vast number of citizens believe that felons should not have the right to vote.

In this essay, I will be in support of felons having their voting rights restored after serving their prison sentences and completing all terms and conditions of probation or parole successfully. My reasons for supporting the restoration of felons’ voting rights are because voting is a “right” under the Constitution of the United States. After a person serves their prison sentence; some ex-felons have the ability to be and remain rehabilitated and live productive lives. Also, the laws are changing making it easier to be charged as a felon. Most of the people that are against felons voting claim that they make bad judgments because they do not abide

This article focused its searchlight on felon disenfranchisement by gluing it eco-social theory in order to elucidate how approximately 13% of African American men are denied voting right by virtue of a felony conviction. It delve into how felon disenfranchisement laws contribute to racial health disparities in the United States. Purtle, Jonathan (2013) identified two potential pathways that facilitates the viability of the felon disenfranchisement laws that stand more disadvantageous to African Americans; these pathways include: (a) inability to change inequitable public policies that differentially allocated resources for health, and (b) inability to reintegrate into society by voting which add heavily to allostatic load. Purtle, Jonathan (2013) built on universal human rights that are codified by international and regional human rights agreements which United States also ratified and adopted; the Universal human rights are widely built on political participation and equal treatment, so felon disenfranchisement laws enacted in 48 States contradicts United States ratification to universal human rights and equal suffrage (Uggen, C. Manza, J. 2006). Subsequently, the author maintain that disproportionate effects of felon disenfranchisement laws on African American violates guarantee to nondiscrimination as a human

In 2016, about 2.5% of the adult US population, or 6.1 million potential voters, were deprived of the right to vote because of a felony conviction. (Kozlowska) A felony is defined as “a crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death,” including murder, the sale or manufacture of drugs, treason, and even tax evasion. (Google) Disenfranchisement is the state of being deprived of a right or privilege, especially the right to vote. The question of whether or not ex-felons should be disenfranchised is still discussed today; some believe that ex-felons can repay their debt to society by not voting, and some, vice versa. Unfortunately,

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

1 out of every 13 African Americans are prohibited from casting a ballot in the United States due to a felony conviction. In 38 states and D.C ex-felons are given their right to vote back once they finish their sentence, but some stats like Florida, Virginia, Iowa and other states take away your right to vote once you are convicted of a crime forever. Being an ex-felon will hinder someone’s upward mobility for the rest of their life. They will never again be a normal citizen the crime will follow them

Miles focuses on the impact of felon disenfranchisement on state‐level voter turnout First, the paper expresses that the number of disenfranchised felons is so large that conventional measures of voter turnout, which fail to correct for the ineligibility of disenfranchised felons, significantly understate the participation rates of African‐American men who would otherwise be eligible to vote Second, the paper demonstrates the triple‐difference backdrop to test whether disenfranchisement actually reduces the turnout of African‐American men

Allow me to introduce to you Perry Hopkins and Del. Cory V. McCray, both are from different cities. Both lead different lives. Both lost their voting rights due to felony convictions relating drugs. Both never recidivated; yet, both can never vote. Disenfranchisement takes away more than a simple right to cast a ballot. It steals power. It silences. And this plague of power-corrupted-racially motivated theft in America has affected women, Native Americans, immigrants, those without land, African-Americans, and now felons. By disenfranchising felons, the government is robbing 5.9 million citizens of an inalienable right. As a result, the government has disabled millions of people from interacting proficiently with society. Although, some argue

Recently I learned in my American Government class that one in three African American men will be in prison at some point in their lifetime. The statistic is slightly less common for Hispanic men, but all the same, the percentage of Hispanic and African American men who’ve served in prison at some point in their lifetime is astronomically higher than the percentage of Caucasian men. So how does this affect minorities? Removing felons from the electorate causes minorities to be less represented in elections. This results in minorities being less capable of affecting policies that could potentially benefit them. Furthermore, status as a felon unfortunately often goes hand in hand with a lower socioeconomic status. The consequence is that both minorities and the poor are less represented come election time. One simple way we could insure that all minorities are more capable of voicing their opinions and influencing policies is allow felons to vote after serving their

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.