Felons Should Be Abolished

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

Every individual deserves the right to vote despite color or gender even if they are a convicted felon. This country was founded off of freedom from declaring itself independent. Even though individuals have committed certain crimes they should at least have a way to earn their freedom back in some type of way. The first step in this process would be making it automatic in every state ,after the process of rehabilitation felons should have their rights reinstated . The reason for this statement is to clarify that anybody can make a mistake . But it should be a way that felons should one day be seen as everyone else including the right to get any job. There is no direct resolution to the problem but the nation should really be concerned with this issue.

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

Many supporters of a felon’s right to vote believe that it is one-sided to punish them twice for the same crime. That they have the right to vote behind bars. They believe that confinement and losing their right to vote, would be one too many punishments for one crime. There should be a way to exempt felons from losing their right to vote and that this shouldn’t be an infringement on their rights as a us citizen.

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.

Given that the issue of felon disenfranchisement is a state’s issue and not a federal issue, there is wide variety in how these laws are carried out. They can generally be placed under four categories: currently incarcerated felons, felons who have been released and given parole, felons who have been sentenced to probation, and felons who have completed their sentence and have no further ties with the criminal justice system (Uggen 2004, 494). One key aspect of the United States felon disenfranchisement policy is that virtually no other democratic world disenfranchises felons at the rate that the United States does. While other countries still impose restrictions on felons and inmates voting, those countries don’t have the extensive mass incarceration system that the United States has (Uggen 2004,

Currently in the United States, only 12 states allow felons to vote after they have completed their time in prison and 2 states that actually allow felons to vote while in prison. While 19 states allow it after the sentence, parole, and probation and there are three states where felons are completely banned from voting for the rest of their lives. For those nineteen states that allow it after parole and probation, that is in essence still taking away their rights for most of their lives because depending on the crime probation can last as long as 35 years. Felon disenfranchisement creates a racial divide in the United States and can affect the

Felons are people who have been convicted of a felony. Felony is 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. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. Vermont’s 1793 Constitution stipulates that residents can lose their right to vote only if convicted of voter fraud. In Florida, Lowa and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote. Eleven states restrict voting even after a person has completed their prison sentence and finished probation or parole. Twenty states require completion of parole and probation before voting is allowed, and fourteen states allow felons to vote after they leave prison. In 1789, Kentucky became the first U.S. state to ban convicted criminals from voting. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that felon disenfranchisement is a violation of the Voting Rights Act in her May 4, 2006 dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Pataki. Ex-felons should be able to vote because they served their punishment and now they are out so they probably did not do anything serious like first-degree felony: murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, fraud. Second-degree felony: aggravated assault, felony assault, arson, manslaughter, possession of a controlled substance, child molestation.

Ex- felons should have the right to vote. A felon is someone who has committed a serious crime. A felony is “a serious crime, characterized under federal law and many state statutes as any offense punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year” (“Convicted”). Felon disenfranchisement is “Disenfranchisement is the taking away of voting rights” (“-Felon”). Ex-felons having served their debts to society should be treated like humans and doing that they should have their God given right to vote. When a person commits a crime, depending on the severity of the crime they can go to jail, or even prison, but the punishment does not always end there. In some states felons lose many rights, from rights to owning specific items to even losing money from paying fines. One of the most important rights they can lose is the right to vote; “states decide who is a criminal and whether or when that group can vote” (Manza 21). While leaving the power to the states Congress has imposed very important limitations on the state’s allowance to disqualify citizens from their right to vote. However the treatment of ex-felons varies from state to state. Felon disenfranchisement is deeply rooted in history, going back to ancient Greece and Rome. None of this making it okay, just simply a problem that needs to be solved. Ex-felons should have the right to vote.

In the state of Texas, the only people who are allowed felony disenfranchisement are the people who have completed their term of incarceration or parole and probation sentence and are considered “ex-felons”. People who are still serving their sentence do not have the privilege to vote, which includes all persons currently in jail, on probation, or released on parole. Although ex-felons are granted the right to vote once finished with their sentence, there are still some obstacles to receiving those rights which still holds a major impact on how many people actually vote within the state. Things such as the process complications, miscommunication between important parties who play a role in making sure ex-felons receive their rights, and simply

Some argue that taking away voting rights of felons is unconstitutional and morally unjust. Examples show that felons in prisons have the opportunity for rehabilitation and are proven to lead better lives once they leave prison. An example in a civil rights magazine was a story of thirty convicted felons of heroin use. “These 30 men were on heroin for 10 to 25 years. Until two months ago, they were all still on heroin inside the prison... Things are different now.

People who are felons have their rights and freedom taken away forever because they make a mistake in life. How is that fair? Think about this for a minute; if a person gets a trafficking charge or three DUI’s within five years, that person now has a felony record and is labeled a felon. As punishment the now felon are sentenced to prison for a time declared by a judge and on parole for some time. Though the time has been served a felon is still at large. One non-violent crime stays on your record forever? Some believe that just because a person committed a crime that all civil rights should be taken away. Why? The “felon” label, along with the negative social and legal implications that accompany it, is essentially blind to the severity of the underlying crime. The convicted felon definition, the individuals that comprise this particular class include all social economic, racial, ethic, and gender categorizations. Although the term felony commonly refers to serious crimes punishable by imprisonment for at least a year, or by death, it may include minor crimes (Saxonhouse, 2004). The convicted felons classification can be divided into two subcategories: Current felons- those who are currently incarcerated, on probation, or on parole; and ex-felons- those who have completed their sentences and are no longer under control of the criminal justice system. Both violent and non-violent felons are measured equivalents within the current and ex-felon groups (McGuire, 2014).

Criticisms of moves to restore the vote to former felons and those on probation and parole tend to be abstract. The most common include variations on the following: “if you can’t follow the laws, you shouldn’t help make them;” restoring the vote “minimiz[es] the consequences of crime and empower[s] criminals;” and these individuals would use their vote for nefarious purposes, such as voting for lenient judges and sentencing laws. However, there are theoretical problems with each. First, as noted above, the public seems to disagree with the first argument. Support for voting rights for ex-felon decreases when these individuals were convicted for certain crimes (violent crime, white-color crime, and sex-offenses), but general support for those who would be helped by the DRA ranges from 60-80%. Moreover, this line of thought is difficult to square with our idea of democracy. As Eli Levine, Editor-in-Chief of the Washington University Jurisprudence Review, concisely sums: “it subjects one to all of the rules and regulations of society, yet silences his power to register any displeasure or invoke change.” Finally,

A practice that has been used in the United States of America since its conception, disenfranchisement allows for a state to remove the rights of a convicted criminal, more commonly a felon, upon release from the penitentiary. Most of the time these rights are limited to the right to bear arms, as well as the right to vote and run for public office, because they are considered dangerous criminals. For centuries now, the American people have justified this practice through the use of fearmongering. In fact, there is such a stigma against these criminals that most of them cannot find a job and subsequently fall back into the acts that got them incarcerated in the first place. Many people have speculated the reasons for the eventual relapse of behaviors, stating thing such as cultural backgrounds, issues stemming childhood, mental health, or that they are just the bad apples that every society has. The most likely reason, however, is that the current laws in effect do not allow for an ex-felon’s proper reintegration into society.

Felon disenfranchisement and the variation of state laws on disenfranchisement is a huge issue that affects the American presidency. For example, if you are convicted felon you may never be able to vote again depending on the state you reside in. Many states however, allow convicted criminals to regain their right to vote upon completing their sentence, while other states never take their convicted criminal's right to vote away from them. As a nation this reveals the division among states, and the way felon disenfranchisement restricts many Americans from voting.