Giving Our Felons A Chance

That is a large amount of people, including whole families that are homeless over this matter. These people are living in shelters or with friends and family because they are unable to rent their own place. This is all because they have a criminal record, and now the record is being used to judge and discriminate against. One would think this would fall under the fair housing act. Sadly you couldn’t be more wrong in fact Robert Wise said “To give felons the protection of the Fair Housing Act protects them from the consequences of their own conduct. No such protection is presently afforded to anyone by the fair Housing Act”. And he couldn’t be more wrong it’s not protection against the consequence of the action, its giving someone an even playing field, it’s allowing a person to obtain a home for their family, and have dignity. And let me add some more madness to this already un-just issue, most of these people have jobs, and can afford to rent and pay utilities, but yet they find

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).

It seems to me that we need to be better at filtering the system instead if incarcerating everyone no matter the offense we should start seeking other alternatives. We should incarcerate those who are an endangerment to themselves and society. For the others we should try to get them treatment not just throw them in jail because that won’t end the cycle. When people are released they aren’t prepared for society. They don’t have anything just the clothes on the back and no money. The only way most released inmates know how to get money is to steal it. It’s very difficult for a person with a felon to get a stable job. Another flaw with releasing inmates is that when they released there are many regulations and rules they have to abide by that are very difficult. You have to pay a certain amount each month. You have to report, you have to employee, and you may have to stay in one place. These technicalities are what keep sending people back. These people when they get pout have nothing. How can you expect them to pay

Although felons are a criminal who have committed a dangerous crime by rebelling against the law and have been punished by politics and government of the United States the right not to vote; as a result they were denied of voting right. However, taking away the right to vote is like appealing against the constitution of the fourteen amendments which state that every person have the right to be free from discrimination and to have the equal of the law. Therefore, felons should be given the right to vote when he or she bore an American citizen or naturalized as an American citizen; as a result no one should be denied the right from voting not when you are a citizen and have served their sentences.

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,

As drug-related convictions are becoming more and more common, the lower class, which typically is involved in such convictions, becomes less represented in elections because they are not allowed to vote (Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States). Disenfranchisement is silencing voices that have a right to be heard. Felon disenfranchisement would be effective if used in cases of serious crimes such as homicide, but for small offenses such as drug possession, it should not be used.

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.

This document covers the policy rationales for felon disfranchisement laws and how society considers felons less honorable and accountable than non-felon citizens Society and laws enacted condemn those who cannot follow the law should not participate in the passing of laws that govern law-abiding citizens

This decision to keep felons from voting is motivated by power. Felons represent a significant percent of population. Allowing them to vote can change political offices around the

In lawmaking, there must be objective rights and wrongs. If not, than how can the disenfranchisement of nearly six million United States citizens be considered right? If those citizens have been convicted felons, many of which on multiple accounts- is their lack of sound judgement worthy of the right to vote alongside the rest of the law-abiding population? Many polls show that Americans feel that criminals shouldn’t be punished with disenfranchisement in addition to their initial sentence. Supporters of felon enfranchisement argue that disenfranchisement would institutionalize racism and many of the felons achieve rehabilitation once they are released from prison, thus they live honest lives after prison and have the right to vote. However, eleven states have passed laws in which convicted felons lose the right to vote permanently. The growing number of states passing disenfranchisement laws correlates with growing support of the idea, however accusations of racism and trusting felon judgement raises debate.

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).

The question is asked, Should felons be allowed to live in public housing? This seems to have been a concern stemming from A law passed in 1998 called The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, the law led to new rules from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on who could and couldn’t receive federal housing assistance. They gave local public housing jurisdiction in using criminal background checks to refuse applicants admission to public housing. If you were a sex offender your eligibility is automatically denied, in some cases and states this includes prostitution. Drug-related crimes can get you banned from receiving vouchers also. In many cities, you can become ineligible

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

“After Teenage Mistakes, Pardons Give Second Chances To Ex-Offenders” reporter Hansi Lo Wang People explains how people who have a criminal record can get a second chance with their life to remove it from their record with a new program in New York. Having a criminal record will cause multiple problems in life. Like getting a job, if you have a criminal record the employer will most likely not hire you. According to Wang, “[Eduardo,] He says [his criminal record has] cost him plenty of jobs since he left prison.” Also, this program is not for everyone only those who meet the specifications. The program pardons only those who have committed crimes in the past, but have changed since then. Wang states that the program is “For former offenders