Essay about Literature Review

One of the more controversial debates in today’s political arena, especially around election times, is that of felon disenfranchisement. The disenfranchisement of felons, or the practice of denying felons and ex-felons the right to vote, has been in practice before the colonization of America and traces back to early England; however, it has not become so controversial and publicized until recent times. “In today’s political system, felons and ex-felons are the only competent adults that are denied the right to vote; the total of those banned to vote is approximately 4.7 million men and women, over two percent of the nation’s population” (Reiman 3).

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe recently gave an order that would restore voting rights to hundreds of thousands of felons prior to the upcoming general election, but the Supreme Court of Virginia is currently reviewing a case that could ruin McAuliffe’s order. A Republican attorney for the state argued that the order was an unconstitutional overreach, while the opposing side said that the order was a daring, but perfectly legal use of his power. Nearly a quarter of Virginia’s African American population is not allowed to vote due to convictions and Virginia is only one of eleven states that requires individual exemption to vote after felons completed their sentence. Over eleven thousand ex-convicts have registered to vote since McAuliffe

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.

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.

“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

Dr. Mark Lasser’s book “Healing the Wounds of Sexual Addiction” gives insight to those who suffer from sexual addiction and to the families, friends and other people in their lives. Dr. Mark Lasser has chosen to write this book, to share with others his personal struggle and victory with sexual addiction. Dr. Lasser has written this book from a Christian view, to give other individuals hope in a difficult and growing disease, which is taking control and destroying our families. Lasser defines sexual addiction as “a sickness involving any type of uncontrollable sexual activity, and because the addict cannot control his

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.

“We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don’t lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination… they can’t be trusted to help choose our leaders… If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn’t let them out of prison in the first place (Chapman, Steve).” Many believe that felons should be able to vote due to the fact that they served their time in prison and already received their consequence. When felons already served their time, they are told they have their “freedom”. Yet, they do not have the same rights they did before they were arrested. Felons have paid enough of a price by serving their assigned sentence which shouldn’t lead

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

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.

How would you feel if one mistake caused one of your main rights as citizens to be taken away? Today, people who have paid their dues are denied their innate right to vote and to participate in decisions that governs their lives. Convicted felons who served their time have an innate right to vote and failure to allow ex-felons to vote has a disproportionate impact on my minority communities.

Committing a serious crime usually depicts an image of bad judgment. By using bad judgment, they have also proven themselves unfit to participate in major decision making, but in the UK, the 1983 Mental Health Act uses a method of separate assessment to determine a prisoner’s right to vote. Using a similar system in the us, the decision could allow prisoner voting rights could be based on the harshness of their crime and their attitude or conduct inside prison. A process could also be set up that would follow a path to parole prisoners as part of a prisoner's reintegration system that would help decide if a prisoner has the right to vote while on a felony

However, that leaves a whole 33percent of ex felons that do not commit another crime and want to be productive members of society an ‘’earn’’ there voting rights back. Granted, being that statistics show a greater number of reoffending felons this is good cause to why society and the communities these ex felons reside are against felons voting. On the contrary State data shows that most prison admissions are for probation or parole violations. Maybe that's because punishment is so light: 79 percent of state inmates are released before reaching their maximum sentences. In other words, maybe they aren't afraid of being reincarcerated because they know they'll never serve their full terms and continue to commit certain crimes as a cry for help.

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.

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