Prisoners Right To Vote

In the article, "Felons and the Right to Vote," claims of fact, value, and policy are used. The author's first claim sets the subject for the rest of the piece, "Denying the vote to ex-offenders is antidemocratic, and undermines the nation's commitment to rehabilitating people who have paid their debt to society." This is a claim of value, stating that not allowing ex-offenders to vote is against the philosophy of our democratic government and dismisses the time they have served for their crimes. This is a claim of value because the evidence used, later on, argues that the current actions of the government relating to the suffrage of ex-felons, is morally wrong. The speaker challenges the audience to think about right vs. wrong, good vs. bad.

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.

unfair and often political. What disqualifies a convicted felon from voting in one state might not

Anyhow, there are people who believe that felons should not be given the right to vote once they are out due to the fact that they have broken the law and don’t have the right to choose a leader. For instance, the declaration of Independence states that unalienable rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say life, liberty and the right to vote. John Locke, who played an important part in the founding of America, also believed that each individual had certain rights that by nature they were entitled to, however, he also believed that the government had a duty to protect those rights. If someone violates another’s rights to life, liberty and property, then they forfeit their own rights to these things and society can punish him by removing their rights. The criminal has broken their social contract and violated the trust of their fellow citizens. In addition, not everyone is allowed to vote. Children, non citizens and those mentally incompetent are among those whose rights. “Voting requires certain minimum, objective standards of trustworthiness, loyalty and responsibility, and those who have

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are most notable for their protection of the rights of suspected and accused individuals. All to often we forget it also covers the rights of those persons convicted of a crime. There are two positions when it comes the rights of convicted and imprisoned persons, which are rights-are-retained and rights-are-lost. In retrospect, they are both right because prisoners rights may not be granted rights nor shall rights be withheld that are not supported by law. Therefore, prisoners are given Conditional Rights because they are constrained by the legitimate needs of imprisonment. The Conditional Rights of inmates are communication and vision, religious freedom, access to the courts and legal assistance,

Vicki Lee Roach had her rights infringed from voting the Federal 2007 elections as she was serving a sentence above three years preventing her from voting, others than her other prisoners had their rights infringed serving a sentence more than three years.

According to “Why Felons Shouldn’t Vote” article by Roger Clegg in the New York Times, if citizens are not able to follow the law then they can’t demand the right to choose those who make the law. Clegg claims that felons in general can’t make good decisions and most of the time felons do go back to prison once they get out. That’s why the government

Having the right to vote is a part of being an American just like making a mistake is a part of being human. President Obama said it best “...while the people in our prisons have made some mistakes - and sometimes big mistakes - they are

Having the right to vote is a privilege, and if you lost the privilege why should you gain it back? Although people say it’s unfair, that person made his/her decision. According to Roger Clegg article called “If You Can’t Make the Laws, You Shouldn’t Help Make Them”, “The unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in” (Clegg1). Even though felons served their time, they’re most likely to commit a crime again which means that they took their vote for granted again. The

This has time and time again been up to par with several pros and cons. In this, portraying the message that in which reinforces and disconnects ex-convicts to the right to vote and what they will face if they are reinstated as members of American society. Throughout this debate, individuals may discuss assumptions and proposals that give those with opinions to consider the latter— or not. According to Steve Chapman (2006), “[America lets] ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy [alcohol], own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that 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 (n.p.).” This enhancing the idea that prisoners are allowed to vote once reinstated into society. In contrast, Roger Clegg, J.D (2004) states, “We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their

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

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.

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.

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.

Equalizing the constitutional rights of prisoners and the functions of the jail or prison can create great strain on not only the correctional facilities’ staff but on the inmates as well. The treatment of prisoners is typically left completely to the prudence of prison administrators and other correctional officials. With that being said, this paper will discuss the differences between harmonizing those constitutional rights of prisoners and the functions of the facility. It will also explain the rights that prisoners are required to have, and how these rights are balanced within other aspects of the correctional institution.