Pros And Cons Of Felons

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.

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).

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

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

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

In fact, ex-felons who have learned from their mistakes can offer a different perspective when creating laws. This perspective can help create laws that prevent others from committing similar crimes. If a felon has paid his debt to society and turned his life around they should have the right to vote.

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.

Felons should be allowed to vote because everyone else can. Women and blacks weren’t able to vote, but now they can. If everyone else can vote why can’t they. They are citizens too. We can’t take their freedom away. After they get out we let them drive, buy beer and drive, but we don’t let them vote. Now if someone can go and buy beer and drive they could hurt people, but if you do drugs then you can’t vote. Not all felons did terrible crimes, Some of them just messed up once and now they can’t vote for the rest of their lives.

“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

It is a status that will follow and affect every ex-offender even after they have served their time in jail. In this case, our criminal-justice system is constantly discriminating against African Americans in order to identify them as felons and take away their rights. Currently, more than two million African Americans are under the control of the criminal-justice system--in prison or jail, on probation or parole. Felon-disenfranchisement laws bar thirteen percent of African American men from casting a vote, thus making mass incarceration an effective tool of voter suppression--one reminiscent of the poll taxes and literacy of the Jim Crow era. Employers routinely discriminate against an applicant based on criminal history, as do landlords. In some major urban areas, more than half of working-age African American men have criminal record and are subject to legalized discrimination for the rest of their lives. These men are permanently locked into an inferior, second-class status, or caste, bylaw and custom. As Alexander argues, we have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.

First off, parole is “the conditional release of a prisoner, prior to completition of the

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.

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.

On a micro level, this issue affects the lives of convicted felons who currently do not have the right to vote. Social acceptance for felons voting would allow the criminal's voice to be heard as they can vote for who they want without relying on others to support their causes. Also, being able to participate in the social norm of voting would help the felon better acclimate into acceptable rather than deviant behaviors. There are also macro-level consequences. With this increase of voters, states have the potential to swing voting results from current trends impacting campaigns and what issues make it on the ballots. Also, voters who have already violated society with their deviant act have the potential to change social norms and alter the

People are incarcerated for different crimes some a lot more severe than others. For example, a single parent was sentenced to 3 months for the theft of a pair of jeans worth £10 (BBC News, 2011). However, while these are viable points and questions, the government allowing certain individuals in prisons to vote could be a complicated decision. Felons’ circumstances are not simply black and white; there can be a grey area with individual cases. Appropriate retribution is said to only occur when an appropriate punishment is given for the crime (Hegel, 1965). This makes it difficult to judge who has committed a serious enough offence to enable them to be stripped of their right to vote. Streeter said, the UK decided hundreds of years ago that prisoners should not have the right to vote’ (Streeter, 2011). This is a settled view in this country which has been accepted since 1870 (Hollobone, 2011). ‘Do we want convicted murderers, rapists and paedophiles to be given the vote?’ (BBC News, 2010). In terms of making the right decision and having it morally and politically justifiable, felons should not be allowed to vote and it is nonsensical to think they should.