Pros And Cons Of Felony Disenfranchisement

The root of Felon Disenfranchisement can be traced back to Greek and Roman laws. Where any person convicted of an infamous crime would lose his or her right to participate in polis. In Rome they would lose their right to participate in suffrage and to serve in the Roman legions. With the founding of the United States of America, the US Constitution gave the right to establish voting laws to the states. From 1776 - 1821 eleven states included felony disenfranchisement in their laws (Voter Registration Protection Act). By 1868 when the fourteenth Amendment was enacted eighteen states had adopted disenfranchisement laws. After the Civil War felony Disenfranchisement laws were used along with poll taxes and literary test to exclude African

With the loss of 6.1 million voters in the election of 2016, this would make a huge impact on the votes in the United States. The four states that have the most percentage of disenfranchisement are Kentucky (26 percent), Virginia (22 percent), Florida (21 percent), and Tennessee (21 percent). Only two states have restrictions Maine and Vermont and only 12 states have prison, parole, probation, and post sentencing. Florida, Iowa, and Kentucky also banned convicts for the rest of their lives. “The felon and ex-felon populations may be large, but how many of them would actually turn out to vote? Overall

Felony disenfranchisement operates contrary to the goals of ensuring public safety and reducing reoffending by alienating from society those individuals that the criminal justice system is simultaneously attempting to reintegrate. Further, as the Committee has noted, state disenfranchisement laws are problematic not only due to the vast numbers of potential voters they affect, but also their disproportionate impact on racial minorities, particularly African Americans and Hispanics. Further, many of these laws extend punishment beyond the walls of the prison by continuing to disenfranchise individuals who are on probation, parole or have completed their full sentences. For this reason, it is particularly important that the Committee urge the United States to provide its rationale for continuing to deprive individuals with felony convictions of the right to vote after they are no longer

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

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.

It is an assumption that race is a main factor in felony disenfranchisement because it prevents political involvement from African Americans and other minority races who are convicted of crimes that offenses are underlined in Felony Disenfranchisement laws that Haygood suggest are “offenses considered to be committed by the majority of blacks.” It could be supported that “more than one-third of the total disenfranchised population are black men” (Fellner). Due to these numbers the minority is disproportionally represented because of the astronomical amount of people in one race who are prohibited from voting due to their criminal activity.

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.

full. Some people believe parole offers give criminals a chance at producing a better life for

African American men born in the United States in 2001 have a one in three chance of being incarcerated at some point in their lifetime, according to Department of Justice statistics. An even greater number will have a criminal record and face the host of collateral consequences that emanate from a criminal record. As Michelle Alexander wrote, “An extraordinary percentage of black men in the United States are legally barred from voting today, just as they have been throughout most of American history. They are also subject to legalized discrimination in employment, housing, education, public benefits, and jury service, just as their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents once were.”, as gathered

In 2016, about 2.5% of the adult US population, or 6.1 million potential voters, were deprived of the right to vote because of a felony conviction. (Kozlowska) A felony is defined as “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,” including murder, the sale or manufacture of drugs, treason, and even tax evasion. (Google) Disenfranchisement is the state of being deprived of a right or privilege, especially the right to vote. The question of whether or not ex-felons should be disenfranchised is still discussed today; some believe that ex-felons can repay their debt to society by not voting, and some, vice versa. Unfortunately,

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.

By making the restoration of voting privileges more difficult in general, the black community is negatively affected due to this rising segregation of the prison system. If other states follow the above patterns by making the restoration of privileges more tedious while combining the disproportionate amounts of incarcerated African Americans, the nation will wholly target that population in inhibiting their rights to vote.

More studied than the effect of felon disenfranchisement on individuals is the effect on the wider community. These laws diminish the voice of the Black community in multiple ways. First, they generally dilute the power of the Black vote, particularly because the disenfranchised population of a city tends to be concentrated in relatively few neighborhoods. For example, a 1992 study “showed that 72% of all of New York State's prisoners came from only 7 of New York City's 55 community board districts,” and a 2003 study showed that “53% of Illinois prisoners released in 2001 returned to Chicago, and 34% of those releases were concentrated in 6 of 77 Chicago communities.” This is problematic because, as law professor Debra Parkes summarizes: “When the views of one group are systematically cut out of the political process, the public debate will be skewed.” When the disenfranchised are concentrated in few neighborhoods, the political power of those neighborhoods is reduced.