Reform Of The Civil Disabilities Of Felons

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

Nationally, every 7 minutes, another person enters prison. And every 14 minutes, someone returns to the streets, beaten down and, more often than not, having suffered a great amount of violence during his or her incarceration. Professionals will tell you that incarceration really does very little to stop crime, but we go on spending billions of dollars in order to lock up more and more people. We have become the country with the highest incarceration rate in the industrialized world. (National Criminal Justice Commission)

Felon disenfranchisement is the loss of the right to vote for people who have committed felonies. When researching deeper into felon disenfranchisement, there is an underlying racial factor that consistently comes up. Some say disenfranchisement of felons is racially oppressive and a threat to democracy, while some argue that it’s functional and that race has no relevance. To start this paper I will give a brief background on felon disenfranchisement in relation to race. I will examine and analyze those who believe that “yes,” disenfranchisement of felons is heavily rooted in racial persecution. I will then examine and analyze those who say “no”, felon disenfranchisement is necessary and has no racial impact. After copious amounts of research, I have come to agree with the “yes” side, because their facts are more persuasive and their use of history is in depth, and as a whole this side delivered a well rounded argument.

In addition, the New Jim Crow is more dangerous than its predecessor. Once a colored defendant is found guilty, he/she will be subject to a “form of punishment that is often more difficult to bear than prison time: a lifetime of shame, contempt, scorn, and exclusion” (142). Felons will find themselves labeled as permanent members of a second-class status in which they will be ineligible for food stamps, public housing, and welfare benefits. Also, they will lose their right to vote and jury service. These consequences send the message that ex-offenders are no longer wanted in our society. Unable to drive, get a job, find housing, or even quality for public benefits, many ex-offenders lose their children, their dignity, and eventually freedom –landing back in jail after failing to play by the rules that seem hopelessly stacked against them (143). As a result, ex-offenders are no longer a part of us –the deserving— because of the New Jim Crow.

In this essay, I will be in support of felons having their voting rights restored after serving their prison sentences and completing all terms and conditions of probation or parole successfully. My reasons for supporting the restoration of felons’ voting rights are because voting is a “right” under the Constitution of the United States. After a person serves their prison sentence; some ex-felons have the ability to be and remain rehabilitated and live productive lives. Also, the laws are changing making it easier to be charged as a felon. Most of the people that are against felons voting claim that they make bad judgments because they do not abide

The votes of felons are also relevant enough that if they were permitted to engage in democracy, they could change political outcomes. While disenfranchised felons only make up a little over 2% of the voting age population, their votes have been found to have enough influence to affect elections. Since those convicted of felonies are likely to be of a minority race or poor, it is likely felon disenfranchisement laws take away votes from the Democratic party and Independent votes. People of color make up roughly 60 percent of the prison population in the U.S. and make up larger proportions of the Democratic party than they do Republican or Independent (Kerby, 2012). Nearly 90% of the Republican party is white, 70% of Independent parties are

This article focused its searchlight on felon disenfranchisement by gluing it eco-social theory in order to elucidate how approximately 13% of African American men are denied voting right by virtue of a felony conviction. It delve into how felon disenfranchisement laws contribute to racial health disparities in the United States. Purtle, Jonathan (2013) identified two potential pathways that facilitates the viability of the felon disenfranchisement laws that stand more disadvantageous to African Americans; these pathways include: (a) inability to change inequitable public policies that differentially allocated resources for health, and (b) inability to reintegrate into society by voting which add heavily to allostatic load. Purtle, Jonathan (2013) built on universal human rights that are codified by international and regional human rights agreements which United States also ratified and adopted; the Universal human rights are widely built on political participation and equal treatment, so felon disenfranchisement laws enacted in 48 States contradicts United States ratification to universal human rights and equal suffrage (Uggen, C. Manza, J. 2006). Subsequently, the author maintain that disproportionate effects of felon disenfranchisement laws on African American violates guarantee to nondiscrimination as a human

Felon disenfranchisement is a serious issue in the United States. It removes a person’s right to vote after incarceration. It is sometimes speculated that disenfranchisement racially discriminates. This is often thought to be true because the majority of those who are disenfranchised are African American males. While it does have roots in racial disadvantaging, it does not

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.

Miles focuses on the impact of felon disenfranchisement on state‐level voter turnout First, the paper expresses that the number of disenfranchised felons is so large that conventional measures of voter turnout, which fail to correct for the ineligibility of disenfranchised felons, significantly understate the participation rates of African‐American men who would otherwise be eligible to vote Second, the paper demonstrates the triple‐difference backdrop to test whether disenfranchisement actually reduces the turnout of African‐American men

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

Consider this scenario in America today - a middle-age African-American man is not eligible to vote. This man’s father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great grandfather shared the same misfortune during their lifetime. The original patriarch could not vote as a slave, his son was beaten by the Ku Klux Klan for trying to vote, the grandson was intimidated by the Ku Klux Klan for trying to vote, and the great-grandson was prohibited from voting by poll taxes and literacy tests. The middle-age African-American man cannot vote today due to being on probation for a felony conviction.1 This same man probably had an ineffective attorney to represent him when he was arrested, was offered a choice of a plea bargain as opposed to a stringent sentence, and was subsequently placed under the control of the criminal justice system either by a prison sentence, probation, or parole. Once released from the criminal justice system, the man may be stigmatized for the rest of his life and may return to prison.2 As the middle-age man tries to re-integrate himself into mainstream society, his felony status can negatively impact potential employment, housing, and government assistance. This same man’s treatment could be compared to man living in a southern state at the height of Jim Crow.3 Jim Crow was a practice enforced by laws in the United States (U.S.) enacted between 1874 – 1975 to keep black and white races apart. The goal of these laws was to create “separate but

Although inmates may not have full Constitutional rights while incarcerated, they are entitled to basic human rights, freedom and dignity. U.S. penal systems have been reformed at the beginning of the 1960’s. The reason for this reformation is to prevent inhumane treatment, provide inmates with religious freedom, and due process (Smith, 2010). The U.S. Supreme Court

never implemented as intended. Although the contours of the correctional system changed—the juvenile court, indeterminate sentencing, probation, parole, and discretion became integral features of this system—the resources and knowledge needed to provide effective treatment to offenders were in short supply. Cullen and Gendreau (2000).

With the highest incarcerated rate in the world, does the United States prison systems offer quality rehabilitation or just punishment? According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there was approximately 706 prisoners per 100,000 residents, or about 2.2 million prisoners in 2012 and within 3 years, almost 6 out of 10 released inmates will be rearrested and half will be back in prison. According to data from www.gpo.gov , the vast majority of prisoners are not rehabilitated. Two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested and one-half are re-incarcerated within three years of release from prison. Rates of recidivism rise to approximately 75%-85% of released prisoners are likely to be re-arrested within a decade of release. Successful rehabilitation is vital when releasing an inmate into the community as it produces a significant reduction in criminal recidivism. The purpose of incarceration is to protect the public and punish as well as rehabilitate the criminal. It is designed to change an inmate's view of life and alter their future behavior when re-entering society. Prisons offer education, labor, and other rehabilitation sources to inmates, so why is the recidivism rate so high with these programs in place?