Should Prisoners Able To Vote

Rep. Jim Glenn supports a new bill that has been purposed in Virginia that would automatically restore rights to most felons after they completed their sentence and parole. “Once you pay your price to society and reimburse the people you’ve committed the crime against, you should be given your rights back” (Jim Glenn). He feels like as long as it’s not Murder, the crime that the former inmate had committed is not large enough to take away their voting rights. Another view on this topic comes from (Jessica Brady) stating that naturalized voters must simply pass a language test to earn back their voting rights. Either way you look at this topic the opinions will be varied. The bulk of my gathered sources support inmate voting after their term is up to the exception of murder. I agree with these sources because it’s the fair way to go, if the inmates had been elected to lose their voting rights for good like in Kentucky and Virginia the sense of being free from prison wouldn’t be the same. If an ex-inmate is out of jail he or she should

The practice of prohibiting felons, especially former felons, from voting is anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, and antipathetic. A felon should be permitted to vote, assuming the felon is not a psychopath. Psychopaths are irresponsible, untrustworthy, and if they were allowed to vote, they may influence society in negative ways by voting for the politicians less tough on crime, for example. However, if a democracy is so frail that it cannot withstand the votes of those who are incarcerated, then something is very wrong with the democracy and needs rectifying.

Should a mass murderer vote? Most people would agree that any person with such a body count should not participate in electing those who are next in line to run the country. Now, should a felon of a lesser crime vote? Most would still agree, but when you detail it, it starts to get complicated. A felon who was in prison for selling drugs in order to keep his family afloat? A felon who found himself/herself in a tight spot and made some bad decisions for the sake of their family? These types of details are what complicate the debate over whether or not ex-felons or even felons deserve a vote. It would seem like an easy choice: No. However, the optimal answer should be that it varies case by case. Especially after prison, parole, and probation, there should be a process for ex-felons to gain the right to vote back after they have paid the price for bad deeds.

I believe felons can change or become a better person. Examples, Ethea Farahkhan who is now 55 years old once was a felony, but now a change person with a six grandchildren and working with The NAACP to help restore former felons the right to vote. However, Farahkhan is still lacking the right to vote after being released a month in 1985 up to now, she has not been given the right to vote. Although, she is a self-esteem woman who is doing all she can (1). She still away from trouble and other illegal act but she has not been given the right to vote yet. Another person who is struggling with the same problem is Joseph Hayden an ex-felons who is now a changed person working as director of NLPCA to help people with drug abuse problem, but he too have is still denied the voting rights (1). As Conyers said diminishing the legitimacy of our democratic process, denying voting rights to ex-offenders is inconsistent with the goal of rehabilitation

Do you think people who have been convicted of a crime should be allowed to vote? Felon voting has constantly been a controversial topic discussed over the years in our society. Some believe that “voting is not a privilege, and is a fundamental right” like Waverly Jones, Jr. While others, shown by the editorial from the Daily Leader, believe “that it is only a right given to law-abiding citizens.” Allowing felons to vote is not in our country’s best interest.

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.

This year, there is more than 80,000 people that will be released from prison, they will be returning to their lives with their families, and in their communities. These ex-convicts who are released are going to still be able to buy a house, buy a car, get married, have children, and even get a job. Is allowing them to vote going to cause a danger to society? The eighth amendment states that an excessive sanction on the person is prohibited. Also, there is a set limit on the amount of time they must stay outside of prison before they are able to vote again. Lastly, being an active, participating member of the community helps with rehabilitation. Ex-convicts should be allowed to vote. They are still humans and still citizens who deserve

There are tons of people who believe that prisoners convicted of crimes and receiving a felony should not have the right to vote. They should be punished, voting rights removed, do their time and walk away. However, many people think prison should be about serving your time, not losing your right to vote when u already have lost your freedom of speech along with their say in things to come.

The first reason that felons should be able to vote after having served their time is that many crimes are widespread across the nation. A prime example of this is the possession of relatively large amounts of marijuana. Prohibiting felons from voting removes millions of voters from the electorate. In a country debating the legalization of marijuana, some felonies aren’t serious

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.

-The act of losing the right to vote for inmates has been around for ages, actual its been around since ancient Greece and Rome. This act was known as ' ' Civil Death ' '. Civil Death is when a person loses all or almost all civil rights due to incarceration. When it comes to inmates losing the right to vote many are on the fence. For instance Steve Chapman, a columnist and editorial writer at the Chicago Tribune, he completely disagree with inmates losing their right to vote. He believes that if ex-convicts are trusted to own property, marry or even reproduces why cant they have the option of help choosing are future leaders. Steve was even quoted saying ' 'If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn 't let them out of prison in the first place. ' ' However, on the other side of the fence lies people like Roger Clegg President of the Center for Equal Opportunity debate. Roger Clegg completely disagrees with Steve Chapman. In fact Roger believes that inmates or even ex-convicts are not trustworthy and shouldn’t be able to vote. Roger let his opinion known by this following statement “We don’t let children vote, for instance, or non citizens,or the mentally incompetent why? Because we don’t trust them and their judgment So the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy." When it comes to prisoners voting I’m on the fence. A good part of

Prisoners should be granted privileges depending on the type of crime they committed. There’s different types of felonies that determine how long a prisoner is going to stay in prison. Violent crimes such as rape, armed robbery, and murder are most likely to get life sentences . Most prisoners have about the same amount of rights. There’s those prisoners who committed non-violent felonies/crimes but are serving life sentences. Prisoners who committed non-violent felonies; does not involve high levels of damage or serious injury, should have more rights than someone who killed people, betrayed the nation or raped people.

Prison life can be harsh, and time spent in a isolation is even worse. A majority of those in prison spend countless hours in idleness. It would be much better if they used that time to reeducate themselves for a productive life on the outside. Some of the prisoners have serious emotional and mental problems that are never addressed and it is illogical to not attempt to correct these problems before they are released.

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.

Should all prisoners be given the right to vote or should it be limited only to some or to none at all? Provide a reasoned argument for your decision.