The Importance Of Disenfranchisement

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.

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

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

They have opinions too and they are citizens. They might have committed a crime but that doesn’t mean you have to take away all of their rights. Some of the felons might change while their in prison. If you allow them to vote then that is 2% more people who can vote now. Without them voting not all citizens are voting. All citizens might not vote anyways but at least they get the option.

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.

“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

Felons should be restored the right to vote because the fourteen Amendment states all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Therefore, no persons should be denied within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. However, restoring felons the right to vote will help improve the voting rate in America to increase. During the present election it claims that voting rate decrease because citizen did not vote when they are permitted the right to vote. Recent headline called Pew Research Center report claims that the voting rate got a decrease because citizen didn’t vote because he or she realizes their votes will not be checked. Second, they were busy with family issues at home, work/school

Your first amendment of the United States Constitution gives you a right to free speech, the ability to speak your mind about whatever topic you want, and people will have opinions politicians who are going to decide how your everyday lives will go. It has been said that disenfranchisement of voting for felons came about to keep people of color from voting, since the majority of prison population was of color.

The voice of millions of Americans can’t be heard due to the disenfranchisement laws, which is vital living in a country that depends on votes for elected officials. There are many supporters and non-supporters of the disenfranchisement laws, and “since 1975 there have been 13 states that liberalized their laws, 11 states have passed further limitations on felons, and 3 states have passed both laws” (Manza, 2004). There is an on going debate among citizens and states whether or not to amend the disenfranchisement laws and allow more convicted ex-felons to use their voting rights. Some believe their voting rights should not be restored, because they are criminals, and it’s a part of being a criminal. Others are fighting that their voting rights should be restored, that people make mistakes, and if they have completed their sentence then they have served their punishment. Research shows a consensus

This felony disenfranchisement came about to keep blacks from voting; it didn’t have anything to do with keeping criminals from voting. However, the stigma has always been that most crimes are committed by blacks. Black Americans who are of the voting age are four times more likely to lose their voting rights than the rest of the adult population, with 1 of every 13 black adults disenfranchised nationally. Nationally 2.2 million people are black citizens that are banned from voting. In three states more than one in five black adults are disenfranchised; Florida has 23 percent, Kentucky has 22 percent, and Virginia has 20 percent (Chung, 2014).

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.

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.

Disenfranchisement is the act of removing a privilege or legal right. For example, voter disenfranchisement is making a certain requirement in order to vote, which can make the voter that has legal right to vote, meet a specific requirement in order to vote. There by disenfranchising the voter the right to vote. Predominantly targeting the minorities.

After felons leave a prison or a jail, they sometimes have a hard time fitting and becoming an active part of society. “If felons are given the right to vote they are three times less likely to commit future crimes” (Kander 6). If felons are voting and becoming active members of society, then they will not be committing crimes and will not be going back to prison. The main purpose of prisons and jails is rehabilitation and voting will give felons a second chance. “Studies have shown that people with felony convictions who vote had a lower recidivism rate than non-voters.” (Kander 5). That proves that if given a second chance felons will more than often choose the righteous path and rehabilitate themselves.