The Time Of Ancient Greeks And Romans

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

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.

In examining the impact that the ancient world has had on modern Western civilization, the two ancient civilizations which are frequently understood as having had the greatest influence are Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. These two civilizations would eventually come to shape much of what would become the modern European culture, politics and society, and by extension, a vast proportion of global culture and society. In examining the trajectory of modern history in an era of globalization of Western ideas and modes of living, the importance of these civilizations in world history is extensive, contributing to cultural, political and social trends which may well dominate the globe in the future.

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

“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.

About 6.1 million Americans convicted of a felony have been barred from voting by the law in most states (Chung 1). The condition regarded to as felon disenfranchisement is controlled by laws provided for by the individual states within the US. Unlike the states of Maine and Vermont which allow felons the right to vote while in incarceration, most other states have withdrawn the right from convicts. Ten states in the country have permanently restricted specific felons from participating in elections. With the argument that the country’s legacy in safeguarding democracy through felon disenfranchisement, opponents of the idea assert that by completing their sentences, felons have paid the debt owed to the society and should have their privileges and rights fully restored. They further assert that part of the efforts to uphold democracy is to get rid of unfair provisions such as laws advocating for felon disenfranchisement. On the other hand, proponents note that felons and ex-felons should be allowed to vote due to the expression of their poor judgment. While the debate continues to elucidate divergent views, numerous factors illustrate that felon disenfranchisement is inconsequential and does not contribute to the betterment of the country.

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.

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 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

Back in 1974 three individual ex-felons, disenfranchised even after their sentences and paroles were completed, came to the Supreme Court believing that their fourteenth amendment right to equal protection of the law was violated by three different California county officials and the Secretary of State who denied them voting registration due to their ex-felon status. When the case was brought forth to the Supreme Court, the defendants, as in the three officials and the Secretary of State, acquiesced and decided henceforth that they would register ex-felons who have completed their sentence and paroles. But the Supreme Court case was not obsolete because the case persisted to be on behalf of all disenfranchised ex-felons in the state of California who were under similar situations.

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

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.