Have rights been given so that they can be taken away as punishment when one does wrong? What does it take to reclaim these rights? If you deal with the consequences including served your time to society should you be able to reclaim your rights? In a democracy every citizen of the established country has a say so in decisions made by the government through elected representatives. Everyone has that right except ex-convicts. I believe that ex-cons should receive the same rights as other citizens especially when it comes to voting on who will run the country in which they live in. Some might argue that you “can’t trust the judgment of an ex-con” but one could argue that you also cannot trust the judgment of a person who committed the same crime …show more content…
just failed to get caught. You also cannot trust the judgment of mentally ill such as bipolar disorder or a schizophrenic. Are they not allowed to vote either? The Eighth Amendment “prohibits excessive sanctions, and demands that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense.” The argument is that allowing prisoners to vote would be too much money as well as unethical. The fact that prisoners lose many rights does not imply they should lose all their civil rights. Not allowing prisoners the right to vote is likely to undermine respect for the rule of law allowing prisoners to vote, on the other hand may strengthen their social skills and commitment to the common good and promoting legally responsible participation in civil society. In the Spring of 2005 Edward Feser wrote an article in the City Journal called “Should Felons Vote?” Many citizens have been protesting this topic for a long time on whether the right to vote should be unavailable for felons.
In the City Journal editorial entitled, “Should Felons Vote?” Edward Feser argues if having felons vote it would make any contribution to society. He says that if felons had the right to vote more democrats would be in power and felons would feel like they fit back into society making them act more civilized. But the question still is asked if this is considered a fair punishment. Feser says that this would pull votes more to “the left”. If the statement is true, it is questionable as to if that is the reason that felons are disenfranchised. Should felons have the right to vote? Many ex-cons would like to be given the chance to vote but because of their previous infractions they are unable to participate in such activities. When being punished twice for the same crime they are a victim of double jeopardy. Some people might ask why they should be allowed to vote when they have committed a crime against society. Others might say why should we give them a chance to contribute to society. One can wonder if this is just considered unfair punishment or is it …show more content…
discrimination. If ex-felons were allowed to vote in Florida back in 2000 then Al Gore would have won the presidential election, and the same would have be the results when Kerry ran for president in 2004.
Due to this reason, most republicans do not want to give ex-cons the privilege of voting. Because of the fact that many felons were not able to vote in forty-eight states back then the results of the presidential election was different. The thought of whether a felon will vote republican or democratic should not be a factor in allowing them to be re-enfranchised. Unfortunately that is a major factor. People have to decide if felons should have to right to vote or not but, should this be decided by the fact that felons may vote for the Democratic
Party? To alleviate such a problem Hilary Clinton started endorsing voting rights for ex-cons. She has been trying to get laws passed in order to place more Democrats in higher office. Many felon advocates will argue that the felon has already been punished once when being sent to jail for the wrong doing that they have done. They are being punished again when they are not allowed to vote. John Lock believes that “someone who would violate another person’s rights to natural rights should be punished by having his rights taken away to vote.” In other words he feels as though since that criminal has violated another person’s rights they shouldn’t be able to get the privilege to vote yet alone obtain their own rights. People who disagree with Feser could say that Feser was being bias when he stated “that no matter how good the ex-cons act that they will not change.” By believing that, Feser as well as the ones who agree with him believe that ex-cons should not be given the right to vote. People who disagree with that statement argue that an ex-con not allowed to vote is like they are being punished twice for the same crime. Studies show that people even believe this could show that the system is being racist and discriminate due to the fact that majority of the population in prisons consist of blacks. An appeal to logos is made by citing examples from the ex-con advocates and a Times Journal article. One could try appealing to more independents that agree with the thought of giving ex-cons the right to vote. The point is made clear throughout the article of Feser and helps when considering peoples emotionally appeal when dealing with votes. John Lock states the fact that “all human beings have certain rights by nature and that the government existed to protect the rights and that it might be monarchical.” As long as these rights remain protected and retain their loyalty to the government, then the question to rather the ex-cons should vote becomes more legitimate. It is imperative to consider the fundamental rights of being a citizen of the United States. Some who believe ex-cons should vote, think that it is biased for the government to decide which rights it can take away and which it cannot. Everyone seems to want to advertise their obligation to their “family values” but not very many seem to want to speak on it. Ex-cons can’t really find a way of getting around the fact of not being allowed to vote. No matter what they do they have committed an infraction and can’t go back to change what happened. Due to that they will always be classified as an ex-con and never be able to vote. Should we be a little less strict when it comes to having an ex-con vote? In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal they discussed how even if an ex-con seems to have changed and shown that they are doing society better, they shouldn’t be rewarded with the opportunity to vote. “Ex-cons who return their videos on time doesn’t mean they should be rewarded with free rental privileges at Blockbuster.” Even though they show this and show society that they are doing better they will not be able to vote, and have the opportunity to change. There is no easy answer to this problem. Many groups would insist that ex-cons would have the opportunity to vote if they show the society that they are capable enough to work hard to change them. They might began to think that maybe an ex-con could actually contribute to recidivism by keeping ex-offenders and their families disengaged from the civic mainstream
Typically the most basic civil liberties are found in a country’s bill of rights and then that country passes amendments as needed in order to grow the peoples’ civil liberties, or shrink them if need be. Now, in the case of the United States the people are not “granted“ civil liberties by the...
To be blunt if we keep denying released felons the right to vote we will keep losing touch with the fundamentals of our democracy. Our poll numbers will keep going down and people who want to vote won’t be able to. We will be denying them a helpful tool for reintegration or rehabilitation even if it doesn’t it might show us when someone is ready to become apart of society and stop reckless behavior. Also, just like in the case of Leola Strickland let people who just made a small mistake and still want to vote another
In the United States 2.2 million citizens are incarcerated on felony charges. Laws in America prohibit felons from voting. As a result, on Election Day 5.3 million citizens of America are disenfranchised because of crimes they once committed. Though they once broke the law, they have served their time and have been punished adequately in accordance with the American Justice System. Felons should regain full voting rights after their stint in prison.
Many people believe that felons do not deserve the right to vote. For these people, voting is not an inherent right; rather it is a privilege given to deserving people that wish to make a positive change to their lives. Some believe that, “…there is no reason for a felon to vote or to debate about whether or not they have that right…they made the choice to break the law, so why should they have any say in making it?” {Siegel} In this point of view, giving felons the right to vote is similar to rewarding them. With the right to vote, felons are still able to sway decisions regarding the lives of a society they are no longer a part of. Felons are meant to be punished, stripped of numerous rights including that of voting. Punishments, then, are made to restrict a person, not give them more freedom and decision.
Michelle Alexander, in her book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, examines the development of institutionalized racism following the war on drugs, and how it has created what Alexander calls a “New Jim Crow era,” or a racial caste in the US. Alexander describes this undercaste as, “a lower caste of individuals who are permanently barred by law and custom from mainstream society,” (Alexander, 32). Not only is this because of mass incarceration rates among black men, but extends to the effects that these branded felons must face beyond prison walls. By checking the well known box on any application, it has become legal for almost any institution or corporation to discriminate against a marked felon. Alexander notes that, “Once you’re labeled a felon, the old forms of discrimination – employment discrimination, housing discrimination, denial of the right to vote, denial of educational opportunity, denial of food stamps and other public benefits, and exclusio...
Once released from prison, he or she is deemed a felon. Losing the right to vote, not being able to serve on a jury, and inability to enforce his or her second amendment is just a few of the disadvantages of serving time, but this is just the textbook interpretation. There is no much more that is at stake when you step foot behind bars. Once a person gains their freedom the better question to ask is what wasn’t taken form them? Their job if there was one in the first place, their children, their family, and most importantly the part of the person that made them a member of society.
Individuals convicted of a felony should not lose their right to vote. The right to vote is a
... For example, one right a may be able to override another right b at the individual level of rights; your right to enjoy doing z or your right not to be interfered with your enjoyment of z is “trumped” by my personal property rights to z. But one might ask: can’t rights be suspended or restricted? For instance, is it not permissible to use the death penalty or to restrict a person’s liberty when they have committed a crime? There may be other, perhaps utilitarian reasons to allow these things, but it doesn’t follow that these acts are morally justified at the same time.
- These rights are natural rights, petitions, bills of rights, declarations of the rights of man etc.
The whole idea of taking away a convicted felon’s voting rights started in Rome when they were the controlling empire. Nowadays, a majority of prisons throughout the United States are allowing felons to vote on who becomes the next president. Even though they have committed murder, rape, thievery, we blow off those thoughts and allow felons to have a say in who runs this beautiful country. So the question is, should we allow convicted felons to vote? Not a chance would I ever say yes into letting felons choose our next president! Would you want to stand next to a convicted felon as you vote? I have a hard time imagining this act.
In most states ex-felons are not allowed to vote. This takes away a large portion of the voting population because of how many ex-felons there are right now and the many more that will be in the future. Ex-felons may also have a very hard time finding a job or a place to live. Legally landlords are allowed to deny an ex-felon. In Carbondale Illinois rental properties owners “Home Rentals” does background checks to make sure that none of their potential renters are felons. If they are felons Home Rentals claims that they will deny them the privilege of living in one of their properties. Ex-felons may also have a hard time finding jobs. Not many employers are willing to employ ex-felons for the fear of more crime or less commitment. Though denying these ex-felons jobs will not help the economy, only giving them jobs can help that.
Opponents to mass incarceration like Michelle Alexander have called it the “New Jim Crow”, a social institution aimed at limiting the rights of African Americans. Upon their release criminals are legally denied the right to vote, excluded from juries, and placed in a position of subordination. Others would suggest that, “cultural shifts, political realignments, changes in job prospects for low-skilled men, and perhaps most importantly, legal changes” have led to the severe increase and absolute disparity in the rates of black imprisonment over the late 20th and early 21st centuries. One thing is certain, mass incarceration would be justifiable if crime decreased but that is just not the case. Evidence has shown that the benefits of mass imprisonment in reducing crime have diminished over time and incarceration is now a much less effective method for crime control than it was before the 1990s. Due to factual evidence of high rates racial disparity in imprisonment, mass incarceration can be seen as a significant generator of social inequality. The history and the study of mass incarceration is important because it defines us as a society just like slavery and Jim Crow once
felons should be allowed to obtain their GED but they should not have the opportunity to
What is education? Should education be limited to those who are free in society and not locked up behind bars? Education is a broad term which can be interpreted in many different ways, however , it is typically defined as the action or process of teaching , especially in a school, university,or college. As we seek to refine and reform education we must understand that education expands much farther than just the classroom. For instance education in jail, it 's a gateway for prisoners to come out as a new person and have a different view on life For example Malcolm X. Also it 's less likely for a prisoner to reoffend because they 're more likely to get a job with degree they earn while being incarcerated . Also this can help save tax money.
Suffering from an addiction is punishment enough, sending drug addicts to jail is not the solution. Addicts are suffering already by not having a place to stay. Most of the time addicts do not remember where their family is located at and they need help to get better.That is why I am saying that addicts should go to rehab instead of prison.