Inmates’ right to vote Part A A description of the loss of incarcerated inmates’ right to vote Exercising the right to vote is the foundation of American democracy. However, state disfranchisement laws have prevented a significant number of Americans from voting, especially those with criminal records. The deprivation of voting rights for incarcerated individuals is not inherently for punishing offenders. This deprivation does not also promote the reintegration of criminal offenders into the lawful society. Individuals defending these laws frequently cite the loss of the voting rights as a necessary move for the prevention of voter fraud. In some cases, supporters of these laws claim that depriving incarcerated individuals of voting rights assists in preserving the “purity of the ballot box” (ACLU, 2005). For this reason, ensuring the realization of this purity necessitates the exclusion of the incarcerated individuals since they are seemingly not virtuous. In …show more content…
most states, the disfranchisement of individuals with felony convictions is applicable. However, the convicted felons in Vermont and Maine do not lose this right. Conversely, some states such as Mississippi and Alabama allow some felons to vote. In spite of the identifications, most of the states allow non-disfranchising felons to vote, including individuals detained in jail awaiting trials as well as individuals that might be serving time for a misdemeanor. Even though the individuals can vote, the provision is theoretically applicable. The complexities surrounding the disfranchisement laws are considerably confusing, which might lead to the misapplication of the policies. For this reason, the laws bar a considerable number of eligible felons from voting, which many of them thinking that they are ineligible to vote because of their past criminal records. The consideration of whether race is an underlying issue The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics identifies that in the year 2004, the majority of individuals in jail were from ethnic or racial minorities. Considering that most of these minorities are more likely to be in jail than whites are, it would be safe to say that race is an underlying issue. Historically, the United States has been deliberately denying colored people the right to participate in the nation’s democratic process (ACLU, 2005). Some states created obstacles that could prevent the people of color from exercising their democratic privileges even after the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in the year 1870. ALCU refers to The Sentencing Project to posit that several states apply the felony disfranchisement in a manner that silences a considerable number of non-white voters (ACLU, 2005). This provision is still evident in spite of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which made the practices illegal. Personal view on whether inmates should have the right to vote I believe that it would not be appropriate to take away inmates’ right to vote. This position emanates from the idea that the decisions politicians make regarding the laws and policies governing the country affect the citizens, inmates included. The laws could relate to the criminal justice system, which might have a direct implication for their lives. Prison holds individual with a variety of opinions regarding citizenship, which includes the aspect of rehabilitating criminals. For this reason, having an audience with inmates and giving them the right to vote is a step towards ensuring that the country focuses on the long-term rehabilitation of inmates genuinely (Walsh, 2012). Part B A description of mandatory release and good-time release The mandatory release refers to the lawful discharge of inmates after serving the maximum length of their sentencing. In this case, a prisoner is released after serving the maximum time of his or her initial sentence minus the good-time credits that the inmate might have earned (Gaines & Miller, 2007). Conversely, good-time release refers to the early discharge of an inmate under determinate sentencing systems (Gaines & Miller, 2007). In this case, an inmate whose conduct while serving his or her sentence has been commendable is entitled to a reduction of a percentage off his or her sentence. The idea behind the model is that the inmate will be less likely to reoffend upon release, which means that the reduction is an incentive for not creating trouble in prison. However, the nature of the offense committed determines whether an inmate will receive to good-time release. A description of the way in which inmates receives/apply good-time credit to their release An inmate can receive or apply a good-time credit to their release by applying for parole. In this case, prisoners get the privilege to face the parole board, which expects the prisoner to fulfill several expectations. For instance, the board expects the prisoner to bear responsibility for the crimes he or she might have committed and take advantage of some of the programs made available in prisons. These programs include vocational training, Alcoholic Anonymous, and GED programs, among others. Conversely, the board looks into the conduct of the prisoner during incarceration to determine whether he or she might have been cited by the administration for misconduct (Jones, Brown, & Zamble, 2010). An essential assessment that the parole board engages in involves the determination of whether the prisoner would reoffend after being released from prison. The determination of whether the process is beneficial to the entire criminal justice system Determining whether the parole process is beneficial requires the assessment of the rate of recidivism among other variables.
It has been hypothesized that a sizable number of released offenders with an ongoing reentry service plan are less likely to recidivate, which is an advantageous element for the criminal justice system (Jones, Brown, & Zamble, 2010). However, the effectiveness of the parole program depends on the recidivism conditions that the parolees face after their release. Some of the unfortunate consequences that the released inmates might face include homelessness, unemployment, and exposure to alcohol and drug abuse (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). These elements hinder the effectiveness of the utilization of parole programs for inmate reentry to the society after their release from prison. However, it would be essential to implement such a program for the reduction in overcrowding and cost incurred in the nation’s prisons. Personal view on whether inmates should be able to earn good-time
release It would be beneficial to allow inmates to earn good-time release. However, the fundamental element to consider relates to the determination of the mechanisms to utilize for ensuring the inmate’s successful reentry to the society. One of the mechanisms for determining the successful reentry includes identifying whether the inmate abuses the privileges available in a less secure facility. If the prisoner engages in any form of abuse of the privileges provided, he or she should be locked up in a maximum facility to prevent him from reentry to the community and to reoffend, which is essential for ensuring the safety of citizens. Some individuals might have been accused and imprisoned wrongly, which makes it essential to provide them with the good-time release provision since they might not be harboring criminal behavior. References American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2005). Voting while incarcerate: A Tool Kit for Advocates Seeking to Register, and Facilitate Voting by, Eligible People in Jail. Right to Vote Report. Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E., & DeJong, C. (2014). Criminal justice in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. R. (2007). Criminal justice in action: The core. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Jones, N., Brown, S., & Zamble, E. (2010). Predicting Criminal Recidivism in Adult Male Offenders: Researcher Versus Parole Officer Assessment of Dynamic Risk. Criminal Justice And Behavior, 37(8), 860-882. Walsh, C. (2012). Why prisoners should be given the right to vote. The Guardian. Retrieved 15 November 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/05/prisoners-right-to-vote.
What if one day you weren't allowed to voice your opinion about the people who run our country, your country, in other words, if you couldn’t vote? A lot of people don’t vote, but what if you didn’t even have the right to do so? In 12 states, ex-felons aren’t allowed to vote even after serving their prison time. When you think of a felon you probably think of someone that has done terrible things and shouldn't have a voice in politics, but that figure should be changed. One lady, by the name of Leola Strickland, isn’t allowed to vote because she has a felony on her record for postdating a few checks and having them bounce because she lost her job(1).
As of 2015, 12 out of 50 states inmates, parolees, probationers, and ex-felons are not allowed to vote (Green). Felons who have paid their debt to society should have all of their rights and privileges restored thus meaning their right to vote. We allow these ex-felons to get married, buy and own a house, have a family, and drive a car, why not allow them to vote? These are the basic rights of a US citizen, but because they served jail time, they are unfit to choose our next leaders. “Nearly 6 million voting-age Americans can’t vote in the 2016 primaries and presidential election because of various state felon disenfranchisement laws”(Green). The right to serve in jury duty is also excluded from ex-felons. As a US citizen, voting-age men and women are put on a list which is pulled from the voters. This list is used to find men and women for jury duty, because they are in able to
Today, the citizens of the United States must push Congress to formulate an oversight measure to fix voter disenfranchisement. By itself, Supreme Court Ruling Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder does minimal damage to the voting process of the United States. The court ruled discriminatory practices of district actions half a century old unconstitutional, but left a responsibility for Congress to modernize the Voting Rights Act, to ensure that no district nor individual is discriminated against. Given the history of the United States’s voter suppression and the original need for the Voting Rights Act, a new, modern voter equality policy is of dire importance.
The feelings of allowing felons to vote is chilling; those who have been to prison have committed crimes and are out to get their rights back. But it is clear that felons should be “disenfranchised because they have broken the laws,” says Edward Feser, a philosophy professor and writer. Yet people are still questioning whether it is moral to keep felons from getting the rights to vote. Disenfranchising felons is unintentional in racial issues, and is used to punish felons to teach them that once they've broken the laws, they have lost their voting rights as well, and it would also keep felons from violating fellow citizens' voting rights.
Zhang, S. X., Roberts, R. E. L., & Callanan, V. J. (2006). Preventing parolees from returning to prison through community-based reintegration. Crime & Delinquency, 52(4), 551-571.
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.
The book titled Beyond Bars: Rejoining Society After Prison offers invaluable lessons of how both men and women may successfully depart prison and return to society. The book was written by Jeffrey Ross and Stephen Richards, both of whom are college professors and criminal justice experts. The population of prisons across the United States has increased dramatically in recent decades despite overall crime rates decreasing during the same time period. Approximately seven million American people are in some form of correctional custody. Between the years1980 and 2000, America’s prison population increased by 500 percent. During the same time period, the number of prisons grew by 300 percent (Ross and Richards, xii). Close to 50 percent of people admitted to confinement have previously served time, exemplifying that the criminal justice system “recycles” inmates through the system again and again (Ross and Richards, xi). Unfortunately, many convicts simply do not remember how to or are ill-equipped to return to society once their sentence ends. Ross and Richards, through their valuable lessons within their book, seek to lessen the problems that ex-prisoners may face when released from prison.
Should Felons Lose the Right to Vote? Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/22/should-felons-lose-the-right-to-vote/. Karlan, Pamela (2004). The 'Pale of the 'Pale of the 'Pale of the "Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate" over Felon Disenfranchisement," Stanford Law Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, pp 56, No. 2 -. 5, Krajick, Kevin. The Species of the World.
Because these changes in sentencing policy have created greater prison populations, laws like the Three Strike Policy have parole officers with a heavier burden. This increased work load transformed the focus of parole supervisors from rehabilitation of ex offenders, to law enforcement. (Travis 241) New modes of surveillance were introduced and by 1997, the rate of successful reentry was at a low of 44%— successful reintegration back into society was not the norm for most individuals. (Austin
Prisons and correctional facilities in the United States have changed from rehabilitating people to housing inmates and creating breeding grounds for more violence. Many local, state, and federal prisons and correctional facilities are becoming more and more overcrowded each year. If the Department of Corrections (DOC) wants to stop having repeat offenders and decrease the volume of inmates entering the criminal justice system, current regulations and programs need to undergo alteration. Actions pushed by attorneys and judges, in conjunction current prison life (including solitary confinement), have intertwined to result in mass incarceration. However, prisoner reentry programs haven’t fully impacted positively to help the inmate assimilate back into society. These alterations can help save the Department of Corrections (DOC) money, decrease the inmate population, and most of all, help rehabilitate them. After inmates are charged with a crime, they go through the judicial system (Due Process) and meet with the prosecutor to discuss sentencing.
...he right to vote. I made a ten question survey that asked questions about letting convicted felons have the right to vote in major elections throughout America. Thirteen out of thirty high school students said that convicted felons should have the right to vote because they are American citizens. The other seventeen people I surveyed said that they should not have the right to vote because they had their chance to perform correctly in society and failed miserably. As you can now see, I have given you many reasons to see that convicted felons should not have the right to vote. They cannot be trusted with such a responsibility as voting for this country’s next leader.
Although this right is considered fundamental, restrictions have been placed on this right. The main restriction is placed on persons convicted of a felony conviction, all felonies, not just infamous ones. Today on Election Day, as Americans wait in line to cast their vote, over 4.65 million people are denied this most fundamental democratic right because of a past or present felony conviction. It is true that some felons can make bad judgments that are provocative and rebellious and the foundation to further jeopardy. In fact, statistics show the number of times prisoners had been arrested was the best predictor of whether they would commit more crimes after being released and how quickly they would return to their criminal ways....
Jacob Zucker CJ101 Mr. Lybarger Prisoner Reentry into the Community There are many problems that exist when it comes to prisoner reentry. The first is the prison experience itself. Siegel (2017) writes, the psychological and economic problems that lead offenders to recidivism are rarely addressed by a stay in prison. Despite rehabilitation efforts, the typical ex-convict is still the same undereducated, unemployed, substance-abusing, lower-socioeconomic-status male he was when arrested. The point Siegel is trying to make is that the prison experience actually worsens the chances of ex-inmates’ success during reentry.
This model of corrections main purpose was to reintroducing the offenders in to the community. This Program was invented to help offenders in the transition from jail to the community, aid in the processes of finding jobs and stay connected to their families and the community. The needs of these individuals are difficult: the frequency of substance abuse, mental illness, unemployment, and homelessness is elevated among the jail population.
America has little tolerance for crime or for offender improvement. Most significantly, incarceration increases the likelihood of reoffending and does not prohibit, deter or lessen the possibility of an offender continuing criminality (Cullen, Johnson, & Nagin, 2011). Reducing recidivism is a complex problem that includes sentencing strategies and opportunities in prison that ensure the least probability of return to the criminal justice