The United States is one of the only few democratic countries that disenfranchises convicted felons. An estimated 5.85 million people charged with a felony are banned from voting. Moreover, felon disenfranchisement laws are a form of racial discrimination because a large percentage of felons are Hispanic, Latino or African American that have been incarcerated as a result of racial profiling. Denying felons from voting is unconstitutional since the right to vote and cast a ballot is supposed to be the cornerstone of democracy. Felons who have completed their sentence should be restored their right to vote as they should be able to participate in elections just like every other citizen. Despite being charged with a felony, felons are also American …show more content…
citizens who deserve the right to voice their opinions. Furthermore, the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive sanctions and demands that the punishment for a crime should be proportioned to the offense which exhibits that those states which prevent felons from voting even after their punishment is completed, violate their rights. Our team thus believes that felons should have their right to vote reestablished. Felon disenfranchisement is not only unconstitutional but also further institutionalizes racism. For example, in communities consisting of minorities like African Americans and Hispanics, felony disenfranchisement unlawfully creates disadvantages for freedom of speech. As stated by Eric H. Holder, JD a US Attorney General, “although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction …the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable.” The act of taking away someone’s right to vote notably mirrors the act of forbidding African Americans to vote during the post-Reconstruction Era. Holder refers to the fact that taking away the right to vote essentially excludes any opinions that some minorities could have toward the government. It thus limits the ability for the government to progress as a nation because it limits certain ethnicities, specifically minorities, from expressing their voice or impacting the political process. Furthermore, due to felon disenfranchisement, minorities like some African Americans in Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida have experienced the reinforcement of inequality once again. In an article in The Washington Post by the Editorial Board it states that “African Americans constitute 38.2 percent of the prison population but just 12.6 percent of the general population, a disproportionate share of these disenfranchised people are black.” Due to the fact that African Americans make up most of the people that are incarcerated, felony disenfranchisement exacerbates inequality because it takes away their fundamental rights to vote. Examples on inequality, such as felon disenfranchisement recreate oppression that once existed during the post-Reconstruction Era like Jim Crow laws. Moreover, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic have stated that “of the approximately 100,000 parolees and probationers subject to the state's felon-disfranchisement law, more than 60 percent are African American or Latino,” The ACLU and Rutgers express that it is the result of racial profiling in the criminal justice system. In addition to what the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic have stated, minorities like ¬African American or Latino have been disenfranchised because of racial profiling. They are subjected to an excessive amount of punishment that is disenfranchisement because of the color of their skin. The fact that minorities are losing their voice and fundamental right displays the fact that disenfranchisement further institutionalizes racism in the U.S. Therefore as a progressive nation, the government should not allow felon disenfranchisement because it promotes racism. Overall federal and state government should allow ex-convicts to vote because post-incarceration voting restrictions are a violation of universally accepted human rights standards and disproportionately excludes racial and ethnic minorities. There are millions of people who have committed crimes and completed their sentence, yet their right to vote is denied for the rest of their lifetime which is not only unjust but unconstitutional as well. Many people such as politicians and the population in general, believe that felons should not be allowed to vote because they are not trustworthy. For example, Roger Clegg, JD, President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, argues that “we don’t let children vote...or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent...because we don’t trust them and their judgment.” Clearly, many have the same point of view as they view felons as untrustworthy people because of the crimes they have committed. Indeed, some may have committed a crime such as murder or theft, yet there are cases in which a person may be wrongly accused or they are charged with a felony for the smallest cause such as drug possession. On the other hand, Steve Chapman, a columnist and Editorial Writer at the Chicago Tribune, states that “if we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn’t let them out of prison in the first place.” After felons are released from prison, they are allowed to live a normal life and their rights are restored. However, they are restricted from voting and choosing political leaders that will lead the country they live in. Moreover, felons are American citizen which means that they are equally affected by decisions made, especially those made in the court system. For this reason, citizens are allowed to have a vote and contribute to the public’s opinion. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, a strong document which lays down the bases of which this country was made upon, “All men are created equal.” This applies to every citizen even those who have committed crimes. Every citizen of the United States should be allowed the opportunity in voting so that they can be represented fairly. In the United States Constitution, Amendment VIII states “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” thus it can be stated that felon disenfranchisement can be seen as a form of “excessive” punishment. For example, if an individual has been incarcerated and rehabilitated, in context to the U.S., that person is then stripped away from their fundamental right to vote because they broke the law. It is not only unfair, it is unconstitutional. The act of felon disenfranchisement contradicts what is stated in the Constitution and therefore corrupts the United States in being a democracy. If that ex-convict is rehabilitated and led back into society then their right to vote should be reestablished. If they are disenfranchised then they are receiving a “cruel and unusual punishments” after they have served their time. In conclusion, disenfranchisement is a form of “excessive” punishment and should be illegal because it takes away an individual’s right to vote; therefore, felons should have their right to vote reestablished. In addition, felon disenfranchisement laws conflict with Section I the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment when it states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”.
For example, Jason G. Morgan-Foster, JD, Researcher at New York University School of Law, states “the Framers [of the U.S. Constitution] also viewed disenfranchisement along a continuum, intending the phrase 'or other crime' to apply only to crimes of rebellion or disloyalty to the state, such as treason...we should care about felon disenfranchisement because it inherently contradicts the rest of our constitutional jurisprudence on the right of every citizen to vote.” The premise that Jason G. Morgan-Foster states is that the "Equal Protection Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment does not affirmatively sanctions felon disenfranchisement. As a result, it claims that felon disenfranchisement is unconstitutional because it “abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” If the laws for felon disenfranchisement contradict the basis for federal and state government, then the laws themselves should be ratified to be illegal and felons should just be given the right to
vote.
Some people in our country can’t vote because they have felons for the same reason. They aren’t violent criminals, they just made a small mistake or two and now can’t have a voice in our political system because of it. You are in a sense taking away their voice and they think they no longer matter, they may even commit more crimes if they feel unwanted or left out. When released felons are released and have paid their debt to society denying them the right to vote it is essentially taxation without representation(3).
“Many people say that serious crime committers have shown they aren’t trustworthy” (Clegg). After a felon is released from prison, the expectation is that they will shape up and return to their lives, however most of their lives are completely changed. When a felon is released from prison, they should retain their same rights as a US citizen as well as their right to vote and serve in Jury Duty, because they served their time and cannot be held in double jeopardy, and are valuable assets to the country for work and less homelessness. When felons are released from prison, they should retain the same rights as the average US citizen as well as the right to vote. Nonviolent felons who have served time for more than a year for misdemeanors are unable to vote because their judgment can no longer be trusted.
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.
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.
Felon voting laws limit the restrictions for a felon to vote on any election. “Felon voting has not been federally regulated because some people argue that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be tied to felon disenfranchisement and the Congress has the authority to legislate felon voting in federal elections.” Felon disenfranchisement is excluding people otherwise eligible to vote from voting due to conviction of a criminal offence, usually restricted to the more serious class of crimes, felonies. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures and The Sentencing Project, 1 in 40 adults were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. One purpose of the felon voting laws is the uncertainty of trusting
Individuals convicted of a felony should not lose their right to vote. The right to vote is a birth rights for citizens born in this country. This right is taken for granted by many and is exercised by far too few. As the United States prepares for its 57th presidential election over five million of its citizens will be denied their right to participate in the electoral process. Why would such a large number of people be denied a constitutional right?
Criminal disenfranchisement is defined as the loss of the right to vote by a person convicted of or sentenced to imprisonment for a felony. Since before the civil war, this practice has been a part of the United States justice system mostly as a means to handle the racial issues with voting but then also in regards to the felons and rebels that participated in the Southern “rebellion” during the Civil War. This practice has recently gained some popularity since a debate has developed as to whether it is unconstitutional or not. Is voting a right or a privilege?
The amount of students who are or are in danger of becoming homeless has increase on our country over the years. Although society structured people to attend post-secondary school in order to receive a sustained career, there are some cases where college is simply too expensive. Many homeless students are not receiving a proper education due to these circumstances, which results of them dropping out. Because of this situation, there are different methods to combat students dropping out of college due to financial issues. However, increasing taxes and/or tuition would not benefit the situation without an increase of society’s knowledge and awareness in the topic.
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.
Over the past several decades, the number of prison inmates has grown exponentially. In 1980, prison population had numbers around half a million inmates. A graph of statistics gathered from the U.S. Bureau of Justice shows that between 1980 and 2010, the prison population grew almost five times, topping out at nearly 2.5 million. According to an article in The New York Times, the average time spent in jail by prisoners released in 2009 increased by 36% compared to prisoners released in 1990. Many people, such as those at Human Rights Watch, believe that the increase of these numbers has been because of tough-on-crime laws, causing prisons to be filled with non-violent offenders. This rise in crime rates, prison population, and recidivism, has led politicians as well as ordinary citizens to call for prison reform.
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.
Some of the greatest thinker’s business men/women, and owners has a record. Rather it's being arrested for guilty by association, murder, and etc. Even with degrees some of them will still be put behind bars. Anything can happen at any given moment. Even some of them who has a felony did a three sixty turn around and started their own business or became president of a business or congress. The only question is who would they vote for and why would they vote for them? In certain states if you have a felony you can vote after you did your time, depending on how many felonies you have on record, and etc. I believe felons should have a right to vote if they want to vote. They should have an option on do they want to vote or not. Why? Well let's look at it like this. Let's say
Mandatory minimums, harsh prison sentences imposed on offenders by law, where discretion is limited. Offenders, most of the time nonviolent, are faced with prison terms that are meant for a drug kingpin, not a low level first or second time offender. Mandatory minimums have been proven not to be the answer in our criminal justice system and need to be changed. Mandatory Minimums has created a problem within our society where we send everyone to prison and don 't present offenders with better opportunities. We have turned into a society focused on retribution and deterrence, and have forgotten about rehabilitation.
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.