Should Prisoners Lose Their Civil Rights

Prisoners in the United State lose their rights to various freedoms but that does not imply that they should lose their civil rights. Prisoners are counted in the census and should be allowed to vote; they take a percentage of the population in each state.

Gongchar, Michael. "Should Felons Be Allowed to Vote After They Have Served Their Time?" The Learning Network Should Felons Be Allowed to Vote After They Have Served Their Time Comments. The New York Times, 18 Feb. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

The newspaper is comparing inmates that can’t vote now to the Civil War in the south where the criminal justice banned African American from voting. The newspaper also acknowledges that some crimes committed have harsh sentences. Any person can be incarnated

for nonviolent crimes like tax evasive, check fraud and drug dealing. Gongchar gives facts that nearly six million citizen are banned from voting in the United States. If a prisoner has serve the time in a cell he/she should have access to vote for president.
The newspaper also provides questions at the end for the reader to think about and further the research about the topic.

The newspaper is useful to me because It gives me facts of how many Americans can’t vote because they were incardinated. The questions at the end also triggere4d more questions for my argument essay. For example, there are Americans roaming around each state who are serial killers, rapist, and cyber bully but haven’t got caught of doing the crime and they are still allowed to vote. I understand if a person feels uncomfortable by allowing a criminals to vote for any government poll, but prinioners are now allowed to have an educated while in prison. States are providing mentor to teach prinioners about politics so when they are released it adapts them to the real world.

Lardy Michael, and Heather. "Prisoner Disenfranchisement: Four Judicial Approaches." Berkeley Journal Of International Law 28.1 (2010): 101-141. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.
The author starts with how societies around the world deal with allowing or not allowing prisoners to vote. The author chooses five cases from around the world to support his argument and explains each law case individually. The Canada case Suave vs Canada passed a law in which prisoners who serve more than two years are not allowed to vote. The article breaks down each case by noting if the government justifies it.
The article is helpful to me because it also describes different countries dealing with the right for prisoners to vote.

I can use this to compare on how every state should let the prisoners and ex-convicts vote for the president and not just the governor of the state. The law in which prisoners who serve more than two years are not allowed to vote, is something I find interesting, because it can become a law in the United States. I think the audience would like understand a balance can be made between those who don’t want prisoners to vote and those who do want prisoners to vote. I also want to know the law of how many states contribute to letting inmates vote. I might not use this article as much, but I will use the cases given and research more in

depth.

Shaw, Jerry. "Voting Rights: 6 Reasons Ex-Felons Shouldn't Vote."Newsmax. Newmaxmedia, 15 Apr. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
The article contradicts allowing prisoners to vote by providing six reasons to his audience. Shaw provides the information by describing characteristics about prisoners, and the reason society shouldn’t trust them to vote. Shaw beings to say “Prisoners are dishonest and irresponsible.” The article continues to agree with the law in which removing their right to vote should be a consequence to prisoners. Shaw compares to other people that can’t vote like children and immigrants because they are considered reckless. The article provides a case in Florida where an ex-convict was allowed to vote due to abiding to the law. Shaw concludes if an ex-convict want to vote he/she should gain the trust by
The article disapproves my thesis. Shaw provides opinions and facts on why prisoners shouldn’t be allowed to vote. The article is a consideration on what the opposing side is thinking. I will contribute this to my argument by understanding the issue to both sides. The article also provides an example of a case from Florida in which I can do more research to appeal to my audience.
Schuringa, H.

David. "Congress Must Pass Law That Allows Former Prisoners To Vote." Christian Science Monitor 18 Jan. 2012: n.pag. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

The article explains a bill called the Democracy Restoration Act. The author explains how the bill should be passed in every state in America. In the bill has a required test that the prisoner must pass in order to vote. The article explains the test is to show if the ex-convict cares about society. The author uses logos facts about how many ex-convicts make up society now. Schiriguna provides statics on how many former prisoners have jobs and contribute to the culture itself.
The article is useful to me because the government has been working on passing the Democracy Restoration Act since 2011. The bill if passes it will let prisoners who complete their sentence and return to the civilian world vote. I want to branch out and learn more about other bills that congress want to pass for prisoners allowing them to vote. I understand the author point of view and how it would contradict other people point of view.  The article is a great use to understand the different opinions that contradict what I might state in my

essay.