Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote Analysis

In her book “The New Jim Crow” (2010), Michelle Alexander, a civil rights lawyer and an activist in the civil rights movements, that many people think has long been concluded, argues that the results of prison go well beyond the walls of the facility and can even have a perpetual effect on a person's life. Alexanders exact words on page 142 are “ Once labeled a felon, the badge of inferiority remains with you for the rest of your life, relegating you to a permanent second-class status.” Alexander supports her claim by interviewing people and describing their experiences in prison and their life after prison. She also informs the reader of laws that make it harder for felons to not only get jobs, but also limits their access to housing, and

Convicted felons should have the right to collect their reward for winning the lottery. Today, felons already face a myriad of sanctions on account of their criminal history. For instance, felons may lose voting right, the right to bear arms, and limited employment opportunities. Moreover, thwarting felons from the chance of winning a lottery ticket is an unnecessary infringement on one’s civil rights. In the end, if an individual has enough money to purchase a lottery ticket he or she should be able to receive their prize.

This book discusses social issues such as Mass Incarceration within our society. The purpose of The New Jim Crow is to bring awareness to readers of the role that the Criminal Justice System plays in order to  create a racial system within our country. Further, the book is set  to bring attention

For instance, it has now become a household name and if such an ethic is to be condoned over the next years, this may pose a bigger threat. This threat would amount to a prejudgment review and thus the overall concept would hence hinder total understand of life and how people relate to it. Part 4 I chose this controversial topic over the notion that the mere perception of a felon can alter the reality behind the man’s nature. It is important to mention that the topic represents a cause and it is functionally relevant to various transformations and ways of life.

With having a background already on the idea of what the government interest served by disenfranchising felons. The definition of disenfranchising felons is basically taking away their rights to votes. George Will first starts talking about how people that may have made by chooses when they were younger, have turned it around but since for example, he stated in Florida people that have been convicted have been disgraced because of their past. He uses the example of Desmond Meade that turned his life around trying to paint the picture of someone that was involved in drugs and what not having that one accident or being in a “bummy path of life”. “He is a graduate of Florida International University law school but cannot vote in his home state

In his article, Removing the Stigma of Past Incarceration: Ban the Box, Bill Mosley explains it is “understandable that many employers may believe it is their best interest to avoid hiring ex-convicts. But it is also in the interest of society at large to reintegrate ex-convicts into society and to stop adding to the large underclass of former prisoners with minimal prospects of earning an honest living.” Mosley acknowledges the discomfort an employer may experience knowing one of their employees have a criminal history, however he supports his opinion by immediately explaining the most effective medium of reducing the number of former prisoners in society is to integrate them into the working force. His purport in this piece of text is to accentuate the importance society as a whole has in terms of eliminating criminal discrimination. In addition to Mosley’s argument, Daryl V. Atkinson and Kathleen Lockwood, in their article The Benefits of Ban the Box, claim that “hiring people with criminal records facilitates public safety by reducing recidivism rates.”

May 01, 2016 from ProCon.org: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000668 “Felon voting rights.” National Confederence of State. 2016. May 01, 2016 from NCSL.org: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx#background

Fellow American citizens already copiously penalize felons in everyday life; they look down on them in society, restrict them from large amounts of jobs, and allow their past blunders to haunt them. Therefore, felons’ debt to society has not only been paid for by their prison sentence, but it has also been paid for by their tedious lifestyle. This leads to enfranchisement advocates pondering why The United States continues to punish felons and restrict them from the highest esteem of American culture, especially when they may have ended up with their doomed fate through a vacuous mistake. To further support their point that disenfranchisement fosters an overly severe punishment for felons, supporters of felon voting rights point out the fact that, “in 13 states a felony conviction can result in disenfranchisement, generally for life, even after an offender has completed his or her sentence” (Mauer 3). Champions of felon voting rights disagree with the continual reprimanding of felons after their sentence, as it exceeds their obligations to

Abstract: This paper provides an introduction to the social impact of the collateral consequences (the families left behind) of mass incarceration. The reading will include thoughts from sociological perspectives and empirical studies that focus on the consequences incarceration and re-entry have on the striving family left behind. Partners and families of felons suffer from the system in place that punishes, rather than “corrects,” criminal behavior. Collateral Consequences Patience Kabwasa Prof. Laura Howe Soc 231-C21 May 1, 2014 Collateral Consequences

This is certainly a conflicting issue. While it is fair to value the welfare of law abiding citizens over the welfare of convicted felons, placing restricting on felons presents the issue of those felons lacking the ability to become a contributing member of society. Like you mentioned, that can provide the push needed for them to return to crime rather than working towards a steady life of their own. Further research into the costs and benefits of such restrictions is necessary to determine whether these types of restrictions actually do benefit society overall like they intend to.

However, one main point struck my attention, as quoted from the article, “participants with criminal records frequently end up incarcerated, incurring probation or parole violations, or detained awaiting resolution of new charges.” Hence, with this statement it really is an eye-opening statement because it is a true

Is it right for an individual who has committed a violent crime to be able participate in voting? A felon should not have the right to vote because, they have displayed dishonesty and irresponsibility by committing a serious crime. Felons have questionable judgment when making decisions. Felons who are still incarcerated are not in the right mindset to make decisions for the public’s good interest. Further, there is no way of telling whether the felon has in fact improved in character since serving time.

Specific Purpose Statement: To invite my audience to see the different viewpoints involved with life after prison in the U.S. Thesis: Those who were once in incarceration live with the title of being a former convict the rest of their life. I wish to explore their lives after incarceration and I hope to find the differing opinions some of you may have on those that have re-joined our community. Pattern of Organization: Multiple Perspective Pattern Introduction [Attention-Getter] How would you feel knowing you were standing behind a convict in line at a grocery store?

Ladies and gentlemen, today we are here to discuss an important matter, should prisoners be allowed to vote. This matter is mostly based on opinions but such an important decision cannot be taken lightly. Furthermore, both sides of the argument must be taken into balance before a final decision is taken as this decision may impact the entire future of a country. Monsters that 's what they are.

The idea of supposed criminals having a say in our society sounds doughtying. However, allow me to pinpoint why it’s a positive, to allow criminals to vote, for most people. Recently people have been saying that criminals should not vote because they would vote for something that is wrong, that they believe may be right. Well even after this I believe that criminals should vote.