Pros And Cons Of Felon Disenfranchisement

According to Alexander, the punishment that a convict suffers within prison is nothing compared to the punishments that await the convict on the outside. The first obstacle that convicts face directly following their release is whether or not they will find a place to sleep. Once labeled a felon, an ex-convict faces various forms of discrimination in housing, employment, and other necessary resources. Under Jim Crow, housing discrimination was legal on the basis of race while under mass incarceration, housing discrimination is legal against labeled felons on the basis of their prior criminal convictions (Alexander, pg 142-145). In his “get tough on crime” policies, President Clinton passed the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, which permitted public housing agencies to evict drug offenders, convicts, as well as deny housing to any person that was believed to be involved with illegal drugs.

Felon Disenfranchisement has emerged as popular and topic in recent political agendas. Felon Disenfranchisement is defined as, “The removing of a felon’s civil liberties while incarcerated and/or past their prison sentence” (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2016). Generally, disenfranchisement is seen as a retributive form of punishment. Arguably, the rights that are removed from felons during disenfranchisement are seen as essential to the American Identity. Supporters argue that people that break the law should not partake in the process of it and argue that the potential loss of these basic American civil liberties can provide deterrence.

So the ones, who think felon’s or ex-felons should not vote, hold a grudge and begin to despise the idea of allowing a felon to vote. People want to continue with felon disenfranchisement and exclude felons from their own country. Although felons seem to have no morals. In all honesty, they do and they should be allowed at least one right that all Americans are able to share with one another.

It is clear to see that if incarcerated individuals could vote while in prison many negative factors they face would be prevented. However, Politician’s wouldn’t want this to happen because they know that this would go against or hurt their campaign for many reasons, one being they wouldn’t be able to successfully persuade both incarcerated individuals and those of us in society due to one party (incarcerated individuals or citizens) being able to benefit from the promises of the candidate and one not. This wouldn’t be beneficial to those who oversee private prisons either because they would be prosecuted if the truths came to light about the mistreatment and injustice of those who are in jail face in their day to day lives. These wrongdoings could be changed in many ways but if I had to step up and do it personally I would demonstrate through signing a petition or marching for change. Signing a petition that would speak out and highlight things that need to change to ensure a safe life for their inmates would ultimately cause the overseers to consider my proposition to prevent a scandal.

A recently released felon making the right moves then we are denying them the very basic human right to vote. In 2010, out of the voting population, 2.5% were denied the right to vote because of a previous felony conviction. In recent years, 28 states have passed laws that allow convicted felons to vote but only once they have completed their sentence and anything that was given to do upon being released from prison. Once released, this means that they have worked off the punishment that

A goal of elections is for communities working together to achieve a common good that creates social ties and some sort of social stability. Granting prisoners, currently or previously sentenced the right to vote gives them the psychological and sociological rehabilitation in order for them to express their political right. Although prisoners are social outcasts they are familiarized with political standpoints and are well informed citizens given their free time to watch television or read the newspaper, allowing prisoners to vote helps them reintegrate into society no matter how long their sentence may be. However, felony disenfranchisement increases “the social distance between the offender and the community, and reaffirms his/her feelings of alienation and isolation. This may impede his/her acceptance and respect of the social norms and rule of law” (Dhami, 2009, p. 10).

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.

Someone who has been convicted of a felony can have just as much passion or even care more about their civil rights than another citizen. Depending on which state they committed the crime, felons could lose their right to vote which could take that opportunity away from someone who really cares about the political and economic state of our

However , there are many controversies going on whether the former criminals to should have the right to vote again. Should they get the right to vote again? No, they should not because ex-cons have shown irresponsibility and dishonesty, they have violated the the rights of others, and they do not value society. According to, Voting Rights: 6 reasons Ex felons should not vote by Jerry Shaw, “Ex prisoners prisoners have demonstrated dishonesty and irresponsibility in their character by committing a crime, especially a serious crime and

Former Felons Deserve to Vote Felons can permanently lose their right to vote in ten different states and have their voting rights restricted in thirty-eight of them, this means that in forty-eight states there are people who are not able to express their opinion, they have had their voice taken from them. Many people who were once convicted of a felony want to change their life around, they want to be a normal civilian to the United States, not someone seen as a juvenile or a law breaker. Being able to vote is a right and part of being a U.S. citizen, these people have had part of their citizenship taken from them, some won’t ever have that piece of citizenship for the rest of their life because of human disenfranchisement, a law passed in 1789. This law stated that all felons, blacks, and women were not allowed to vote. Since the passing of this law blacks and women were given their rights to vote however felons never were.

In the article “Why Released Felons Should Be Allowed to Vote”, author Steve Chapman addresses the concerns of societal members who are worrisome about a released felon’s right to vote. The basis of the article is focused on whether or not those who were once accused of a felony, should be granted voting rights after being released into society after imprisonment or the proportionate punishment has been served. The author’s thesis is that previously convicted felons who have been reformed through rehabilitation or incarceration should receive voting rights after being released into society, and should not be subject to the inquiry of society based on their prior actions. The main argument made by Chapman is those who are against voting

Instead of facing a punishment, these criminals are treated just like law-abiding citizens. In addition, the authors explain that disenfranchisement rulings “[serve] the same purpose as the other forms of punishment for felonies: to discourage people from committing serious crimes by making them forfeit not only a year or more of their lives in prison, but by excluding them from the body of citizens who make the rules they agree to abide by.” The article explains that people who have committed felonies must be disciplined in order to learn a lesson. Many states that fail to punish released felons have people who may repeat their illegal activities. They may try to test the government and bend the rules.

The judgment of those who have committed serious crimes is not only arguable but untrustworthy. The right to vote should not return to felons upon completing their sentence because, there is no way of knowing if the individual has since improved their character. Ex cons should have to go a certain amount time without committing any sort of crime before voting rights are restored. While some may feel not permitting felons to vote goes against the eighth amendment, not allowing them to vote is in the people’s best

The removal of this right dehumanizes prisoners. The streets of Texas are filled with blue or white collar criminals on bail or simply waiting for their sentence. Presently, if individual are found guilty of a crime, but they are not given a judicial sentence they are still allowed to vote; why should there be treated differently from convicted criminals who are locked up? However, allowing prisoners to vote while in prison would increase voting turnout and also Texas would gain the reputation of becoming one of the two states that allow prisoners to vote while in prison.

These efforts to block ex-felons to vote are unfair, undemocratic, and politically or racially motivated. Others who disagree may say they have shown poor judgement and should not be trusted with a vote. This is false because no one is perfect and everyone