Pros And Cons Of Felons

The amendments prohibited all prisoners who were serving a sentence of imprisonment for a commonwealth, state or territory offence from voting in federal elections. Before

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

United States citizens with a criminal background should be allowed to vote in their state of residency Ontreal Harris Professor Ross Composition II Reference Shaw, Jerry. “When Did Ex-Felons Lose Their Rights to Vote? A History.” Newsmax. Newsmax Media, Inc.

Studies have shown that allowing felons to vote would “help ensure against recidivism and continued antisocial behavior” which would bloom democracy (Faceoff 6). Here, felon enfranchisement supporters argue that eliminating felons from voting leads to lower rates of participation in government. Without a large amount of voter participation, The United States defies its founding Declaration of Independence that aimed to give Americans an equal voice in politics, economy, and government. Therefore, barring felons from voting leads to the direct destruction of the democratic principles of The United States. Additionally, Brennan Center, a non-partisan law institute that focuses on issues of democracy, found that allowing felons to vote would lead to an expansion of democracy (Bernd 5).

Many speculations are made when it comes to allowing ex-felons or felons to vote. Felons should have the right to vote because everyone’s vote counts when it comes to electing a new president for the country. Felons are a part of the country they should be permitted to vote all the least. To some, felons or ex-felons should not be allowed the right to vote. This is because many people believe that felons have gone against their own country and defiled their country’s name.

However, there are more voter participations, but women, Native Americans, and African Americans cannot

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

The discussion of whether felony disenfranchisement laws violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be seen the Supreme Court case, Hayden v. Pataki. This court case was filed in 2003 and the plaintiffs of the case are challenging the felony disenfranchisement laws of New York. The plaintiffs argued that these laws were a violation of the second section of the Voting Rights Act because it disenfranchised a larger number of blacks and Latinos in prison than whites (“Key Issues in Hayden v. Pataki”). In the end, a majority of the judges ruled that the section 2 of the VRA is too ambiguous, thus the section cannot be applied to the felony disenfranchisement laws in New York, as the original intent of the VRA was not focused on felon disenfranchisement laws (“Key Issues in Hayden v. Pataki”). However, based on the dissenting opinions of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the second section of the Voting Rights Act clearly states that no state should be able to pass a law that emplaces a “voter qualification”, which bars a certain racial minority’s ability to vote (Goldstein

Felony voting: Unjust or rightful justice As of 2008 over 5.3 million Americans were denied the right to vote due to felony disenfranchisement laws. The United states is among the most punitive nations in the world when it comes to denying the right to vote and this has consequently caused voting rights to be a controversial issue for years now. Disenfranchisement can be linked back to centuries ago, in western countries, felony disenfranchisement can be traced back to ancient greek and roman traditions and was commonly used as a part of the punishment that was put on those convicted of “infamous” crimes and was a part of their civil deaths. Although, many people like myself believe that the limits that are being put on felons

A finding from a study done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that 67.8 percent of ex-convicts were rearrested. Two-thirds of them spent their time in prison waiting for the release, only to go back into that dirty old cell again. Why don’t they try to get a real job, earn their own living and cherish the second chance we grant them. Let’s step down from the moral high ground for a second. Often released prisoners lack the skills and knowledge to keep up with the pace of society.

Throughout American history we have gradually permitted different groups of Americans to vote. Many would argue that we have greatly expanded the right to vote in America and we are well on our way to authorizing as many people to participate in our democracy as possible. Though we have expanded voting rights, we have a dark history in our country of voter suppression that is still a contentious debate today. No longer are there poll taxes or literacy tests, instead they have been subtlety replaced by photo ID laws and impediments to voter registration. In a way today’s voter suppression is the new face of Jim Crow.

America, known as “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” is a country recognized for it’s freedom and rights. As a country, at almost every turn, America has shown it’s responsibility and priority towards it citizens. Specifically, with the opportunity to vote. Being able to vote for presidents, senators, and governors is a very strong right that Americans hold in their hand and for many others in neighboring countries, this can be a sheer dream. Recently, Ohio passed a new law, stating that citizens who did not regularly vote for four years and were unresponsive to any kind of sent notice, would be removed from voting rolls; therefore, the name, “Use it or Lose it.”

Prisoner goes to High Court to win right to vote Kenneth Nguyen April 25, 2007 Should prisoners be allowed to vote? Age readers decide. A prisoner is bringing a High Court case that could secure a historic right to vote for 20,000 of Australia 's prisoners.

First of all, a felon should not be allowed to vote because, their judgement is questionable. A felon is an individual who has committed a serious crime, typically involving violence, and usually serves more than a year in imprisonment. Children and mentally incompetent individuals are not allowed to vote due to their judgement being unquestionable (Shaw, Jerry 2015). A felon’s judgment is just as, if not more problematic. Not only is their judgement questionable, but individuals who commit felonies are typically untrustworthy.

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.