There is an appraise of 5.9 million individuals (as of 2016) with a crime conviction that will be banned from voting in the presidential decision (Toth). These individuals are incapable to vote, which is called disenfranchisement. Studies have demonstrated that states make up their claim laws on criminal disenfranchisement. As of now, four states disenfranchise for life those convicted of felonies, and seven states forever disenfranchise those with at least some kind of criminal convictions. Maine and Vermont are the only two states to permit those sentenced of violations to vote without confinements (Bernd). There is a lot of debate on whether criminals should be able to vote or not. In truth, they should since the right to vote is a birth right for all citizens that are born in the United States, and voting is just an opinion. Although this right is taken for granted by many, and is worked out by far too few, these individuals should not be prohibited from voting since everybody can state their opinions.
Felons have paid their debt to society and have received their punishments for whatever the cause was for them being thrown in jail. All of their privileges and rights that were taken away from them should be restored. 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
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
Summary of article: The National American Woman Suffrage Association have tried to influence the federal government of giving the women the opportunity to vote. The association has gone through a long battle with the states on letting the path of the women’s right to vote for the next presidential election. Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Maine, Wisconsin, and Tennessee are the states they are fighting for presidential suffrage. Unfortunately, New Mexico was against women’s right to vote, and Vermont was under challenge.
The recommendation calls for civil rights advocates to put mass incarceration on their agenda similar in the ways civil rights advocate’s affirmative action agenda. In my opinion, America is at a turning point where mass incarceration is slowly fading away with state lawmakers trying to cut prison cost. Being labeled as a felon is a stigma that can and will follow individuals for the rest of their lives. However, there is a change in the atmosphere and how society view individuals with felony records. Opportunities are slowly becoming available such as jobs and education, allowing these individuals to reenter society.
But they fail to realize that the system we have now throws anyone in jail no matter if the person committed the crime or not. They also fail to realize that the current system sentencing isn't organized or fair because there are people out there innocent and people who don’t deserve that time that was given for petty crimes. The current system doesn’t seek for justice, they see everyone who gets arrested as a criminal and feels they should be thrown away for a very long time and that isn't fair. Sentencing reforming is highly recommended due to the outrageous modern sentencing practices we have today. People go to jail or maybe even prison for such petty crimes that doesn't deserve the many years that were given to them.
By serving their time, felons have supposedly paid their debt to society. Felons aren’t allowed to own a firearm or serve on juries, so it doesn’t seem right that they would be allowed to vote. Being convicted of a felon has everlasting consequences whether these advocates like it or
Finally, my last suggestion would be to alter the labels of ex-felonies for minor violations, and changing how to use the criminal check box. Once an ex-convict paid for their time in prison for inferior crimes we should not label then as a felon, so that they can apply for jobs and do not have to check on the felony box when applying for a job. Consequently, ex-convict could get a better chance to be hired, so that they truly have a chance to readjust in the society. People that who are labeled as a felon have a hard time applying for jobs, housings, and getting food stamps, making it impossible to survive and to provide for their family. They can lose their kids, their home, and become homeless and in other cases going back to jail.
Other forms of disfranchisement, including the disfranchisement of criminals, remain controversial. Since the early 1990s, all but three states prohibited imprisoned offenders from voting. Thirty-five states disfranchise offenders on probation or parole, and fourteen disfranchise ex-offenders for life. Because a disproportionate share of convicted criminals are non-white, some have argued that such laws constitute a racially discriminatory voting barrier that is as pernicious as poll taxes and literacy tests. Many state criminal disfranchisement laws date back to the Reconstruction era, and such laws were often targeted at offenses for which African Americans were disproportionately convicted.
In most cases, felons are the result of failed social structures to begin with. It is form of discrimination. Felons should be allowed to vote on issues that affect their society. If they are born citizens of the United States, then they have the right to vote and should be able to vote after serving their punishment. A right is NOT a privilege and therefore should not be taken away, unless the crime committed relates to or specifically abuses that particular right.
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.
Democracy and majority rule appear to give legitimacy to acts that might otherwise be defined as tyranny. Most of us agree that having our decisions made for us, on what we are eating for dinner or what Americas favorite sport is, made through the democratic process is tyranny. That being said, why isn’t it also tyranny for the majority to decide whether or not we recycle or whether or not we purchase health insurance? The founders of our country intended for us to have a republican form of limited government where political decision-making is kept to the minimum.
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.
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 Voting Rights Act was one of the most revolutionary bills ever passed by the congressional legislation in the United States. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill into law on August 6th, 1965, not only as part of politics but also, a depiction of morals. Since 1965, it has protected minority voters at the polls, but it has been fifty years since the Voting Rights Act has been passed and it is still a controversial topic that is constantly debated on today. The voting rights of all minorities throughout the country are once again under attack which impacts one’s ability to exercise his or her constitutional right as a citizen.
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.
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.