ipl-logo

Felon Disenfranchisement Is Anti-Democracy

562 Words3 Pages

What would you do if you were convicted as a felon for the rest of your life for a crime that you knew you were not guilt of ? Many people around the world are convicted as felons not because they are guilty but because they do not have the money or support to have the proper attorney to fight their case. The articles ‘ If You Can’t Follow Laws, You Shouldn’t Help Make Them’ by Roger Clegg and ‘ Felon Disenfranchisement Is Anti-Democratic’ by Janai S. Nelson have different viewpoints on whether convicted felons should be given their rights to vote again. Felons should not have their right to vote taken away because despite what they have been through they are no less human than a regular citizen and deserve to be treated like everyone else. The article written by Clegg explains how in order for a convicted felon to have their chance to vote again must have to have his or hers case analyzed based upon their new actions. In the first paragraph of the article he states: “ The right to vote should only be restored to felons on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has truly changed.” This idea does not restore the person their right to vote, it …show more content…

It is jumping to judging someone when we do not even know the whole story or what that person has been through. Discrimination has been going on for years now. In “Felon Disenfranchisement Is Anti-Democratic,” Nelson states what felon disenfranchisement is when he says, “felon disenfranchisement is often based on negative assumptions about how someone’s identity, status or past behavior will inform his or her choices in the ballot box. But assumptions about a voter's viewpoint violate First Amendment principles.” Unfortunately this is something that we still see everyday in our society and it needs to come to an end. Everyone should be given the right to vote no matter what the

Show More
Related
1989 Words | 8 Pages

Young (internet/ WestLaw: 471846, 2002) further support that the admission of previous convictions that hold prejudice against a party in the case is inadmissible and should not be allowed into testimony. In State v. Young, Devon Young was convicted of felonious assault with weapons specification. The Court of appeals deemed that the admission of Mr. Young’s “prior felony conviction for attempted murder was unduly prejudicial.” The Law Review “Evidence Rule 806 and the Problem of Impeaching the Nontestifying Declarant” 56 Ohio St. L.J. 495 states that the prejudice that arises from the admission of previous crimes into court runs a “significant risk that the jury will not use the evidence of convictions solely to evaluate the defendant’s credibility, but also will use it as evidence of guilt or moral desert.” The same basis applies to Mr. Smith’s case, the admission of Mr. Smith’s online fraud conviction was unduly prejudicial therefore denying Mr. Smith to a fair, accurate

Read More
434 Words | 2 Pages

Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) (2002) Plaintiff - Richard Sauvé Defendant - Attorney General of Canada, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada & the Solicitor General of Canada FACTS The Plaintiff: Richard Sauvé is a former member of the biker gang ‘Satan’s Choice’. In 1975, Sauvé was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for the murder of an opposing gang member. In 1993, Sauvé started a long journey fighting an injustice that denied all inmates the right to vote.

Read More
353 Words | 2 Pages

I believe that Americans should be required to vote. Compulsory voting allows everyone to have a say about who they think is fit in the government. It allows the polls to be more accurate and the number of votes increase. Required voting allows those who can 't or don 't have time to make it the day or time off work. Requiring people to vote is like a boss requiring his employees to get to work on time, it 's short and easy but also important and effective.

Read More
97 Words | 1 Pages

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.

Read More
396 Words | 2 Pages

I believe that everyone deserves to have a say in any situation. In these types of scenarios, everyone is not treated equal. In the article one person says” I don’t see where having multiple votes is going to change that or impact that,”(Pg.2.Par.5) This is one example that i believe with. Having more people vote would not harm the system that they already have.

Read More
1015 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
1128 Words | 5 Pages

It’s understandable for rights such as jury service to be revoked since a former felon may be biased while deciding or may feel uncomfortable taking part in putting someone in prison. However, the right to travel abroad being taken away is excessive and is an example of the government having too much influence in the everyday lives of their citizens. For example, if a person convicted of a nonviolent felon has completed their sentence, there should be no restriction on them wanting to take a vacation. Felons still have the right to carry and obtain visas and passports, but if they are restricted traveling then there isn’t a point for them to even own one. Also, many former felons want to restart their life and try and salvage and make the most of their lives prior to being incarcerated.

Read More
792 Words | 4 Pages

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

Read More
389 Words | 2 Pages

Felon disenfranchisement is not only unconstitutional but also further institutionalizes racism. For example, in communities consisting of minorities like African Americans and Hispanics felony disenfranchisement unlawfully create a disadvantage for freedom of speech. As stated by Eric H. Holder, JD a US Attorney General “although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction …the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable.” The act of taking away someone’s right to vote notably mirrors the act of forbidding African Americans to vote during the post-Reconstruction Era. Holder refers to the fact that taking away the right to vote essentially withdraws any opinions that minorities

Read More
888 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
949 Words | 4 Pages

With millions of criminal convictions a year, more than two million people may end up behind bars(Gross). According to Samuel Gross reporter for The Washington Post, writes that also “even one percent amounts to tens of thousands of tragic [wrongful conviction] errors”(Gross). Citizens who are wrongfully convicted are incarcerated for a crime he or she did not commit. Many police officers, prosecutors, and judges are responsible for the verdict that puts innocents into prison. To be able to get exonerated many wait over a decade just to get there case looked at, not many are able to have the opportunity of getting out.

Read More
579 Words | 3 Pages

“Now don’t you be so confident, Mr. Jem, I ain’t ever seen any jury decide in favor of a colored man over a white man…” (Lee 179). This quote from Reverend Sykes in To Kill a Mockingbird is a sort of summary of how and why Tom Robinson was wrongly convicted guilty. It also gives a lot of insight on race relations in this time period. Unfortunately, racism has yet to leave society.

Read More
649 Words | 3 Pages

1) The rights of LGBTQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer) citizens are a must, and it 's our responsibility to be on the right side of history. Even though gay marriage is legalized, there is still a long way to go with LGBT rights and State and Federal Law. 2) Discriminating against anybody based on their lifestyle is a violation of human rights, and protection of human rights is the soul of a healthy democracy. 3) We should help build hope and start to create a world where everyone can live without the constant fear of being discriminated based on who they are and who they love. 4) Powerful lessons we have learned from past human right movements is that the battles we fought were painful and tough, but in the end they brought sweeping changes in American society by making it more caring and just.

Read More
479 Words | 2 Pages

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

Read More
417 Words | 2 Pages

The right to vote was a privilege given to only a particular group of people in the past. The right to participate in the judicial system to some is an honor. This process allows people to voice and chose who they want in office or what issue they want to support. Voter Id laws are incorporated into our society as a form of control in order to keep people silent. Voter id laws are under controversy because the law is viewed as being discriminatory against minorities.

Read More

More about Felon Disenfranchisement Is Anti-Democracy

Related Topics

Open Document