Rhetorical Analysis Of Why Prisoners Deserve The Right To Vote

The inmate population in prisons is ever so growing. In society, different parties and groups are uncovering flaws in our country, and one of them is how prisoners do not have the right to vote. Even though prisoners are held behind gates, fences, and bars, they are still citizens and are protected by the constitution. But do all the amendments and articles still apply to the inmates? This little wrinkle causes controversy on whether or not prisoners deserve the right to vote. Some states are more concerned over the issue than others. Corey Brettschneider in his article, “Why Prisoners Deserve the Right to Vote”, believes prisoners should be granted the right to vote across the nation. He accepts, “Giving inmates the right to vote … [is] the

One of the author’s main points is, “The Supreme Court decided that prisoners cannot have their citizenship rights stripped as a punishment of crime” (Brettschneider 1). Followed by Justice, Earl Warren's, opinion and ruling on the topic. The premise embeds strong evidence of a valid and trustworthy source, helping to move the reader. Along with the fact he is building his credibility with the evidence he used. The author later goes on to state, “One can be punished without being subjected to civic exile” (Brettschneider 4). The author backs up his premise by describing how inmates cannot see their loved ones often, and also the deprivation liberty followed by the loss of control over the everyday interaction. According to Brettschneider, “The vast majority of state prisoners cannot vote, yet they are often counted in the population for the legislative district for their prison, the main factor that determines a state’s number of representatives and its presidential electoral votes” (Brettschneider 3). Also, “The NAACP calls that practice, “‘gerrymandering’” (Brettschneider 3). Gerrymandering is described as manipulating the size and shapes of electoral districts to favor a specific party. The author has the ability to connect the prisoners to voting and population even though the prisoners are deprived the right to vote. He also ties in

According to Brettschneider, “The point of prisons, they say, is to inflict punishment, not to allow organizing” (2016, p. 4), then Brettschneider later goes on to rule out that stance, “Prison is itself already a severe punishment. The deprivation of liberty and the loss of control over everyday action… are all severe constraints imposed by incarceration” (2016, p. 4). Brettschneider provides and acknowledges the opposing views, then he describes why they are inferior to his position. Brettschneider also uses a counter argument assumption and negates it, “American critics who scoff at the Europe’s treatment of prisoners say that allowing prisoners to vote would literally be letting the inmates run the asylum” (2016, p. 3), then Brettschneider follows that with, “...not just prisoners but prisons would also benefit” (2016, p. 3). Brettschneider contributes to his argument by supplying counter arguments and then later refuting them, by doing so it allows the reader to see why his position is