Ex-fellons and the Right to Vote - Essay Example

of the of the Concerned English 30 October Ex-felons and the Right to Vote The United s of America is a nationknown for its democratic values and aspirations. Perhaps, it stands to be one of the unique nations in the world that not only professes to affiliate to democracy and liberty in an ethical context, but whose history is replete with ample instances where the conscious of the nation rose to restore the well deserved democratic rights to large segments of its citizens, deprived of their just and human aspirations. Above all, the hallmark of a thriving and ever growing nation is that time and again it dares to face the questions and issues that tend to be an impediment to the well being and dignity of some or all of its citizens. In some states of the United States of America, ex-felons, that is the people who committed a crime and have served the concomitant sentence, are not allowed to vote. This very provision not only deprives a good proportion of the citizens of their essential and basic rights, but also in a way tends to compromise their sense of dignity and respect. In a social, political, legal and humanitarian context, the ex-felons should have the right to vote in this country. The provision of debarring the ex-felons from voting is not only anti-democratic, but also contrary to the objective of enabling the ex-felons rejoin the society as worthy equals. It could reasonably be understood that a great many people tend to have reservations, as far as the task of taking an initiative about mixing with and employing ex-felons is concerned. Yet, the very society which punished these people for the crimes they committed also carries the responsibility of assuring that once they have served their sentence, they do not get stigmatized and persecuted, once they are set free. However, the provision for restricting the ex-felons from voting not only amounts to a state sponsored persecution, but also does much to further alienate and sideline these individuals. Genuinely speaking, how could one expect these people to rejoin the society as law-abiding and responsible citizens, when they state formally declares them to be untrustworthy, by debarring them from voting. Many people tend to put forward the argument that serving a sentence is not a guarantee that the ex-felons have abstained from their criminal and unlawful tendencies. However, at a deeper analysis, this argument smacks predominantly of abject prejudice, rather than being logical enough to deserve a blanket generalization. There was a time when many thought that the blacks should not have the right to vote. There was also a time when many felt that the women should not have the right to vote. In retrospect, everybody now understands that such provisions were based on ruthless prejudice and senseless biases. The plea for allowing the ex-felons to vote ought to be seen in the same light. A Democracy cannot deny a future to a citizen, simply because one had a tainted past. United States of America is a country based on the rule of the law and is run as per the sacrosanct constitutional arrangements. As per the law of the land, every citizen guilty of violating the law should face a trial and be appropriately punished by a court of law. The very same law also states that no citizen can be punished twice for committing one crime, and the act of punishing an ex-felon for a crime, for which one has already served a sentence, deserves to be labeled as being extrajudicial. Now, when the people who have feelings against ex-felons say that these people should be punished for their trespasses, it is just and understandable. Yet, advocating the withdrawal of the voting rights of ex-felons, especially when they have already paid their debt to the society, is positively akin to extrajudicial and unconstitutional lynching, if nothing else. Declaring a human to be an unequal and non-citizen, especially when one has immensely suffered for the crime one committed, perhaps not only at the level of one’s individual conscience, but also by serving the sentence ascribed to one as per the social norms, is quiet contrary to all the established religious, political, legal, and human values. Like most of the leading democracies, America also has its sections of minorities who got socially and economically sidelined because of historical and political reasons. These minorities do tend to have above average levels of poverty, illiteracy and social alienation. A commonsensical analysis testifies to the fact that the social groups subject to poverty and the resultant lack of empowerment and alienation are often more prone to committing crimes or getting entangled in the intricacies of the legal system. For instance, black teenagers and young people living in poor and deprived neighborhoods do have a higher chance of getting involved in crimes or drugs (Chambers 173). So, it is amply logical to conclude that people affiliated to the socially and economically sidelined sections of the minorities could have a higher percentage in the ex-felon population. Hence, prohibiting these people from voting not only subjects them to double injustice, one social and the other constitutional, but, also skews the power of these minorities in the national politics. As per a New York Times report, the norm of prohibiting ex-felons from voting deprives 13 percent black men of their voting rights, a 7 percent high over the national average (Online). Hence, any protest against the voting rights of ex-felons could be possibly ascribed to racial biases and prejudices. A saner option will be to allow the ex-felons to vote so as to balance the injustice done by the criminal justice system to a significant proportion of social and demographic minorities. Even if one ascribes to the extreme conservative notions and agrees to the fact that the ex-felons are more prone to committing crimes, tend to be more unruly and irresponsible, and are a burden to the society, still, the act of prohibiting or debarring them from voting serves no practical purpose. Withdrawing or withholding the voting rights of people only stops them from becoming a full citizen. No systematic study or methodical research has proven so far that stopping people from voting also stops them from committing crimes or makes them more responsible citizens. In a logical or pragmatic context, disenfranchisement of the ex-felons nowhere appears to be capable of deterring them from committing crime. Rather, in a ruthless and discourteous way, it tends to convey to them the message that society has given up on them and they could no longer be expected to be good or trustworthy. In contrast, tomes of theology, history, folklore, psychology and sociology are replete with instances and examples of wayward people who choose to be good and responsible, because society trusted them to be so. So, even in its most drastic forms, disenfranchisement of ex-felons serves no practical purpose. Now is the right time for the American polity and society to do away with a long standing injustice by restoring the voting rights to ex-felons in all the states. It would not only set a positive precedent, but is also extremely practical and propitious in its long term ramifications. Stopping the ex-felons from voting is not only biased and counterproductive, but also serves no practical purpose. Rather, it worsens the social circumstances and vitiates the national politics by depriving a large section of the minorities of their political rights and privileges. This is just one other undemocratic vestige of the past that must be cast away. Works Cited Chambers, James A. Blacks and Crime: A Function of Class. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995. “Felons and the Right to Vote”. The New York Times. 11 July 2004. 30 October 2011 . Read More