Felons Should Keep Their Rights to Vote after Conviction - Essay Example

Felons Should Keep Their Rights to Vote after Conviction Introduction The current world is prone to all sorts of crime. An example of one of such widespread crimes is a felony. This is a serious offense that can lead to a felon being denied some democratic rights. The following paper discusses instances where a felon is either allowed to vote or not. The definition of the term felony varies from region to region. However, the universal definition of felony is that it is a solemn offense and leads to the confiscation of property of the person that is convicted usually referred to as a felon (Lynch, 309–322). Examples of such crimes include rape, murder, burglary and kidnapping, just to mention a few. The causes of felony are many. However the most common cause of the crimes includes but not limited to poverty, unemployment as well as a way of retaliating. Another reason could be due to homelessness (Lynch, 309–322). The impacts felons have on the society are very important. First and foremost, based on their previous track record which is usually bad, such people are rarely accepted well in the society. As a result, most of them are usually unable to secure employment (Hull, 83). This is because the employees are usually afraid of the dangers and losses they can incur in case they recruit such people; thus, there many felons who are unemployed and fail to find any job. This large number has adverse effects on the society. More than 75% of the felons do not get employed within the first year out of prison. There are two major consequences of it. First; they become a great burden to both the public as well as the tax payers for their support. This leads to financial crisis to the entire society (Lynch, 309–322). Another major problem that arises with felons is the impact they have on culture. This is because it is usually hard to find peace prevailing in a region where many felons exist (Chapin, 163–183). Felons who are not employed not only find it hard to meet their bills but also to secure some shelter. Therefore, most of them usually engage in criminal activities in an attempt to satisfy their basic needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs gives an illustration of the needs that drive humans in their activities in an attempt to make ends meet. These requirements form the basis of motivation in humans in the world. This is because humans strive to fulfill their basic needs before proceeding to needs that considered advanced. The basic physical needs include food shelter and clothing (Hull, 83). Such needs are met at whatever cost regardless on the consequences they have on the external environment. In fact such needs are deemed responsible for the changes that are noticed in the external environment. Providing employment opportunities for felons is an important way of reducing the amounts of crimes individuals engage in. This because employment will enable them realizes self esteem which is very crucial in the process of one realizing the goals. Their inability to secure housing has led to homelessness among felons. Therefore; they resort to staying in shelters and engaging in panhandling. This is to the disadvantage of many communities who never want people to be homeless (Lynch, 309–322). The lack issue of felons lacking employment also limits their ability of going health insurance. This is also an important issue as most of such individuals usually have medical conditions that need to be treated. This in itself is a great challenge to the medical practitioners and especially the existing public health care systems. Most of the system institutions have limited services to offer to such people. It consequently increases their chances of committing more crimes. One of the justifications of this statement is that most of them would commit such crimes out mental breakdown unknowingly. Felons should keep their rights to vote after conviction because they join the entire community of a nation and have equal rights just like other citizens. My assumption is that they should be given the same treatment just like other citizens, which includes voting rights. In addition; such a right would make them feel they are part and parcel of the society. Being prevented from engaging in the crucial activity denies such individuals their democratic rights of choosing their leaders (Lynch, 309–322). According to a magazine article by Lynch in Pennsylvania, after a felon has been convicted, he/she is entitled to all rights just as other citizens. This has been very constructive as a way of welcoming the lost sheep home. Te article further points that if felons are not allowed to participate in the voting process, their right to liberty is interfered with. The second reason is to why felons should be allowed depends squarely on the nature and seriousness of the crimes that was committed by each individual. My assumptions is that if hardened criminals who have been convicted of very violent crimes should not be allowed to vote nor hold public office because they can facilitate serious crimes within their offices. However, criminals who have been convicted of very minor crimes should be allowed to vote. In addition, violators of law who have never served any jail terms should be allowed to vote. However, this policy varies from state to state. According to Gabrielle’s article of law reforms for felons, some states may disfranchise felons for a specific period of time after serving a jail term. Further, the United States of America for example is giving felons rights to vote after serving avail term. They argue that felons should sacrifice all aspects of their rights when convicted. This means that once they have completed their sentence, all their rights should be reinstated (Chapin, 163–183). Several leaders have been elected into office despite having been felons with minor crimes. In Pennsylvania for example Jake Whitney was elected into office in 1992 despite having been convicted for a minor crime. Whitney was a graduate with a master’s degree in public administration. In addition, she had also worked in as an executive within the city council of Pittsburgh. She defeated her components during the nomination process as well as in the final elections. Though the opponents filed a case against her stating that she was unsuitable to be elected into office, the court finally declared that the crimes she committed did not meet the threshold that could bar her from holding an office (Hull, 83). This makes some results to changes observed globally; thus, making felons to be eligible to vote. Unlike before, all felons were not allowed to vote. There were no distinctions based on the crimes that were committed. Felons should also be allowed to vote so that they can have own of their own to represent them within any government. My assumption is that such a step is very useful in ensuring that someone who greatly understands the issues affecting felons is greatly looked into. The article by Palesto takes about the process of restoring the voting rights of felons which includes their election to various offices. This way, they can form policies that can be used to curb felony from escalating. Finally, disfranchisement of felons based should not be a practice. My assumption is that, this practice which is common in the developed world, has been biased to some extent. Lynch observes that the developed countries have discriminated women and Africans as regards the issue of felony. In the 21st century, many black Africans have been denied the right to vote while in the developed world (Lynch, 309–322). As much as this has been used as a measure of deterring people from committing crimes, all races should face the law especially when the law is enforced. More than 4 million people are felons. The adult ones are usually barred from engaging in any voting exercise. This is because of their involvement in felony conviction. This greatly violates the democratic rights of such individuals. In addition, this is undermines the commitment a nation has towards rehabilitating criminals who have repaid their debts back to the society. In some cases, their votes are usually taken away from them. This has been one of the ways the rights of such individuals are violated without anyone to come to their rescue. This is done despite the absence of policy that outlines that they should be exempted to vote (Chapin, 163–183). Nevertheless, there some states, which prevent people from engaging in voting, exercise after they are released from prison in America. The rules regarding felony are clearly stated in such states and conditions under which such rules are lifted from the victims. Felons should not vote until they apply for their rights to be reinstated. My assumption is that they would be very impartial during the crucial exercise that is very important for the success of the entire nation (Chapin, 163–183). The leaders that are voted in influence development. Chapin in his findings noted that poor leaders are chosen because of biasness as can be in the case where felons are involved; the entire society is likely to be affected. One of the reasons as to why felons are stopped from voting is that they would vote out leaders who had prosecuted them. This could be done even if they are accountable of the wrongdoing, under which they were prosecuted for. A good example is in New York where felons who are on parole are prohibited from voting where as those on probation practice their democratic rights of voting. In such a case, felons are usually allowed to reapply so that their rights to vote can be reinstated. The officials can also deny them this right until there seen as ready commit themselves in obeying and adhering to the rule of law. Another reason that makes felons not to engage in voting is their intention to vote. Felons can be biased in the voting process and therefore, lead to election of a bad leader. A good example is in the presidential elections that were conducted in Florida in the year 2000 (Chapin, 163–183).Katherine Harris, the then secretary of state ordered all felons to be excluded from the voting list. About 47 000 of the voters were felons. The authority requested the local officials to purge them.However, on verification, about 2200 of the felons had been reinstated to vote. The felons would have greatly influenced the outcome of the elections as the leader had won in the election by about 25 000 votes. Felons should also be restricted from voting so that they don’t involve themselves in committing some crimes. My assumption is that when people are warned that being involved in felony would have such severe consequences, they would desist. As Fife, (149) reports, this would be helpful as engaging in some crimes will be seen to have some consequences especially penalty like not voting (Lynch, 309–322). In summary, as much as there are some countries that totally prevent felons from voting, the adverse effects of such laws should be looked into. This is because preventing persons from voting after conviction could a way do denying some people important opportunities in life. Felons should be allowed to participate in crucial activities like voting so that they are not denied their democratic rights such as liberty. In addition, each case of felony should be handled differently so that the severity of the crime committed is observed. Felons with severe crimes such as robbery with violence as well as rape should be punished heavily. Other categorized of crimes that should be treated with immense attention are those that regard crimes against humanity. Above all, all policies should be towards ensuring that the number felons reduce globally. Works Cited Chapin, Bradley “Felony Law Reform in the Early Republic.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, pp. 163–183. Print. Hull, Elizabeth. The Disenfranchisement of Ex-Felons. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2006. Web. Fife, Brian. Reforming the Electoral Process in America: Toward More Democracy in the 21st Century. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger, 2010. Print. Greg, Palast. (2004).The Democracy that can Be Bought by use of Money.London:Oxford UP. Lynch, James. “Offense Seriousness Scaling: An Alternative to Scenario Methods.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, volume 9, number 3, 309–322. 2007. Web. 11 Mar 2013. Read More