Ex-Felons Should Be Abolished Essay
Many have heard the saying “if you do the crime, you must do the time”. This saying signifies that if one acts upon a certain action, he/she must live with the consequences of their actions. For the most part, prison is a consequence for offenders. However, ex-offenders are still suffering the consequences of their actions even after doing “the time”. Certain ex-felons upon release from prison have their voting rights taken away from them, depending on the state. Some may petition to get voting rights restored but many do not have the opportunity. Ex-felons spend years paying their debt to society only to come out and continue to be punished. Not being allowed to vote is not fair to the ex-felons, and their right should be restored.
The right …show more content…
to vote Offenders who have been convicted of a felony have voting restrictions known as felon disenfranchisement (Dawson-Edwards & Higgins, 2013). These ex-offenders are deprived of their right to vote. Being able to vote is an important part of living in a democracy. It gives citizens a voice in matters that involve them and their country. When the Constitution was created, there was some trouble of determining who gets the right to vote (McMiller, 2008). Ultimately, the decision was left for the state government. Voting restrictions are on a state by state basis. In the beginning, only wealthy white men could vote. Hundreds of years later and any citizen 18 years and older has the right to vote now. However, a good portion of the United States restricts voting for convicted felons (McMiller, 2008). As of today, there are only two states that have no restrictions on voting. Those states are Maine and Vermont. Fourteen states including District of Columbia have restrictions on voting when the offender is in prison only. Four states have restrictions for prison and parole. Eighteen states have restrictions in prison, parole and probation. Then there are twelve states that have restrictions in prison, parole, probation and post-sentence (Chung, 2016). There have been attempts to reform these polices and laws. “Although reform efforts have been substantial in recent years, the overall disenfranchisement rate has increased dramatically in conjunction with the growing U.S. prison population, rising from 1.17 million in 1976 to 6.1 million by 2016” (Chung, 2016, 3). However, restoring voting rights can be done “through expungement of records, restoration of civil rights or executive pardon in twelve states” (Buckler & Travis, 2003, 441). One example is Maryland. Maryland prohibits ex-felons their right to vote if they were convicted of an offense involving loss of trust. However, it can be restored upon their release (Buckler & Travis, 2003).
There are a few states that permanently disenfranchise offenders. Two of those states are Arizona and Nebraska. In the state of Arizona, offenders who have committed two or more felonies have their voting rights taken away permanently. In the state of Nebraska, offenders who committed a certain offense may be stripped of their voting rights permanently. Other states have a waiting period of two or more years before voting rights may be restored. For example in Florida, the wait period is five years after completing the sentence (Chung, 2016). Florida is one of several states that have accepted disenfranchisement policies. Many more offenders are disenfranchised in Florida than any other state (Manza & Uggen, 2006 as cited in Miller & Agnich, 2015). Even though a person has the right to vote, it does not mean he/she may evoke that right. According to Martinez (2004), only a little more than half of the eligible voters actually voted in the 2000 presidential elections. The percentage of those individuals who registered in 2000 was at its lowest of 63.9 percent (Martinez, 2004). Many people are registered but many do not vote. In 2000, there were about 130 million individuals who were registered but did not vote. The majority of the voters who actually vote are usually older, home owners, married, having high income and employment (Martinez, 2004).
Pains of imprisonment Gresham Sykes (1958) in his book The Society of Captives talks about the pains of imprisonment in chapter four. One of those pains is the deprivation of liberty. The inmate is taken away from family, friends, and the outside world. This loss of liberty can also be called the loss of “status of citizenship” (Sykes, 1958, 66). Many civil rights are lost when a person is confined. Examples of civil rights being stripped away are “the right to vote, to hold office, to sue in court, and so on” (Sykes, 1958, 67). Other pains include difficulty with housing, finding employment and education. These collateral consequences, Dawson-Edwards (2008) calls them, are seen by some as punitive.
Arguments for and against disenfranchisement Many people have different opinions on felon disenfranchisement. According to Dawson-Edwards (2008), arguments for voting restrictions are generally rooted in the tough on crime position. The tough on crime position includes the idea of incapacitation, deterrence and retribution. Arguments against voting restrictions are rooted in the idea of rehabilitation. This argument states the offender, upon completing their sentence, should be rehabilitated. As a result, they will live as law abiding citizens. According to Chung (2016), public opinion surveys reveal that some citizens are divided. “Eight in ten U.S residents support voting rights for citizens who have completed their sentence, and nearly two-thirds support voting rights for those on probation or parole” (Chung, 2016, 4). Dawson-Edwards and Higgins (2013) conducted a study at the Historically Black College and University (HBCU) in Kentucky. This state is known for its very restrictive laws. The authors wanted to examine students’ views on the consequences of conviction specifically felon-voting restrictions. The study specifically looked at four different individuals in the criminal justice system: those who were on probation, parole, in prison and ex-felons. The authors utilized a self-report questionnaire. This study examined the extent of knowledge the students had and their attitude toward the issue. The results varied. Probationers received the most variation among the students. “Older and more knowledgeable students were less favorable towards probationers retaining their voting rights” (Dawson-Edwards & Higgins, 2013, 402). Among the students, those who favored keeping voting rights were those with high incomes and had more knowledge about rehabilitation. Parolees varied as well. Male students who had knowledge of rehabilitation were more likely to favor keeping voting rights for parolees. “The results also indicate that the more knowledge the individual has the less likely they were to believe that paroles should be allowed to retain their voting rights” (Dawson-Edwards & Higgins, 2013, 402). When students considered prisoners and ex-felons, the results were very different. Lower incomes had an effect on the students’ opinion. Students with low incomes were more likely to favor prisoners keeping their voting rights. Students who are in favor of rehabilitation were also in favor of ex-felons keeping their rights (Dawson-Edwards & Higgins, 2013). Overall, those who had less knowledge of the voting policies were more inclined to support disenfranchisement. Pinaire, Heuman, and Bilotta (2002) conducted a study focusing on citizens’ opinions about voting restrictions for felons. The authors “expected the right to vote to be perceived as one of the most important rights in a democracy, but we expected public support for this right to diminish when convicted offenders were considered” (Pinaire et al., 2002, 1531). It was conducted at the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut. It was a survey conducted through the telephone. Residential telephone numbers were called across 48 states. The sample included 503 adults. The survey questions were about the criminal justice system, the treatment and punishment of offenders and if the respondents supported the voting restrictions. The findings partially supported the authors’ hypotheses.
The citizens’ opinions ranged between supporting and not supporting. The citizens’ opinions fell in-between those two. 9.9 percent thought felons should never lose their right to vote. 31.6 percent thought they should only lose the right while they are incarcerated. 5.0 percent thought felons should lose their right while on parole or probation. 35.2 percent thought the right to vote should be lost while incarcerated and on parole or probation. Overall, 81.7 percent of the respondents did not support the permanent elimination of voting rights. The respondents’ supported having felons voting rights restored at some point (Pinaire et al., 2002). When the authors asked the respondents why they wanted permanent or temporary voting restrictions, 32.7 percent said “felons have proven that they should not be treated as citizens” (Pinaire et al., 2002, 1541). The authors were surprised that 31.1 percent had chosen none of the above/other reason. Pinaire et al. (2002) believe there must have been some other reason the respondents wanted temporary or permanent voting restrictions. A little more than half strongly or somewhat agreed to have felons rights restored after completing their sentence. About 44.2 percent somewhat or strongly disagreed to the restoration of
rights. Miller and Agnich (2015) conducted a study examining the feelings of ex-offenders who lost their voting rights. The study took place in Florida. Florida is one state that has accepted disenfranchisement policies. “Florida currently disenfranchises more felons than any other state, with recent estimates ranging from 600,000 to 1.2 million” (Manza & Uggen, 2006 as cited in Miller & Agnich, 2015, 5). There were 54 in-depth interviews that were conducted with ex-offenders in Florida. These men lost their right to vote upon their conviction. The men were recruited from different places in Florida. Some examples include halfway houses and community outreach groups. These different places made it easier to compile a diverse group of ex-offenders. Even their offenses varied. Their offenses ranged from homicide to larceny (Miller & Agnich, 2015). The focus of the study was to examine the ex-offenders views on the loss of the right to vote. Based on the findings, there were important patterns that were found. The majority of the participants saw their voting restrictions as a punishment. Since they committed a criminal act, they saw it as punishment even outside of prison. Other participants saw it as punishment but do not understand why. Some of the participants did not even realize their voting rights were taken away. Others never had the opportunity to vote before being imprisoned, so the voting restrictions upon release did not have a significant impact. “Regarding the meaning that ex-offenders make out of their disenfranchisement, three distinct narratives emerged-anger, embarrassment, and fatalism” (Miller & Agnich, 2015, 8). Three important narratives emerged while conducting this study. The three narratives were anger, embarrassment and fatalism. Seven of the participants did not fit into any of the narratives. “Fourteen (26%) of the ex-offenders focused on the contradiction between serving their time and still being punished” (Miller & Agnich, 2015, 11). These fourteen ex-offenders stated their anger toward the policy. One ex-offender stated they had “paid their dues to society, I done my time, I did my parole, I’ve been released, but yet I still don’t have these rights. So I think, yeah, it makes me angry” (Miller & Agnich, 2015, 11). The contradictions the system had was the main focus in the narratives. The second narrative was embarrassment. Shame was associated with the restriction and the hardship they face in getting those rights back. Twelve of the offenders felt embarrassed losing their right to vote. It was also embarrassing trying to get the right back. The final narrative was fatalism. Twenty of the offenders accepted their new life without voting. They felt it was out of their control and there was not much they could do. In losing their right to vote, some offenders explained that they felt excluded from the rest of society. One ex-offender explained it like this: “It makes me feel like I was different from everybody else man. It just separated me from you know, the rest of the people” (Miller & Agnich, 2015, 12).
Legal cases
The voting restriction policies have met some legal actions toward it. One notable case was Green vs. Board of Elections 1967. Green argued to have felon voting rights restored. “Green, a convicted felon, disputed the New York State Constitution’s felon voting prohibition on the grounds that it was a violation of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution” (Johnson-Parris, 2003 as cited in Dawson-Edwards, 2008, 14). Court voted against him stating the clause was permissible. “The Court held the clause constitutionally permissible because it provided a non-penal exercise of power to regulate the franchise” (Johnson-Parris, 2003 as cited in Dawson-Edwards, 2008, 14).
Another case was Richardson vs. Ramirez 1974. This case involved three men who served time for a felony in California. The three men sued to have their rights to vote restored. The men argued the policies regarded voting “denied them the right to equal protection of the laws under the U.S. constitution” (Chung, 2016, 3). According to the 14th amendment, no state can restrict a citizen voting rights without a massive state interest. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court upheld California’s policies stating it was constitutional. The court stated the 14th amendment allowed the restriction on voting rights if the individual was involved in a rebellion or other crime. The Court stated the voting restrictions were part of American history and it is a specific device for punitive measures in the criminal justice system (Chung, 2016). Conclusion In conclusion, there are numerous studies examining the opinions about voting restrictions on ex-offenders. There have also been attempts in the past to restore voting rights. Arguments can be made for the restrictions and against them. From certain studies, education on the issue should be raised so individuals may be well informed in the matter. With the elections right around the corner, one has to think about all ex-offenders who cannot vote. Why should they continue to be punished for their crime even after serving their time and paying their dues? Some offenders might be indifferent in the matter. However, some do want to vote. They want their voice being heard in choosing the nation’s leaders. Ex-felons who try to become productive members of society and are contributing should be allowed to vote. Therefore, the right to vote is a right all ex-felons should be given back.
The right …show more content…
to vote Offenders who have been convicted of a felony have voting restrictions known as felon disenfranchisement (Dawson-Edwards & Higgins, 2013). These ex-offenders are deprived of their right to vote. Being able to vote is an important part of living in a democracy. It gives citizens a voice in matters that involve them and their country. When the Constitution was created, there was some trouble of determining who gets the right to vote (McMiller, 2008). Ultimately, the decision was left for the state government. Voting restrictions are on a state by state basis. In the beginning, only wealthy white men could vote. Hundreds of years later and any citizen 18 years and older has the right to vote now. However, a good portion of the United States restricts voting for convicted felons (McMiller, 2008). As of today, there are only two states that have no restrictions on voting. Those states are Maine and Vermont. Fourteen states including District of Columbia have restrictions on voting when the offender is in prison only. Four states have restrictions for prison and parole. Eighteen states have restrictions in prison, parole and probation. Then there are twelve states that have restrictions in prison, parole, probation and post-sentence (Chung, 2016). There have been attempts to reform these polices and laws. “Although reform efforts have been substantial in recent years, the overall disenfranchisement rate has increased dramatically in conjunction with the growing U.S. prison population, rising from 1.17 million in 1976 to 6.1 million by 2016” (Chung, 2016, 3). However, restoring voting rights can be done “through expungement of records, restoration of civil rights or executive pardon in twelve states” (Buckler & Travis, 2003, 441). One example is Maryland. Maryland prohibits ex-felons their right to vote if they were convicted of an offense involving loss of trust. However, it can be restored upon their release (Buckler & Travis, 2003).
There are a few states that permanently disenfranchise offenders. Two of those states are Arizona and Nebraska. In the state of Arizona, offenders who have committed two or more felonies have their voting rights taken away permanently. In the state of Nebraska, offenders who committed a certain offense may be stripped of their voting rights permanently. Other states have a waiting period of two or more years before voting rights may be restored. For example in Florida, the wait period is five years after completing the sentence (Chung, 2016). Florida is one of several states that have accepted disenfranchisement policies. Many more offenders are disenfranchised in Florida than any other state (Manza & Uggen, 2006 as cited in Miller & Agnich, 2015). Even though a person has the right to vote, it does not mean he/she may evoke that right. According to Martinez (2004), only a little more than half of the eligible voters actually voted in the 2000 presidential elections. The percentage of those individuals who registered in 2000 was at its lowest of 63.9 percent (Martinez, 2004). Many people are registered but many do not vote. In 2000, there were about 130 million individuals who were registered but did not vote. The majority of the voters who actually vote are usually older, home owners, married, having high income and employment (Martinez, 2004).
Pains of imprisonment Gresham Sykes (1958) in his book The Society of Captives talks about the pains of imprisonment in chapter four. One of those pains is the deprivation of liberty. The inmate is taken away from family, friends, and the outside world. This loss of liberty can also be called the loss of “status of citizenship” (Sykes, 1958, 66). Many civil rights are lost when a person is confined. Examples of civil rights being stripped away are “the right to vote, to hold office, to sue in court, and so on” (Sykes, 1958, 67). Other pains include difficulty with housing, finding employment and education. These collateral consequences, Dawson-Edwards (2008) calls them, are seen by some as punitive.
Arguments for and against disenfranchisement Many people have different opinions on felon disenfranchisement. According to Dawson-Edwards (2008), arguments for voting restrictions are generally rooted in the tough on crime position. The tough on crime position includes the idea of incapacitation, deterrence and retribution. Arguments against voting restrictions are rooted in the idea of rehabilitation. This argument states the offender, upon completing their sentence, should be rehabilitated. As a result, they will live as law abiding citizens. According to Chung (2016), public opinion surveys reveal that some citizens are divided. “Eight in ten U.S residents support voting rights for citizens who have completed their sentence, and nearly two-thirds support voting rights for those on probation or parole” (Chung, 2016, 4). Dawson-Edwards and Higgins (2013) conducted a study at the Historically Black College and University (HBCU) in Kentucky. This state is known for its very restrictive laws. The authors wanted to examine students’ views on the consequences of conviction specifically felon-voting restrictions. The study specifically looked at four different individuals in the criminal justice system: those who were on probation, parole, in prison and ex-felons. The authors utilized a self-report questionnaire. This study examined the extent of knowledge the students had and their attitude toward the issue. The results varied. Probationers received the most variation among the students. “Older and more knowledgeable students were less favorable towards probationers retaining their voting rights” (Dawson-Edwards & Higgins, 2013, 402). Among the students, those who favored keeping voting rights were those with high incomes and had more knowledge about rehabilitation. Parolees varied as well. Male students who had knowledge of rehabilitation were more likely to favor keeping voting rights for parolees. “The results also indicate that the more knowledge the individual has the less likely they were to believe that paroles should be allowed to retain their voting rights” (Dawson-Edwards & Higgins, 2013, 402). When students considered prisoners and ex-felons, the results were very different. Lower incomes had an effect on the students’ opinion. Students with low incomes were more likely to favor prisoners keeping their voting rights. Students who are in favor of rehabilitation were also in favor of ex-felons keeping their rights (Dawson-Edwards & Higgins, 2013). Overall, those who had less knowledge of the voting policies were more inclined to support disenfranchisement. Pinaire, Heuman, and Bilotta (2002) conducted a study focusing on citizens’ opinions about voting restrictions for felons. The authors “expected the right to vote to be perceived as one of the most important rights in a democracy, but we expected public support for this right to diminish when convicted offenders were considered” (Pinaire et al., 2002, 1531). It was conducted at the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut. It was a survey conducted through the telephone. Residential telephone numbers were called across 48 states. The sample included 503 adults. The survey questions were about the criminal justice system, the treatment and punishment of offenders and if the respondents supported the voting restrictions. The findings partially supported the authors’ hypotheses.
The citizens’ opinions ranged between supporting and not supporting. The citizens’ opinions fell in-between those two. 9.9 percent thought felons should never lose their right to vote. 31.6 percent thought they should only lose the right while they are incarcerated. 5.0 percent thought felons should lose their right while on parole or probation. 35.2 percent thought the right to vote should be lost while incarcerated and on parole or probation. Overall, 81.7 percent of the respondents did not support the permanent elimination of voting rights. The respondents’ supported having felons voting rights restored at some point (Pinaire et al., 2002). When the authors asked the respondents why they wanted permanent or temporary voting restrictions, 32.7 percent said “felons have proven that they should not be treated as citizens” (Pinaire et al., 2002, 1541). The authors were surprised that 31.1 percent had chosen none of the above/other reason. Pinaire et al. (2002) believe there must have been some other reason the respondents wanted temporary or permanent voting restrictions. A little more than half strongly or somewhat agreed to have felons rights restored after completing their sentence. About 44.2 percent somewhat or strongly disagreed to the restoration of
rights. Miller and Agnich (2015) conducted a study examining the feelings of ex-offenders who lost their voting rights. The study took place in Florida. Florida is one state that has accepted disenfranchisement policies. “Florida currently disenfranchises more felons than any other state, with recent estimates ranging from 600,000 to 1.2 million” (Manza & Uggen, 2006 as cited in Miller & Agnich, 2015, 5). There were 54 in-depth interviews that were conducted with ex-offenders in Florida. These men lost their right to vote upon their conviction. The men were recruited from different places in Florida. Some examples include halfway houses and community outreach groups. These different places made it easier to compile a diverse group of ex-offenders. Even their offenses varied. Their offenses ranged from homicide to larceny (Miller & Agnich, 2015). The focus of the study was to examine the ex-offenders views on the loss of the right to vote. Based on the findings, there were important patterns that were found. The majority of the participants saw their voting restrictions as a punishment. Since they committed a criminal act, they saw it as punishment even outside of prison. Other participants saw it as punishment but do not understand why. Some of the participants did not even realize their voting rights were taken away. Others never had the opportunity to vote before being imprisoned, so the voting restrictions upon release did not have a significant impact. “Regarding the meaning that ex-offenders make out of their disenfranchisement, three distinct narratives emerged-anger, embarrassment, and fatalism” (Miller & Agnich, 2015, 8). Three important narratives emerged while conducting this study. The three narratives were anger, embarrassment and fatalism. Seven of the participants did not fit into any of the narratives. “Fourteen (26%) of the ex-offenders focused on the contradiction between serving their time and still being punished” (Miller & Agnich, 2015, 11). These fourteen ex-offenders stated their anger toward the policy. One ex-offender stated they had “paid their dues to society, I done my time, I did my parole, I’ve been released, but yet I still don’t have these rights. So I think, yeah, it makes me angry” (Miller & Agnich, 2015, 11). The contradictions the system had was the main focus in the narratives. The second narrative was embarrassment. Shame was associated with the restriction and the hardship they face in getting those rights back. Twelve of the offenders felt embarrassed losing their right to vote. It was also embarrassing trying to get the right back. The final narrative was fatalism. Twenty of the offenders accepted their new life without voting. They felt it was out of their control and there was not much they could do. In losing their right to vote, some offenders explained that they felt excluded from the rest of society. One ex-offender explained it like this: “It makes me feel like I was different from everybody else man. It just separated me from you know, the rest of the people” (Miller & Agnich, 2015, 12).
Legal cases
The voting restriction policies have met some legal actions toward it. One notable case was Green vs. Board of Elections 1967. Green argued to have felon voting rights restored. “Green, a convicted felon, disputed the New York State Constitution’s felon voting prohibition on the grounds that it was a violation of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution” (Johnson-Parris, 2003 as cited in Dawson-Edwards, 2008, 14). Court voted against him stating the clause was permissible. “The Court held the clause constitutionally permissible because it provided a non-penal exercise of power to regulate the franchise” (Johnson-Parris, 2003 as cited in Dawson-Edwards, 2008, 14).
Another case was Richardson vs. Ramirez 1974. This case involved three men who served time for a felony in California. The three men sued to have their rights to vote restored. The men argued the policies regarded voting “denied them the right to equal protection of the laws under the U.S. constitution” (Chung, 2016, 3). According to the 14th amendment, no state can restrict a citizen voting rights without a massive state interest. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court upheld California’s policies stating it was constitutional. The court stated the 14th amendment allowed the restriction on voting rights if the individual was involved in a rebellion or other crime. The Court stated the voting restrictions were part of American history and it is a specific device for punitive measures in the criminal justice system (Chung, 2016). Conclusion In conclusion, there are numerous studies examining the opinions about voting restrictions on ex-offenders. There have also been attempts in the past to restore voting rights. Arguments can be made for the restrictions and against them. From certain studies, education on the issue should be raised so individuals may be well informed in the matter. With the elections right around the corner, one has to think about all ex-offenders who cannot vote. Why should they continue to be punished for their crime even after serving their time and paying their dues? Some offenders might be indifferent in the matter. However, some do want to vote. They want their voice being heard in choosing the nation’s leaders. Ex-felons who try to become productive members of society and are contributing should be allowed to vote. Therefore, the right to vote is a right all ex-felons should be given back.