Should inmates and ex-cons be allowed/denied to vote in elections?

Great Debates
1

.
The topic of this debate is whether inmates and/or released offenders should be allowed to vote in local, state or federal elections, or should be denied such rights.

I’m not going to present any arguments for or against, I’ll leave that to you, for now :wink: However, let me slightly frame the discussion by providing some background on the current state, both in the United States and elsewhere in the world:

In the US (1998 numbers):

[ul]
[li]The 14th Amendment provides that states may exclude citizens from voting “for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” In 1974, the US Supreme Court used the words “or other crime” to allow disenfranchisement. The argument that the words “or other crime” related to some form of rebellion did not sway the court.[/li][li]Breakdown: The right to vote is denied in: 47 states for inmates, 29 states for offenders on probation, and in 32 states for paroled offenders. 3 states allow inmates to vote in elections, namely: Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont[/li][li]11 states have enacted legislation removing a former inmate’s right to vote for the rest of their life. Those are: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming. This is also the case in Maryland and Arizona on a second felony. A two year waiting period applies in Texas.[/li][li]A total of 3.9 million adults, or 2.0 percent of the eligible voting population, is currently or permanently disenfranchised as a result of a felony conviction. [/li][li]There’s also a racial tilt: 1.4 million black men are disenfranchised, 13 percent of all black adult males (in total, 4.6 million black men voted in the 1996 election). In Florida and Alabama 31 percent of all black men are permanently denied the right to vote (amounts to 204 000 and 105 000, respectively)[/li][li]The crime committed need not to have any connection to electoral processes, nor need it be classified as notably serious. Shoplifting or possession of a modest amount of marijuana could suffice. [/li][/ul]
Elsewhere in the world (1998):

[ul]
[li]About inmates’ right to vote:[/li]According to research by Penal Reform International, prisoners may vote in countries such as the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Sweden and Zimbabwe. In Germany, the law obliges prison authorities to encourage prisoners to assert their voting rights and to facilitate voting procedures. The only prisoners who may not vote are those convicted of electoral crimes or crimes (e.g., treason) that undermine the “democratic order”, and whose court-imposed sentence expressly includes disenfranchisement

[li]About the right for ex-convicts to vote:[/li]Some countries restrict the vote for a period after conclusion of the prison term: Finland and New Zealand, for example, restrict the vote for several years after completion of sentence, but only in the case of persons convicted of buying or selling votes or of corrupt practices. Some countries condition disenfranchisement of prisoners on the seriousness of the crime or the length of their sentence. Others, e.g., Germany and France, permit disenfranchisement only when it is imposed by a court order
[/ul]
I don’t have any numbers on how widespread this is for any European country, or others.
Any thoughts?

Cites:
Slate, Commentary, 2000: http://slate.msn.com/id/78066/
HRW report, 1998: Intro, Summary, Current impact, Other countries

2

I’ve never quite got my head around why disenfranchisement is a good thing. If felons constitute a “dangerous” voting block, I think this says more about our society than the felons.

3

Imagine a former offender having a legitimate part in an electoral campaign, maybe even getting elected, wonder what the media would make of it.

Frankly, disenfranchising felons doesnt means much anyway, they dont vote much anyways.

4

Maybe they should be required to vote while incarcerated. They couldn’t possibly do any worse than us. :smiley:

5

I don’t believe inmates in prison or jail should be allowed to vote. It’s just another right you lose. The exception being someone who is awaiting trial and has not been able to make bail.

I do believe that they should be allowed to vote once they rejoin society. Let’s not marginalize ex-cons anymore than they already are.

I’m open for debate about a waiting period. I’m inclined to think that there should be none, and that parolees and probationers should be allowed to vote, but a good argument could convince me I’m wrong.

6

Yes, I’d also like to hear the argument for a waiting period. My opinion now is that once a person does their time, they should have their rights returned to them. But like This Year’s Model I could be persuaded otherwise once I hear the arguments.

7

It’s funny. We have all this handwringing about how we mistreat ex-cons, how it’s disproportionately affecting black people, blah blah blah.

Whatever happened to teaching right from wrong? If these schmucks wouldn’t resort to killing, robbing, and assaulting people, they wouldn’t have to worry about losing any rights.

They don’t deserve to have a voice equal to those who are law abiding citizens.

8

I see no reason not to let felons vote even while they are incarcerated. Many other rights are taken from them as necessary incidents of incarceration, but the voting franchise is the one right we can safely allow them to exercise. Besides, since incarcerated convicts are effectively wards and slaves of the state, should they not have some small voice in how the state is governed? Where’s the harm? If convicts could vote, politicians sometimes would have to do something or promise something to attract the convict vote in swing elections – and maybe as a result our criminal law would become a little less harsh, or the percentage of our population incarcerated a little bit lower, or the conditions of incarceration a little less horrible. In all three respects, the United States is the shame of the industrialized world.

9

[QUOTE=Alien]
.
[li]11 states have enacted legislation removing a former inmate’s right to vote for the rest of their life. Those are: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming. This is also the case in Maryland and Arizona on a second felony. A two year waiting period applies in Texas.[/li][/QUOTE]

One point I must dispute, according to my cursory research. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/voterights.htm This site says that in Virginia, a convicted felon can have voting rights restored after release, assuming all restitution has been satisfied. So in VA, it isn’t a lifetime prohibition on voting for ex-cons.

Additionally, one might draw a distinction between felony and misdemeanor convictions, for the purposes of debate. There can be quite a difference.

But back to the point of the OP:

Sure, ex-convicts should be allowed to vote. The whole point of sentencing (supposedly) is that when they have served their sentence, they can resume a functional place in society. They have a stake in the election outcome just as much as anyone else.

Now while incarcerated? I’m fence-sitting on that point, as I can see both sides of the issue. Ultimately, I see neither benefit or detriment from it, but perhaps someone will be along to elaborate on one or the other.

10

All right, the link didn’t come out the way I intended, but it works at least. Stupid coding.

11

[QUOTE=Alien]
[li]There’s also a racial tilt: 1.4 million black men are disenfranchised, 13 percent of all black adult males (in total, 4.6 million black men voted in the 1996 election). In Florida and Alabama 31 percent of all black men are permanently denied the right to vote (amounts to 204 000 and 105 000, respectively)[/li][/QUOTE]

You are aware, are you not, that that was originally the point? In Florida, the law denying felons the right to vote was enacted during Reconstruction as a way to keep blacks from voting, and I believe it is the same story in other Southern states with similar laws.

12

In general, and only in general, that’s a good point. I happen to agree with comments in the Slate article linked to in the OP:

Perhaps this is where a waiting periond would come in handy. If you haven’t gone back to jail in, say, three years, we’ll let you take another step back into society. I’m not bleeding-heart enough to believe that all criminals are just waiting for the affirmation of their self worth to reform (serious criminals are going to spend most of their lives in jail anyway); I am, however, bleeding-heart enough to believe that those who are honestly trying to reform, and to become productive members of our society should be encouraged - should have some bait dangled in front of them.

[P.S.]
Get my check yet?
[/P.S.]

13

I don’t agree that the purpose of prison is rehabilitation. I believe it’s for punishment. If rehabilitation is the purpose, than why do we have such high rates of recidivism? I don’t see that much rehabilitation happening. If people want to consider themselves rehabilitated, then let them. I don’t believe it, at least until they have gone several years (let’s say 20 or so, just to put a number on it) without committing a crime. Since they willfully removed themselves from society, I don’t see any need to allow them to re-enter it so easily.

[sub][PS]Yes I did, and now I just need to find a day and time I can go when it’s not sold out. Go figure.[/PS][/sub]

14

See, I don’t find it funny at all. Not after the last presidential election’s fiasco especially. I’m wondering how someone like yourself would find it funny.

Personally, I don’t think ex-felons should have rights stripped away after they have paid their debts to society. An ex-felon who wants to vote is showing that they have an appreciation for their citizenship. I think this kind of behavior should be encouraged.

15

The practical purpose of prison is neither rehabilitation nore punishment. The purpose of incarceration is incarceration. It takes criminals out of circulation for a while and puts them where they can’t commit any crimes, except against other criminals. That’s why practically every country uses it, even though some other sanctions might work better for rehabilitation or might be more terrible as punishments. (For instance, I’m sure I’d rather serve a prison term than have my right hand amputated.)

16

Yes. This fact that voting rights can be reinstated is covered in my cite as well. However, it’s often neither usual nor easy to do so, as the numbers for Virginia suggest:

Yes, but not necessarily. I already mentioned shoplifting and possession of marijuana in the OP. From the cite:

Very nice link, btw. Thanks :slight_smile:

17

Another cruel irony of disenfranshising felons is this: Let’s say you were convicted of some nonviolent victimless crime like gambling, marijuana posession, etc. You are forever prohibited from trying to change the injustice of those laws through the ballot box.

18

Maybe it’s precisely because of attitudes like yours that so little rehabilitation occurs.

19

Yes, I was aware of that. But I didn’t include it in the OP because this is no longer the case (AFAIK). Anyway, this is what my cite had to say about it:

What morbid irony: “Beat up your wife and you lose the right to vote. Murder your wife and you can still vote”. :rolleyes:

20

Handwringing? Heh.

Not a fan of rehabilitation, eh.