Argument: Pro Felon Voting Rights

Brilon Cooper
AP Language and Composition
Hampton

Forever on Mute?

“I made a mistake. I’m Sorry. I abused the system by using drugs. When you are young, you do things that you shouldn't do. Do I have t pay for this for the rest of my life? - Rosetta Meeks

In the year 2000 Bush versus Gore, presidential election, according to current senior editor of the New Yorker and former editor of the Washington Monthly, Nicholas Thompson wrote in in WM article, "Locking Up the Vote," "An African-American woman who has devoted her last six years to teaching computer skills to low income people, Meeks, wanted to vote and know whom she wanted to vote for;" however, Meeks was ineligible to cast her vote. Due to the crimes Meeks committed seven and a half years prior to the election, she was considered a felon in the US, which means she was affected by the US law which details that every felons is permanently barred from the voting booth unless the governor and at least three of his cabinet members decide” to restore their rights. Many US citizens are in situations much similar to Meeks’s; they cannot vote and must write and appeal in order to restore their voting rights. The appeal Meeks was required to complete began with a 16 page form, listing irrelevant and offensive questions ranging from the date of birth of any person which whom she had a child out of wedlock, to the cause of death of her parents. Although Meeks was a US citizens who paid off all her fines and was fortunate enough to win her appeal two and a half years after she began it, she was never able to cast her vote in that election. Unfortunately, not many citizens ever get their voting rights restore once they are labeled a felon: a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison (law.com). The law which prevents US citizens from voting who have been convicted of felonies should be changes, automatically restoring their voting rights after their punishments and jail sentences have been served and completed.
The United States is famous for being the land of opportunity, equality, justice and a true democracy. However, it is ironic that his “true democracy” is the only democracy in the world that disenfranchises felons for life. Thomas Johnson is a US citizen committed to his community by running programs which guide younger generations int he right path. Johnson, a fully capable American, remain a citizens without a voice, along with roughly 5.3 million other Americans. Johnson states, “I’ve been in this community for five years... I’m a taxpayer. I help mold this community though my work. The sheriff is a friend of mine. But voting is the power by which you truly shape and mold, and I’m being denied that.” Johnson has a criminal record which includes carrying a firearm without a licence and selling cocaine. Those 5.3 million citizens also have records, labeling them all as felons and the US revokes voting rights from citizens once they commit a felony. At this time, twelve states bar felons from voting because the have “displayed bad judgement.” Reynolds Holding, a senior writer for Time Magazine and author of the article, “Why Can’t Felons Vote?” writes that felons have proven themselves unfit to make the decision of choosing the nation’s leaders by committed “serious crimes.” Grant it, Johnson committed a serious crime; however, as ex-felon Heywood Fennell, stated denying the right to vote after completing a sentence is "a way of preparing the guillotine of despair and hopelessness for people coming out of prison into community... A vote is power, a way to be involved in the process and it helps give you the opportunity to rebuild your life.” It is unfair that although Johnson has served and completed his assignment punishment, began to rebuild a more positive life, became a leader of his community and impacted younger generations to not make the same decisions he made in the past, he is considered “unfit” to make decisions for the country he lives in a community he serves daily. With laws like this, it is safe to say that the “true democracy” is very hypocritical.

Dr. Todd R. Clear, the Dean of the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, did a study of two poor and mostly black communities in Tallahassee, Florida. His results revealed that he “was unable to find a single family without at least one disenfranchised man.” This simply means that the community as a whole, excluding all citizens under the age of 18, have chances that are slim to none when it come to uniting to resist such proposes as “locating a toxic waste dump nearby.” Because a America is nation where typically every vote counts, Dr. Marc Mauer, director of the Sentencing project, stated “judging who is fit to vote is a slippery slope and restricting voting based on felony convictions is the equivalent to a character test.” In the US, there are people who are considered law-abiding citizens, who have no records nor felony convictions, but those facts do not essentially mean they will make good decisions and hat felons will make bad decisions. In this case, testing a person’s character is a more logical way to conclude if that person will make a good or bad decision.

The Mission Statement of  the US Bureau of Prisons reads, “It is the mission of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.” This merely means that the purpose of prisons is to protect society from those who break the law, in a place which they may work and improve themselves so they may become future law-abiding citizens. Judges sentence these law breakers a certain amount of time that suit’s the crime they committed.  It is safe to assume that if these law breaking citizens are freed back into society, they must be considered “safe” because the Federal Bureau of Prisons no longer needs to protect society from them.

I can agree with those who say that felons who have committed murders have taken another citizens voice, life, and pursuit of happiness; in other words, they have violated another citizen’s rights, which is a punishable crime.  However, I cannot agree that those felons shall also have their voice taken as another punishment. As mentioned above, these US citizens are incarcerated for however long a judge believes society shall be protected from that law offender considering the crime they have committed. Then, once their sentence is completed, they are freed back into society to live among the other law abiding citizens. As stated int he Declaration of Indepedence, “all men are created equal,” meaning that if a felon may live with citizens, it would only be equal to also be treated as a citizen as well. By serving their full jail sentence, they have already completed their fair punishment for whatever crime they committed.

Advocates  who believe that voting is a privilege may say, “that people who have broken laws should not be involved in making them, and that ex-felons will vote in ways that harm society and influence criminal justice policy for the worse.” According to my opponent, voting requires responsibility, trustworthiness, and loyalty and when criminals break the law, they become untrustworthy, not loyal, and irresponsible. However, as previously mentioned, these people have already served their punishment for breaking the law while in prison. If these felons are released from prison that must mean that they have become trustworthy, responsible, and loyal enough to live among other US citizens since the purpose of prison is to protect law-abiding citizens from law breakers. If a citizen is safe and trustworthy enough to live with they must also be safe and trustworthy enough to vote and make decisions on issues that affect their daily lives. In addition, their is no existing proof that felons vote in such ways to harm society, even in the few states that still allow voting while in prison.

When American finally changes that law to allow all citizens to vote after they complete their original, assigned punishments, essentially allowing a person living in a community with citizens to regain their citizenship, then America may call itself a true democracy and a country truly based on equality. However, until then America can be considered a country just as irresponsible, non-loyal, and untrustworthy as it considers felons.