Argumentative Essay

Posted: September 9th, 2013

Name:

Course:
Lecturer:

Date:

Argumentative Essay

States have different laws regarding the issue of voting among the incarcerated. In some states, once the offender is incarcerated, he or she loses the right to vote permanently. Other states restore the right to vote after their term of incarceration ends. Some states consider the form of crimes that the offender has committed before deciding whether they can vote. Offenders who have committed crimes such as murder, treason, rape, and incest are not considered for re-enfranchisement. In other states, those who have committed crime have to wait for some time after their release before they become eligible for re-enfranchisement. In America, only felons in Maine and Vermont allow those who are incarcerated to vote (Nunn 763). There are many reasons why people are incarcerated. Some people are imprisoned, yet they are innocent of the crimes that they are accused of and convicted. These people are denied their freedom and their constitutional right of electing their leaders. States should amend the current laws so that they can allow the incarcerated to vote.

There is a wide disparity in prison, in terms of the races presented in the prison system. While African Americans make up a minority race in the country, they are the majority in American correctional facilities. They make up about 40% of the population in correctional facilities, yet they are only 13% of the country’s population. Disallowing those who are incarcerated to vote is denying a substantial number of African Americans the chance to participate in a democratic process. The problem does not only affect the African Americans in prison, but also the Latino community in the prison system. This constitutes racial discrimination. There are more than eight million people in American prisons, most of whom are from racial minorities, and they remain disenfranchised because of the law and the legal system (Raskin 559-573).

The issue of disenfranchisement is further complicated when even those who are released from prison are denied the right to vote. These people have been rehabilitated, and they have served their time in prison. They should not continue being punished because they were in prison. This is a reflection to the society, that the law does not consider such people fit to elect their leaders (Middlemass 22-39). Denying the incarcerated, the opportunity to vote will have future negative influence as it will reduce the number of people interested in the voting process. Research suggests the children and teenagers whose fathers are incarcerated have weak connections to the political system (Simon and Sparks 180). They are not interested in politics, and there is little evidence that they will change their perception in future.

Some people argue that the reason that prisoners are in prison is so that they can rehabilitate after committing crimes. Such people have committed crimes, some of them have denied others the right to live, and so they should be denied their freedom. Prisons should be places where the prisoners are denied their freedom so that they can realize the crime they committed, and thus turn away from crime (Manza and Uggen 559-605). Felons do not have any political right or power. They should not be allowed to make governing decisions, for the same laws that they disregarded.

Having the chance to vote is a measure of freedom. Prisoners should not be allowed to vote on this basis. The fourteenth amendment in the constitution supports disenfranchisement, despite the voting right acts passed (Manza and Uggen 493). The constitution does not seem to hold considerable regard concerning the right of all citizens to vote, irrespective of their situation. The voting process in a democratic system determines the leaders who will be responsible for establishing the country’s law. It is, therefore, a moral issue, which should be made by responsible citizens.

Works Cited:

Bowers, Melanie and Robert, R. Preuhs. “Collateral Consequences of a Collateral Penalty: The Negative Effect of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws on the Political Participation of Nonfelons.” Social Science Quarterly 90.3 (2009) 722-743

Frazier, N. Carl. “Removing the Vestiges of Discrimination: Criminal Disenfranchisement Laws and Strategies for Challenging Them.” Kentucky Law Journal 481 (2006)

Manza, Jeff and Christopher  Uggen. “Punishment and Democracy: Disenfranchisement of Nonincarcerated Felons in the United States.” Perspectives on Politics 2.3 (2004): 491-505

Marquardt, E. Susan. “Deprivation of a Felon’s Right to Vote: Constitutional Concerns, Policy Issues and Suggested Reform for Felony Disenfranchisement Law.” University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 1 (2005)

Middlemass, M. Keesha. “Rehabilitated But Not Fit to Vote: A Comparative Racial Analysis of Disenfranchisement Laws.” Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society 8.2 (2006) 22-39

Nunn, L. Robin. “Lock Them Up and Throw Away the Vote.” Chicago Journal of International Law 5.2 (2005)

Pearson, D. Tanya. “Disenfranchisement – A Race Neutral Punishment for Felony Offenders or a Way to Diminish the Minority Vote.” Hamline Journal of Public Policy 359 (2001-2002)

Raskin, Jamin. “A Right-to-Vote Amendment for the U. S. Constitution: Confronting America’s Structural Democracy Deficit.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 3.3 (2004): 559-573

Simon, Jonathan and Sparks, Richard. The SAGE Handbook of Punishment and Society. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2012. Print

Uggen, Christopher, Angela Behrens and Jeff Manza. “Criminal disenfranchisement.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1 (2005): 307-322