The European court, in August 2014, stated that the legislation on prisoners voting in the UK was unlawful and have notified that this law has to change. The European Convention on Human Rights in Article 3, Protocol 1, provides three additional rights: the right to education, the right to property, and the right to freely and fairly elect the legislature: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” (Publications.parliament.uk, 2014). This statement represents the whole community when ensuring a right to vote, but it can be argued if prisoners, those who have acted …show more content…
The 1983 act states that prisoners who have been convicted are unable to vote at parliamentary or local elections while they are imprisoned. This is called disenfranchisement which is explained as the exclusion of entitled people’s right to vote, because of a criminal offence. Having caused damage to their surroundings, to the citizens and the society, it can be said that it would be just for them not having the eligibility to some of their humanistic rights. Prisoners are neglected from moral obligations, being able to participate and vote in a legislative election, due to their wrongful acts against the law. The law states that those who are on remand still attain the right to vote until it has been decided that they are released from remand, they will then continue to keep the rights that they are entitled to, or until they are sentenced to a custodial sentence, at which point they will lose the right to vote. According to a justice ministry spokesman (The Guardian, 2010) the issue of voting rights being given to convicted criminals is still a controversial topic amongst government authorities, however, it is being considered seriously and under careful supervision. The governments view on the voting rights being related to criminal offences against the democratic …show more content…
The European court system and the British government have both argued the British parliaments legislation ruling against all convicted criminals voting rights. “By committing offences which by themselves or taken with any aggravating circumstances including the offender's character and previous criminal record require a custodial sentence, such prisoners have forfeited the right to have a say in the way the country is governed for that period” (Publications.parliament.uk, 2014), this statement by Lord Justice Kennedy cannot be opposed, since being sentenced to prison means that the prisoners have lost their right of liberty and many other rights. The loss of convicted criminal liberty is an argument used to suppress those who argue against the British parliaments legislation. However, the appeal should not be in favour of all of the criminals but for those sentenced with minor offences and should vary depending on the length of the sentenced being
Criminal law attempts to balance the rights of individuals to freedom from interference with person or property, and society’s need for order. Procedural matters, the rights of citizens and powers of the state, specific offences and defences, and punishment and compensation are some of the ways society and the criminal justice system interact.
What if one day you weren't allowed to voice your opinion about the people who run our country, your country, in other words, if you couldn’t vote? A lot of people don’t vote, but what if you didn’t even have the right to do so? In 12 states, ex-felons aren’t allowed to vote even after serving their prison time. When you think of a felon you probably think of someone that has done terrible things and shouldn't have a voice in politics, but that figure should be changed. One lady, by the name of Leola Strickland, isn’t allowed to vote because she has a felony on her record for postdating a few checks and having them bounce because she lost her job(1).
“Many people say that serious crime committers have shown they aren’t trustworthy” (Clegg). After a felon is released from prison, the expectation is that they will shape up and return to their lives, however most of their lives are completely changed. When a felon is released from prison, they should retain their same rights as a US citizen as well as their right to vote and serve in Jury Duty, because they served their time and cannot be held in double jeopardy, and are valuable assets to the country for work and less homelessness. When felons are released from prison, they should retain the same rights as the average US citizen as well as the right to vote. Nonviolent felons who have served time for more than a year for misdemeanors are unable to vote because their judgment can no longer be trusted.
The feelings of allowing felons to vote is chilling; those who have been to prison have committed crimes and are out to get their rights back. But it is clear that felons should be “disenfranchised because they have broken the laws,” says Edward Feser, a philosophy professor and writer. Yet people are still questioning whether it is moral to keep felons from getting the rights to vote. Disenfranchising felons is unintentional in racial issues, and is used to punish felons to teach them that once they've broken the laws, they have lost their voting rights as well, and it would also keep felons from violating fellow citizens' voting rights.
In the United States 2.2 million citizens are incarcerated on felony charges. Laws in America prohibit felons from voting. As a result, on Election Day 5.3 million citizens of America are disenfranchised because of crimes they once committed. Though they once broke the law, they have served their time and have been punished adequately in accordance with the American Justice System. Felons should regain full voting rights after their stint in prison.
One of the more controversial debates in today’s political arena, especially around election times, is that of felon disenfranchisement. The disenfranchisement of felons, or the practice of denying felons and ex-felons the right to vote, has been in practice before the colonization of America and traces back to early England; however, it has not become so controversial and publicized until recent times. “In today’s political system, felons and ex-felons are the only competent adults that are denied the right to vote; the total of those banned to vote is approximately 4.7 million men and women, over two percent of the nation’s population” (Reiman 3).
Felon voting laws limit the restrictions for a felon to vote on any election. “Felon voting has not been federally regulated because some people argue that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be tied to felon disenfranchisement and the Congress has the authority to legislate felon voting in federal elections.” Felon disenfranchisement is excluding people otherwise eligible to vote from voting due to conviction of a criminal offence, usually restricted to the more serious class of crimes, felonies. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures and The Sentencing Project, 1 in 40 adults were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. One purpose of the felon voting laws is the uncertainty of trusting
The United States is one of the only few democratic countries that disenfranchises convicted felons. An estimated 5.85 million people charged with a felony are banned from voting. Moreover, felon disenfranchisement laws are a form of racial discrimination because a large percentage of felons are Hispanic, Latino or African American that have been incarcerated as a result of racial profiling. Denying felons from voting is unconstitutional since the right to vote and cast a ballot is supposed to be the cornerstone of democracy. Felons who have completed their sentence should be restored their right to vote as they should be able to participate in elections just like every other citizen. Despite being charged with a felony, felons are also American
The only exceptions are Maine and Vermont. While some states reinstate voting rights once a person has been released from prison; more than thirty continue to disenfranchise. individuals. The. Thirty-one states prohibit those on probation for felony offenses from voting. Thirty-six states prohibit those on parole for felony crimes from voting in elections.
This type of legislation has been devised to allow for the detention of people based upon assessments of risk of re-offending, this essay will explore the concerns with these practices. This essay further aims to explore the moral and practical implications of such sentencing provisions and the impact it has on the whole Justice System. The writer will also address the conflicting goals of Corrections and the purpose and impact of indefinite sentencing while exploring the justifications against such legislation. This essay also aims to show that even though we may feel disgust for these types of offences we must remember the fundamentals of the Criminal Law system and understand that people are entitled to equality and fairness in the eyes of the law.
In a modern Western society where there is significant amount of research done of rehabilitation and criminal justice reform, the practice of sentencing JLWOP (Juvenile Life Without Parole) seems outdated and primitive. There are a number of prominent human rights groups that advocate for the banning of the LWOP sentence for juvenile offenders. In his 2010 article for the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation titled ‘Extinguishing All Hope: Life-Without-Parole for Juveniles,’ Frank Butler breaks down the ethical arguments against the sentence from a social policy perspective. He uses a number of pertinent facts and dates to support and enhance his argument, but retains a clear and concise presentation style, making the document easy to read and comprehend on an analytical level. It is clear from his title that it is not an objective piece, but his opinion is supporte...
Criminal disenfranchisement is defined as the loss of the right to vote by a person convicted of or sentenced to imprisonment for a felony. Since before the civil war, this practice has been a part of the United States justice system mostly as a means to handle the racial issues with voting but then also in regards to the felons and rebels that participated in the Southern “rebellion” during the Civil War. This practice has recently gained some popularity since a debate has developed as to whether it is unconstitutional or not. Is voting a right or a privilege?
...he right to vote. I made a ten question survey that asked questions about letting convicted felons have the right to vote in major elections throughout America. Thirteen out of thirty high school students said that convicted felons should have the right to vote because they are American citizens. The other seventeen people I surveyed said that they should not have the right to vote because they had their chance to perform correctly in society and failed miserably. As you can now see, I have given you many reasons to see that convicted felons should not have the right to vote. They cannot be trusted with such a responsibility as voting for this country’s next leader.
I believe that the single most important societal problem currently is voting right restrictions. November is quickly coming upon us, so does the right to cast our votes for whoever we believe to be the best candidate for the oval office. However, new voting right restrictions will make the voting process harder for certain groups. These laws will affect of upwards to millions of potential voters this coming election. We all have the right to vote. The government also has the right for certain groups to make that ballet harder to cast. The reason that voting right restriction is so important is because it stops numerous people from voting, a specific group of people were targeted, and the reason the law was made is wrong.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,