Pros And Cons Of Ex-Convicts

Branded: Should Ex-offenders’ voting rights be restored? Buddhist philosopher and educator, Daisaku Ikeda, remarked that mistakes will always be made, for as long as there are humans. In this regard, no individual or group can be excluded from committing a fault or considered unredeemable for a wrong deed due to the fact that it is human nature. Murder, robbery, rape, and drug-dealing are all crimes punishable by law and result in the loss of freedom. However, once an ex-offender has completed their sentence and must re-integrate into society, the inevitable hardship of being rejected and branded for a fault committed in the past is overwhelming. Although the animosity of the public may be believed rightfully justified, it is certainly not just or of correlation to strip ex-convicts of their voting rights. First, it is important to address that it is contradicting and unacceptable to expect newly-released offenders to assimilate back into their communities and become law-abiding if they are restricted from their constitutional right to

Sharon Browne and Roger Clegg are advocates for the most common, and unjustifiable argument for ex-convicts not being restored their rights and stated, “If they are not willing to follow the law, they cannot be entrusted a role in making the law.” In response, it should be pointed out that voting simply elects officials or solidifies the approval or disapproval of a proposal. Next, any bill must be passed through the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President in order to become law so it is highly improbable and extremist to say that the ex-felon’s vote should be abridged on the account of possibly impacting legislative matters. Professor at Stanford University, Pamela S. Karlan, made a well-thought-out counterstatement on the unconstitutionality of restricting these