The whole idea of taking away a convicted felon’s voting rights started in Rome when they were the controlling empire. Nowadays, a majority of prisons throughout the United States are allowing felons to vote on who becomes the next president. Even though they have committed murder, rape, thievery, we blow off those thoughts and allow felons to have a say in who runs this beautiful country. So the question is, should we allow convicted felons to vote? Not a chance would I ever say yes into letting felons choose our next president! Would you want to stand next to a convicted felon as you vote? I have a hard time imagining this act. I want to ask you a question, what do you think was going through their mind when they committed their devious acts towards the community? If a convicted felon cannot even be trusted to live normally in society then why would we trust their judgment in a presidential election? "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment...” (Roger Clegg, JD). If somebody commits crimes against The United States then they are not trustworthy whatsoever. As convicted felons have shown with their crimes, they cannot handle being a good citizen and following the rules. So what gives other citizens of America the right of thinking their opinion must be heard? "Now why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives?” (Tucker Carlson, MSNBC television host). So I have shown you, with expert details, that we cannot trust convicted felons with the right to vote for our major representatives. The main thing that I do not agree with is letting these criminals vote while they are incarcerat... ... middle of paper ... ...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. Works Cited http://felonvoting.procon.org/ http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx http://www.salon.com/2012/10/22/banned_from_voting_booths_ex_convicts/
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.
Many people believe that felons do not deserve the right to vote. For these people, voting is not an inherent right; rather it is a privilege given to deserving people that wish to make a positive change to their lives. Some believe that, “…there is no reason for a felon to vote or to debate about whether or not they have that right…they made the choice to break the law, so why should they have any say in making it?” {Siegel} In this point of view, giving felons the right to vote is similar to rewarding them. With the right to vote, felons are still able to sway decisions regarding the lives of a society they are no longer a part of. Felons are meant to be punished, stripped of numerous rights including that of voting. Punishments, then, are made to restrict a person, not give them more freedom and decision.
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
I believe that instead of incarcerating them they should be put in facilities that will help them get treatment for their disabilities, disorders, and drug addictions. If they are being rehabilitated the right way it will help prevent further crimes and also will help the offender go back into society and live a crime free lifestyle. For Christel Tribble being locked up actually helped her out to realize that she doesn’t want to be a delinquent. She was motivated by her mother to continue her education and to realize that it’s not worth being in the court system at such a young age because it will be a never ending cycle. For Keith Huff, he went to Kentucky State prison five times serving a total of 27 years in the criminal justice system. He was incarcerated for drug problems, which in the long run won’t help him. It would be more beneficial for him to receive help to prevent him from using drugs. If they sent him to a rehabilitation center where he can receive the appropriate help he need it would prevent him from future imprisonment. As for Charles McDuffie he was an addict and a Vietnam veteran suffering from PTSD. He was sentenced to prison, which was no help for him in his situation dealing with PTSD. He needed mental health treatment to help him deal with the tragedies that he was remembering from the Vietnam War. Luckily when McDuffie got out of prison his friends, who
The right to vote for non-citizens has become an increasingly controversial topic due to the strong and often divisive opinions of permanent Canadian residents. The capacity to vote is one of the most important and valued freedoms granted to individuals. Although the acceptance of non-citizen resident voting is frequently encouraged in order to propel self-governing justice and immigrant inclusion, opponents claim that it is in a nation’s best interest to delay voting rights to non-citizens. According to this claim, by preserving voting rights to citizens, non-citizens would have the social responsibility to actively learn the essential community services and self-ruled obligations necessary to earn their citizenship. In spite of this claim, non-citizens should be allowed to vote because the right to vote offers immigrants a more welcomed chance to contribute in the decision-making processes that take place in Canadian legislature. Seeing that this legislature administrates the rights and freedoms of the immigrant populations, it would only be just if immigrants had the right to elect candidates who spoke on behalf of their best interests.
Once released from prison, he or she is deemed a felon. Losing the right to vote, not being able to serve on a jury, and inability to enforce his or her second amendment is just a few of the disadvantages of serving time, but this is just the textbook interpretation. There is no much more that is at stake when you step foot behind bars. Once a person gains their freedom the better question to ask is what wasn’t taken form them? Their job if there was one in the first place, their children, their family, and most importantly the part of the person that made them a member of society.
Individuals convicted of a felony should not lose their right to vote. The right to vote is a
According to CNN, 12 million illegal immigrants currently reside in the United States, which is approximately equivalent to the populations of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Michigan. Removing all 12 million illegal immigrants, then, would be like removing one of the above states, a pretty incredulous task. In practical terms, it is not possible to send that many immigrants back to their respective countries efficiently and economically. This raises the issue of what to do with the immigrants that are already here, and how to increase security to keep the number of illegal immigrants entering under control. It may be feasible to grant citizenship to those illegal immigrants that have been in the United States for some time, however; that citizenship should come with certain set of restrictions. In other words, a probationary citizenship could be granted. In terms of future illegal immigrants, increased security measures to either restrict immigrants from crossing without proper citizenship authorization or better regulate the influx of immigrants coming in should be enforced. Taken together, current illegal immigrants should be provided a probationary citizenship license under the stipulation that they enroll in an English course, take and pass a citizenship test, be able to provide family support without government assistance, and keep a clean criminal record all within a set period of time before receiving a permanent citizenship; additionally, future immigrants should not be allowed into the United States by increasing border security measures to increase efficacy of controlling incoming immigrants which may include building a better border and hiring more law enforcement personnel.
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?
The issue of rights for people imprisoned revolves around benefits and voting. Although the purpose of prison is to remove a person’s liberties and freedoms, some believe that they should not be eligible for family benefits and the right to vote. However, a criticism of this is that although they are imprisoned, they still deserve access to basic human rights, which includes freedom of speech, allowing them to vote.
In most states ex-felons are not allowed to vote. This takes away a large portion of the voting population because of how many ex-felons there are right now and the many more that will be in the future. Ex-felons may also have a very hard time finding a job or a place to live. Legally landlords are allowed to deny an ex-felon. In Carbondale Illinois rental properties owners “Home Rentals” does background checks to make sure that none of their potential renters are felons. If they are felons Home Rentals claims that they will deny them the privilege of living in one of their properties. Ex-felons may also have a hard time finding jobs. Not many employers are willing to employ ex-felons for the fear of more crime or less commitment. Though denying these ex-felons jobs will not help the economy, only giving them jobs can help that.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
have not come about without criticism on constitutional grounds. Any criticism should take into account the extraordinary recidivism rates found only in the criminal class of the s...
...niors who brought us into this generation. We deserve to be protected as much as any other human race. Our tax dollars spent on housing inmates are a lot cheaper for us to pay when one considers the cost of irreparable pain and suffering, of a victim who falls prey to a parolee who had no intention of reversing his or her former lifestyle and recommitted their life to crime. One cannot put a price tag on scarred lives. It would be worth every penny to keep these criminals behind bars until they have completed their full sentences, if it meant even saving one innocent life, or sparing someone an unforgettable damaging experience. In conclusion, parole serves to benefit the inmate who is seeking his or her freedom, while society seldomly benefits from progress or efforts implemented by parolees in the community. We must understand that parole is a privilege, not a right. We must take into consideration that if almost half of the population that is released on parole returns to prison; parole is not working and should be abolished. Law abiding citizens have earned their right to freedom, and criminals have earned their right to confinement, and should remain that way, as sentenced.
Should juveniles be sentenced to prison for life? Should juveniles be trialed as adults after committing a heinous crime and sentenced to life? As a teenager, this question is far too complicated to answer because I am a teenager yet in my opinion, I believe that the juvenile should not be sentenced to life. I believe that there is another way to punish them for their crimes. The last execution was in 2006 in California.