Purpose Statement
By the end of the speech, the audience will agree that felons should be allowed to vote like any other citizen.
Background of the Problem
Voting to elect leaders is a fundamental right of citizenship in mature democracies. However, more than six million individuals in the United States cannot cast ballots since they have been incarcerated for a felony (Kras). Out of this number, it is estimated that about 70% of incarcerated inmates are projected to be racial minorities, comprising just 25% of the U.S. population (Kras). Researchers believe that part of this racial inequality may be attributed to the Jim Crow-era-inspired sentencing laws and regulations (Alexander 302). Broadly, most of the issues related to disenfranchisement are exacerbated by such policies. In particular, they severely restrict people’s ability to participate fully in democracy, undermine attempts to increase public safety, and aggravate already-existing disparities in the penal system.
Voting Is a Right of Citizenship
Criminal disenfranchisement laws prevent scores of citizens from participating in their democracy. Individuals with prior criminal offenses are denied the ability to vote under these regulations, which vary significantly across states. Twenty-six states prohibit members of the public from voting solely on the grounds of prior incarceration (National Conference of State Legislatures). In recent decades, there has been a broad movement toward restoring the ability to vote, even though this is a policy option made on a state-by-state basis. America must demonstrate that the ability to vote is an unalienable and universal concept that extends to all citizens above 18 years if it is sincere about proclaiming itself a democratic country. Freedom of expression, association, worship, and all other liberties protected by the Bill of Rights are guaranteed to all people of the United States. Therefore, everyone should have the right to vote unless they are mentally unfit.
The nation must convey the message that voting is a right, not a luxury, for all residents of the United States in an era when it is being suppressed nationwide. Whether in prison or not, every citizen of the United States who is at least 18 years old must be eligible to cast a ballot. Disenfranchisement for felonies additionally fails to recognize the crucial contrast between a person’s constitutional rights and the proper response to a crime (Aviram et al. 298). Even while convicted people may get jail sentences, they often still have access to their fundamental rights. Therefore, even if a person is confined in a high-security detention center, they can marry, divorce, and purchase or sell assets. To the degree that voting may be seen as an act of freedom of speech, a convict may send an op-ed piece to a tabloid and have it posted, which may have more influence than casting a ballot.
Criminal Disenfranchisement Predominantly Affects Minorities
If an individual behind bars may be considered a legal adult for the census, then there is no reason why their vote should not be tallied during an election. People of color face a disproportionately higher risk of having their voting rights stripped away due to racial inequalities in enforcement practices and the application of criminal sentences. In addition, studies suggest that restricting the ability to vote impacts not just persons but also families and whole communities (Condry and Smith 221). At the national level, one out of every 16 black adults does not have the right to vote (Democracy Docket). In seven states (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and Wyoming), the number of Black adults unable to vote makes up more than 15 percent of the total adult population (Democracy Docket). Even though there is less information available, it is believed that the rapidly expanding Latino population in the United States is similarly overrepresented in the country’s criminal justice system. In almost every state, the percentage of black, Latino, and native community members who do not have voting rights is greater than the overall population and their white contemporaries.
Limiting the voting rights of convicted felons implies that a person who has perpetrated a crime in the United States can never be a complete citizen again, irrespective of having completed their sentence. This statement implies that they will always be considered inferior or unimportant citizens. Studies have demonstrated, however, that when individuals are properly reintegrated into society, the likelihood of recidivism decreases, and the community is safer (Andersen et al. 15). Ex-convicts who have lost their voting rights have fewer incentives or opportunities to make meaningful contributions to the communities in which they live. Getting fully involved in one’s neighborhood and having a say in what occurs to oneself are crucial ties to other members of one’s community. These relationships have the potential to operate as a deterrent against criminal activity. The freedom to vote embodies everything it signifies to be a citizen of the United States.
Voting Can Safeguard Inmates
Permitting incarcerated individuals to vote and participate in national political discussions may be the most effective means of eradicating the costly, persistent issue of hazardous prison environments. The fact that prisoners have such limited political power has caused them to be abused and killed in badly run prisons with almost no political ramifications for those who conceived, financed, and operate the existing system (Barkow 105). Moreover, the political system may benefit from hearing from convicts since they have firsthand knowledge of a normally secretive aspect of the government.
If inmates vote, legislators could be compelled to investigate what goes on in prison facilities more thoroughly before the situation deteriorates into unchecked abuse and violence. The right of convicts to vote is essential to the legitimacy of democracy in the United States. On the contrary, the experience of actually being incarcerated is arguably the clearest and most striking picture of its polar opposite. Civil death inevitably leads to the extinction of civil life. Convicted criminals are not allowed a voice in the decisions that affect them; as a result, voters and elected representatives in the United States have reacted by penalizing their passivity with torment.
Many legal experts and commentators say that criminals must not be permitted to vote since committing a crime violates the “social contract.” The social contract is the understanding between people to comply with societal norms and regulations. Those who violate the contract, such as by breaking the law, may no longer have access to its advantages, including representation in government. In actuality, reinstating voting rights could restore the social contract and alleviate the underlying causes of the offender’s criminal behavior.
Call to Action
Liberty of the individual is widely regarded as among the essential components of human rights since it is enshrined in various international human rights agreements and national constitutions around the globe. Governments must demonstrate that the application of incarceration is required to accomplish a significant social goal and that there are no less stringent ways to accomplish the goal of revoking that right, even briefly. Inevitably, imprisonment leads to the loss of individual liberty, but in reality, incarceration often violates many other fundamental rights.
Prisoners throughout the globe are often denied access to even the most necessities. They are frequently kept in cramped quarters, scantily clad, and starved. Despite being highly susceptible to illness, they get subpar medical care. They have trouble staying in touch with their kids and other close relatives. The lives of inmates may be in danger under such circumstances. Human rights tribunals and courts increasingly acknowledge that depriving prisoners of their human dignity involves placing them in such circumstances (Celiksoy 555). It has been ruled that these situations are inhumane and demeaning. To a large extent, the majority of these inmates are low-level criminals. Some of them may face sentencing, which should be handled using suitable alternatives rather than jailing. Adopting appropriate alternatives to incarceration would decrease congestion and make it simpler for governments to perform their fundamental responsibilities to inmates under their custody.
Moreover, the United States has one of the world’s highest prison populations, thanks to its heavy reliance on punitive measures. To be imprisoned is to be denied one’s fundamental right to freedom. Other human rights are unaffected, save for those necessarily constrained by the condition that one is imprisoned. Criminal justice reform is required to guarantee that this concept is adhered to, inmates’ human rights are maintained, and their chances for social rehabilitation are enhanced according to applicable international norms and standards.
Restoring voting rights indicates to all residents that persons who have completed their sentence for a prior offense are qualified to enroll in voting, a vital instrument of civic participation. Participation in civic life is related to lower rates of recidivism; hence, an inclusive commitment to democracy can undoubtedly enhance the democratic process (Whittle 13). Through their votes, the concerns of many Americans, particularly those traditionally marginalized, will be voiced.
Works Cited
Alexander, Michelle. “The New Jim Crow.” Power and Inequality, edited by Levon Chorbajian, Routledge, 2021, pp. 300-304.
Andersen, Tia S., et al. “What matters to formerly incarcerated men? Looking beyond recidivism as a measure of successful reintegration.” The Prison Journal, vol. 100, no. 4, 2020, pp. 1-22.
Aviram, Hadar, et al. “Felon disenfranchisement.” Annual Review of Law & Social Science, vol. 13, 2017, pp. 295-311.
Barkow, Rachel E. Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration. , 2019. Print.
Celiksoy, Ergul. “Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in prisoners’ right to vote cases.” Human Rights Law Review, vol. 20, no. 3, 2020, pp. 555-581.
Condry, Rachel, and Peter S. Smith. Prisons, Punishment, and the Family: Towards a New Sociology of Punishment? 2018.
Democracy Docket. “Felony Disenfranchisement Explained.” Democracy Docket, 2022.
Kras, Kimberly R. “Should Convicted Felons Lose the Right to Vote?” Pacific Standard, Pacific Standard, 2018. Web.
National Conference of State Legislatures. “Felon Voting Rights.” Ncsl.org, 2021.
Whittle, Tanya N. “Felony collateral sanctions effects on recidivism: A literature review.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 29, no. 5, 2018, pp. 1-20.