Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

Question

The following information is from Wikipedia. What is your opinion on it?

"Many countries have disenfranchisement of sentenced prisoners. In the United States, voting privileges are denied to prisoners by some states, but several other countries (Canada and most of the countries of the European Union) allow prisoners to vote, regardless of time served, nature of the crime, etc. Some countries (and U.S. states) also deny the right to vote to those convicted of serious crimes, even after they are released from prison. In some cases (e.g. the felony disenfranchisement laws found in many U.S. states) the denial of the right to vote is automatic on conviction of a serious criminal offence; in other cases (e.g. provisions found in many parts of continental Europe) the denial of the right to vote is an additional penalty that the court can choose to impose, over and above the penalty of imprisonment, such as in France or Germany."

shortgirl, since you ask I believe that all citizens above a certain age should have the right to vote. But I didn't want my opinions to cloud those of the answerers, so I decided to 'stay neutral'.

Wow, George D - proof that people shouldn't 'edit' their answers after hitting the bottle...

Answer 1

Well, first, I'll preface this with, I really only know about enfranchisement in the US, only a little bit about voting rights around the world. I'm working on a Political Science PhD, but voting rights are not my field. So I'm going to present my personal views, mixed with a little that I've learned through some very light research on this topic in reference to the US, and after having coded some very basic information on voting rights in Latin America and Europe. Also, sorry for the length of this answer, but the question is pretty broad (I think it might be my longest answer yet on Yahoo! Answers, actually...maybe I can use it as a chapter in my dissertation... :) ).

First, my perspective as a political scientist:
This is an issue that's really not discussed enough in the US context. By that I mean, we often discuss voting rights of minorities, the poor, women, etc., but we don't consider how many people are actually disenfranchised by this.

Let's look at the effects, first of allowing this to be a state-by-state issue. This alone obviously means that the rights one may enjoy in one state are not given in another state. Does that fact violate the spirit of the Constitution and US law? Does it violate the precedent that has been set by the federal government in ensuring equal voting rights across state lines?

The other effect that must be addressed is that such laws that disenfranchise convicted felons, disenfranchise a disproportionate number of African Americans, Latinos, and the poor. This happens because our prison system is disproportionately filled with people who come from poverty, and with minorities. That itself happens for separate sociopolitical reasons (though the argument could be made that these reasons are not far removed from pre-existing disenfranchisement of these groups), but the fact is that our prison populations in the US do not reflect the general population. Thus, this has the effect of disenfranchising roughly 13% of African American men (I'm going to put the citation in here for that figure, I need to talk to a colleague tomorrow to get it... I'll update).

Personal perspective:
I absolutely believe that this should be a federal issue rather than a state issue, in that it affects national elections. By allowing this to be a state issue, we're disqualifying some people in some states from voting in the same elections in which people convicted of similar crimes in another state are allowed to vote. The "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution was intended to, and has been used to, ensure that the residents of one state enjoy no more or no fewer rights than the residents of another state. So, either way--allowing convicted criminals to vote or not--it should be governed by federal law that affects all citizens of this country equally.

I also think that it's quite disturbing how many people are disproportionately disenfranchised by such laws. That issue needs to be addressed by dealing with the issues that cause such a disproportionate prison population. (I'm sure there are people reading this wondering, "So, she wants to bring affirmative action to prisons???" That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the fact that our prison system is populated in a way that doesn't demographically reflect our country clearly demonstrates that there are issues that cause this that need to be addressed.)

My basic argument, though, is that our prison system is built, theoretically, on the idea that people can change. Even the etymological roots of the word "penitentiary" indicate the idea that criminals can be reformed. Based on that, I think that once you've served your time, you should have every opportunity available to everyone else. You should get all your rights back. I probably wouldn't support allowing prisoners to vote while serving their sentences, but once their sentences are over, they are supposed to be reintegrated into society. This idea is supposed to be the basis of our prison system, whether we agree or not. If we disagree with the idea of reintegration, then we need to reconsider exactly what we're hoping to achieve with our prison sentences.

From an international perspective, it's not that unusual for convicted criminals to not be allowed to vote, but it does depend on the purpose of the imposed sentence. If the purpose is to detain someone for life because they cannot be reintegrated safely into society, then sure, they've given up their political rights as well. If the purpose is to punish them proportionately for a crime they've committed, and they have the opportunity to leave as a free person one day, then why deny them of their rights when they are supposed to have been reformed?

It's also a human rights issue. The international community has agreed, through various UN conventions and specifically through the UN Declaration of Human Rights, that civil rights (including voting and political participation) are an inherent part of the rights that people have, which are inalienable by any government.

Also, disenfranchising convicted criminals, and barring them from political activity for life, has often been used as a form of political repression. If you can convict dissidents of a sentence which includes denying them political rights, then they either won't pose a threat to your regime again, or you have an excuse to lock them away for even longer when they do.

Added later: I just kind of realized that this treatise went a bit beyond your question. So, sorry, I guess I got carried away. Were I to focus on the question more strictly, my answer would be: yes, unless the prison system they were in demonstrated no bias against them and operated in a fully functioning democracy which could guarantee everyone their basic rights. In that case, then, not while serving time, but they should get all political rights back once they have been released. However, I'm not erasing what I wrote, frankly, just because I put the effort into it. :)

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

After recently attending both a state model government conference and the Conference on National Affairs, I have discussed this issue immensely. Only convicted felons are note re-enfranchised after their sentence has been completed. After hearing a couple hundred opinions on the idea, it came down to two basic answers. Both realized that felons were found guilty of a serious crime, but one added that their disenfranchisement would properly further add to the punishment because they were indeed convicted of the most extreme crime. The other argued that their punishment was rightly allocated and served and that further punishment would contradict the idea of rehabilitation. The grey area answer would be to split the 6 classes of felonies and allow only the lesser 3 the right after their sentence.

Answer 4

Is the right to vote accredited to a person as a citizen or a member of a society? From a technical perspective, a person remains a citizen of a country (or resident of a state) regardless of whether or not he/she was imprisoned for a given crime. Unless that person is on death row (ie. no stake in country's/state's future), he/she shd be allowed to vote.

From a collective society perspective, it can be argued that for certain "major" or anti-social crimes, a convicted prisoner has forfeited his/her privilege to participate in the building or shaping of the said society's future, and therefore should not be allowed to vote. However, it can also be argued that after such a person has paid his/her debt to society, and has been released, he/she should be again allowed to participate/vote.

One other permutation is to allow prisoners whose crimes are not deemed "major" to vote, but these votes do not carry the same weight. They are used only as a tie-breaker. For example, if the difference in votes between R and D is less than say 1%, these "peripheral" votes will be counted and used as a tie-breaker.

My opinion: allow those who have not committed "major" crimes to vote. However, I realise that this pushes the buck to those who have to define and decide "major" crimes.

Oh well.... nothing is perfect.

Answer 5

Sometimes...I view it as "those who got caught"...and I find their intellect is no different from anyone else...then I think, well...if you aren't making valuable contributions to society...and have added to the problems...then you have revoked your rights....until I remember all the deeds that go unpunished. Then I remember that not everyone who goes to prison is guilty of the charge. Everyone makes mistakes...some worst than others...and I'd like to think we all deserve another chance. If the crime is a violent, heinous act...then it pushes all my emotional buttons...and I reject the idea...but when I remember we are all equal in the eyes of God...this generates yet another button. There are no easy answers...but from an intellectual point of view... I guess I have to say, "Yes...allow them to vote." Only an intelligent or caring or responsible person would bother to vote anyway...no more or less so than their public counterpart...and often consists of many different points of view; that must be reflected by all segments of society.

Answer 6

Imprisonment is a punishment and the right to vote is one of the penalty as a result. It is legal considering that the criminal is considered as an irresponsible citizen.

Answer 7

I believe they should have a right to vote, also a right to run for office after they are released. Some people do learn from their mistakes and might even be a better person because of it.
This is a basic right we all have as Americans. As soon as you start taking away rights you better start watching your back, because you might me next.

Answer 8

No. They should not vote. They are not contributing members of society. (Contributing crime doesn't count.)

I like the French/German approach of giving the court the ability to permanently revote the right to vote. Perhaps we need an ammendment that will allow the courts to actually revoke the citizenship of serious or repeat offenders.

Answer 9

So you think criminals should be able to make the rules by which we live??? That is exactly what will happen
It is very disturbing to see such beliefs exist in our society.
Keep working towards your goal though, it is opening peoples eyes to the stupidity we face.

Answer 10

Either everyone votes, or you have a sham democracy such as Periclean Athens. With all its faults, I prefer the former.