Should the incarcerated and those who have been convicted of crimes be deprived of the right to vote?

Introduction

Only two circumstances under which one cannot vote. If one is under the age of 18 or the person in question is mentally deficient. Other restrictions vary from one democracy to the other. A good number of the human population believes that incarcerated individuals and prisoners serving time have a right to vote. This paper seeks to argue along lines supporting the right to vote among incarcerated and prisoners. The essay will also look into constitution amendments that can make it possible for prisoners to attain this voting right.

Reasons to allow prisoners voting rights

Confinement should not be a basis for restricting a person’s rights to vote. A prisoner is still a responsible citizen and contributes to the economy in one way or another (Coyle, & Fair, 2018). Denying him or her the right to vote tramples fundamental democratic rights that govern them too. In fact, removing democratic right dehumanizes them and secludes them further into oblivion. More so, not all criminals are behind bars.

 Denying prisoners their democratic right to vote hinges on the idea that convicts are under a temporary still moment in their lives hence suspension of rights as they serve time in prisons (Coyle, & Fair, 2018). In America, state laws that administer prisoners’ democratic rights differ from state to state. For instance, Maine and Vermont permit prisoners to exercise their right to vote. Whereas 12 states restrict prisoners from voting even after their sentences ends.

If a prisoner retains his or her citizen during her, then they can access democratic rights, in this case, the casting their vote for any candidate they want. Actually, denying prisoners the right to vote creates another class of citizens who are under the rule of law but without a voice. In addition, it generates a caste structure where prisoners cannot vote the government consider them as part of the vast population (Gerber et.al, 2015). Then, a prisoner’s number dictates the number of representatives. Democracies around the world are coming to terms with the right of a prisoner to vote. For example, in 2005, a European court permitted prisoners the right to vote. The court suggested that the state had a right to denying freedom but revoking voting rights.

Constitution amendments

Over the last decade, the Supreme Court made tremendous rights to restore the rights of prisoners (Gerber et.al, 2015). Under a federal law passed in the year 2000, prisoners gained the right to religious freedom. Secondly, they attained the right to freedom of speech under the first amendment. Thirdly, prisoners cannot lose their citizenship while doing time.

 Under the fourth amendment, it denies prisoners the right to vote based on their crime. For example, murderer and rapist cannot vote (Gerber et.al, 2015). Amendment 4 fails to meet expectations as it disintegrates rather than unite and treat prisoners equally. Hence, at the end of the day, it does not offer prisoners their voting rights. In other words, there is need to treat prisoners equally and permit them the right to vote without discriminating against them.

In summary prisoner, have the same democratic rights as their free counter parts. More so, prisoners are still citizens and the government takes into account their number while making decisions. Besides, confinement and removal from participating in community’s civic activities are two different things. Hence, the court should give voters the right to go to the ballot and cast their vote.

 

 

Reference

Coyle, A., & Fair, H. (2018). A human rights approach to prison management: Handbook for prison staff. Institute for Criminal Policy Research Birkbeck, University of London.

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Meredith, M., Biggers, D. R., & Hendry, D. J. (2015). Can incarcerated felons be (Re) integrated into the political system? Results from a field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 912-926.