Critical Thinking: I need a 2.2 paper written for my second assignment

Perception of Permanent Disenfranchisement in the State of Kentucky

Vanessa Woodard

Professor Mario de Carril

Ph120 Critical Thinking

January 12, 2018

Disenfranchisement laws have prevented many people from taking part in the nation’s democratic processes. Many people across the entire nation are affected this draconian. In the strongest possible terms, the introduction of limitations to felony convicts to vote must be discouraged because they are doing injustice to the very people who are supposed to have a say in the democratic affairs of the nation. The perceptions being promoted by these laws are wide off the mark. There are forty eight states that do not allow inmates to take part in voting.

Thirty six states prevent convicted felons from voting during the time they are on parole. Thirty one states also exclude ex-felony probationers from voting even after they are through with serving their prison terms. Nine other states bar people convicted of particular crimes from voting, or they allow for voting rights to be restored after a particular period of time. The big question is does the crimes that these people commit stop them from being human beings? The perceptions that are being created in the minds of these people are very dangerous since they tend to alienate them further from the society rather than rehabilitating them.

It is high time we as a nation reconsidered this position in order to save our future. We do not want to create enemies from our own people and then feel threatened when they turn against us due to their inhuman and dangerous mindsets that we so actively took part in creating (Kalan, 2015). Clearly, the policy of disenfranchisement together with the civil rights restoration of the application is doing more harm than good in our nation. It is estimated that 2.5% (53 million) of the whole population have lost their voting rights as a result of felony convictions.

3 Cons. of disenfranchisement

The most enduring consequence of disenfranchisement is the loss of voting rights. Depending on the jurisdiction, others may as well be disqualified from many types of employment thus adding onto their frustrations. They may be denied access to quality and affordable housing apart from having parental rights terminated. The common perception is that these harsh penalties are based on a misplaced premise of improving public safety.

There are punitive measures requiring sex offenders to maintain their information on a public registry. Convicted felony offenders with a history of drug crimes are prevented from applying for income-based housing, educational loans and other public welfare benefits. This revelation of the dire repercussions of disfranchisement is an enough reason to oppose it especially with the new facts. What’s most interesting about this view is that these people are treated as enemies of the land and not nationals of the country who ought to be corrected in love. Perhaps, the only thing that I would have believed from this scenario is the fact that this people had violated the law. However, that does not mean that a wrong can be corrected by treating the offender in an inhuman manner.

Another reason that I am strongly opposed to the so called legal actions is because it denies a very large portion of people from taking part in their democratic rights like voting. Over 57.5% of the convicts reported having voted again before being punished for felony. Two thirds of the people who had not voted before their conviction reported an increased desire to take part in the voting process now that they were grownups with families and an immense appreciation for the value of voting.

A third factor is that over 90% of the offenders did not know the due process for the restoration of the voting rights. A further 10% said that they did not know of the existence of an application process. These individuals always feel demeaned by the reality of having to apply for their voting rights. All convicts felt that the disenfranchisement was unfair and that they did not deserve it. Eighty-three percent of the convicts do not have the resources and skills required for them to successfully apply for the restoration of their voting rights, with 35% not having even a high school diploma or GED. Three quarters of the convicts reported that they had no knowledge of a person that could have aided them to complete the registration process.

Kentucky is a good example of a place where such like cases are rampant. One thing is true however; that crimes are committed and people are punished for their mistakes. Imprisonment and fines are already enough punitive measures that can teach the offenders a lifetime lesson. Going an extra mile of denying them their basic human right of voting is simply demoralizing. We are creating baggage that at one point in time is going to be very big for the society to deal with and sustain. Let there be avenues that can be used in dealing with highly sensitive cases other than making people feel guilty indefinitely over something that they are already paying for. This is the time to do away with all the wrong perceptions about these individuals make them feel loved and wanted.

References

P. S. Kalan. March 20, 2006. “Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate over Felon Disenfranchisement” from Stanford Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, as accessed from http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/karlan-stanford-fvr.