Denying them the right to vote is likely to undermine the respect for the rule of law. Since an ex-felon has been fulfilling their duties as citizens, they must be able to enjoy the full rights of citizens, which includes the right to vote. These people deserve their full rights; they deserve to vote. People are incarcerated for different crimes some a lot more severe than others. If in a hypothetical society 90% of the population is imprisoned. It is separate from the European Union. It is funny to say that denying a prisoner a chance to vote is a violation of human rights.
In our society, there is a variety of opinions on this matter, and while Prime Minister David Cameron is vehemently opposed to the idea, Parliament is set to debate this question and make a ruling. We can start with the issue of prisoner abuse. As you may know, prisoners in Ghana voted for the first time, I think, in the last election and a Kenyan Hight Court just ruled that prisoners have the rights to vote. In recent years, the Supreme Court and Congress have affirmed a variety of constitutional rights for prisoners. That percentage tripled to 7. It gives a final right of appeal for those who feel their human rights have been infringed.
Doubtless, McAuliffe knows that a large percentage of those felons will be back in prison before the 2020 elections. Like everything else, there are limits to freedom, as ironic as that sounds. The accompanying responsibility is the obligation to obey those laws. I would say no, but when their debt is paid it is important to bring them back, and allowing them to vote is essential. If the majority removed the right from the minority, and the process was repeated several times there would be a selection effect which would render a democracy to a puppet state.
Once you are a felon, you are marked for life. Prisoners have decided to go against the law and withdraw themselves from society, sapping up money from the government for their accommodation and food. A good start would be for the government to acknowledge on Thursday that there is a strong, principled case for some prisoners to have their democratic rights restored. We could improve prisons much more quickly and cheaply by creating a political constituency of prison voters. If we can use them in other nation building activities, why not allow them to vote? When we vote, we pick the representatives who will make the laws and strategies that represent how we live together. Are prisoners entitled to vote in elections, or is disenfranchisement justified legal punishment? But we cannot expect prisoners to be deprived of all rights and then emerge from prison ready to use them well. Once felons have served their time in prison, and are back in society; it is unfair to continue to punish them for the rest of their lives.
Voting is a right and a privilege for people who wish to participate in democratic society. After breaking the law and being imprisoned they have forgone the rights of law abiding citizens. So what does that mean then? Most prisoners will eventually be released back into the public to hopefully reintegrate back into society. If anything, making a mistake only proves how human they are. Is his driving license confiscated by the state? This is why there is a lot of Pros and Cons on whether to allow ex-felons to vote or not. Knowing that if you have 10 people you probably have 10 different views. After all, they are human no matter what they have done they are still British citizens.
According to the 2012 Sentencing Project: Nearly 6 million Americans are barred from voting due to their previous conviction. There have been legislative successes in recent years in some places, including Alabama and Nevada. Ex-felons should be able to vote, yes. But so should prisoners themselves. The government has laws setting out who I can and can't marry. Prisoners who committed… 986 Words 4 Pages -The act of losing the right to vote for inmates has been around for ages, actual its been around since ancient Greece and Rome. The voting right carries an obvious reflected responsiblity.
But what happens if you break the law? Just because their opinion may not align with yours, doesn't mean that it should be stripped from them. This would mean that not voting would be illegal. It is not a privilege, like a driving license or access to the gym on weeknights. I can't marry that is already married, I can't marry my relative, I can't marry someone under a certain age, I can't marry multiple people, etc, etc. It implicitly fails to recognise a very relevant dimension of the issue, namely that the right to vote is a fundamental human right. Why would such a large number of people be denied a constitutional right? As Justice Earl Warren wrote in the 1958 case Trop v. If a prisoner cannot or will not follow the set of laws making up our nation, they should not be entrusted to make the law, which is essentially what voting is about.
On the other hand, with power comes responsibilities and in this case neither Jack Straw nor Kenneth Clarke has acted responsibly in their roles as Secretary of State for Justice. The idea that maturity is what qualifies a right to vote is just simply false. Opponents say felon voting restrictions are consistent with other voting limitations such as age, residency, sanity, etc. Felons are still affected by laws made by politicians. If we want to reduce recidivism, we need to be willing to think outside the constricted box our politicians have placed themselves in on this issue.
If we think this is a European imposition, why is it that the United Kingdom is also out of line with the emerging commonwealth consensus. Unfairness in society is a different point. I think they should still be allowed a say in what goes on in things around them for when they'd get out if they were going to, even if from a jail cell. But why should they should automatically have their right to vote removed too? Why should the leaders of a democracy be partly chosen by those who would seek to ruin and harm those around them? Some people say that there is nothing wrong with voting, everyone should have the right to do it. If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place.
The court reasoned that the government could punish citizens by revoking their liberty—but could not uniformly revoke the most central right of that citizenship, the vote. Voting rights should not be a political football. In another point of view, with many felons returning to prison within three years, how are we to be able to have faith in their good judgment? Some of whom are arguably more mature and educated. The opinions expressed in Newsmaxhealth. They say that convicted felons have demonstrated poor judgment and should not be trusted with a vote.