Many controversial societal issues exist in the United States nowadays. One that should be addressed as soon as possible is the question of the disenfranchisement of ex-felons. Presently, nearly 6 millions of people in America are deprived of their voting right, which is “the right preservative of all other rights” as the Supreme Court once called it (Hull, 2006, p. 1).
Considering the high percentage of African-Americans jailed before the Civil War without any valid reasons, as well as the fact that guiltless people can also be convicted, fewer restrictions should be imposed on ex-felons, and the current situation can be improved through a particular theory of change.
About the Issue
The loss of voting rights is a part of so-called “civil death”, the term introduced to America and implemented here by British colonists (Felon Voting Right, 2015, par. 2). Even though other constitutes of civil death, such as the forfeiture of property and the right to appeal in court, have already been abolished in our country, the loss of rights remains a disturbing issue.
Presently, 5.3 million of the US citizens, which is one in forty individuals, can not vote because of felony convictions in the past, regardless of the severity of the crime (Felon Voting Right, 2015, par. 3). Even though people do not believe in ex-prisoners, many of them actually show a great performance in different spheres of lives, such as employment, for example, since they appreciate rare opportunities they get (Brooks, 2011). When in 2007, Charlie Crist returned voting rights to non-violent ex-felons in Florida, the rate of recidivism decreased by 33% (Greenbaum, 2014, par. 6).
A Change Theory, Related Change Processes, and Implementation
From my point of view, a classical model of change theory founded by Lewin fits best of all in this case. The model consists of three stages: unfreezing, movement, and refreezing (Dirkx, Gilley, & Gilley, 2004, p. 42). At the unfreezing stage, the readiness of people for the change should be evaluated. It can be done with various studies and surveys.
By conducting a little bit of the research, we can find out, which states are more or less aware of the problem, what percentage of people support the change, what counterarguments people who are against the change have, and so forth. At the same stage, limitations and constraints should be considered, as Cronshaw and McCulloch (2008) suggest.
The phase of implementation should start with attempts to raise the awareness of the population regarding the problem. The population can be influenced via media, particularly TV, the Internet, newspapers, and journals, as well as with the help of politicians’ public speeches. People should be informed about the current situation (as a prime example, about the results of the surveys mentioned above) and issues that the problem brings up.
Finally, little by little, changes should be implemented. Options that I suggest include taking into account the severity of the crime, the behavior in prison, the behavior after the release, etc. Finally, the refreezing stage should be completed with the help of media and politicians as well. New statistic should be presented, and actual improvements related to the issue should be revealed.
Ethical Challenges and Code of Ethics
I see two big ethical issues related to the problem and the change implementation. The first one is about African-Americans. The truth is that before the Civil War, many of them were convicted without any valid reasons. In the South of the country, almost all felons were black (Greenbaum, 2014, par. 2).
When the Civil War was ended, former slave owners found the new way of suppressing their former involuntary workers – by depriving ex-felons of the right to vote. Indeed, laws that denied voting rights for those convicted in the past used to be the strictest in the Southern states (Greenbaum, 2014, par. 2).
In this case, the issue is the following. Many African-Americans before the Civil War were convicted of crimes they did not commit, including those serious ones. Hence, even if some ex-felons are provided with voting rights depending on the severity of an offense, that still does not seem to help many of former black prisoners. The Code of Ethics states that we should “strive to end discrimination, oppression, … and other forms of social injustice” (National Association of Social Workers, 2008).
Still, the disenfranchisement of ex-felons is the discrimination to some extent. The same is true for white representatives of former prisoners. Even now, there are many people who can be convicted of crimes they have not committed, regardless of their skin color or other factors, and that is the second ethical issue. Consequently, that leaves us with the fact that the problems mentioned above can be overcome if only all ex-felonies are provided with the voting right, which is also undesirable.
To conclude, the disenfranchisement of ex-felons is an unclear and controversial issue that should be addressed at the government level. To make sure that people who have been wrongly convicted are not deprived of “the right preservative of all other rights”, more US governments should consider the severity of crimes, the behavior of criminals in the prison and after the release (Hull, 2006, p. 1).
References
Brooks, C. (2011). 5 Reasons to Consider Hiring an Ex-Prisoner. Web.
Cronshaw, S. F., & McCulloch, A. N. (2008). Reinstating the Lewinian vision: From force field analysis to organization field assessment. Organization Development Journal, 26(4), 89–103.
Dirkx, J. M., Gilley, J. W., & Gilley, A. M. (2004). Change theory in CPE and HRD: Toward a holistic view of learning and change in work. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(1), 35–51.
Felon Voting Right. (2015). Web.
Greenbaum, S. (2014). Restore voting rights to ex-felons. Web.
Hull, E. (2006). The Disenfranchisement of Ex-Felons. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Web.