The issue of felony disenfranchisement is widely discussed today. Not so long ago voting rights of ex-felons were restored in Kentucky. The movement against the laws, which may be considered an inhuman and political anachronism, has spread throughout the entire nation. While the progress on the societal issue is evident as more states break the barriers to ballot boxes, there are about 6 million Americans are deprived of the right to vote. There is no other democratic country denying so large a number of citizens – both in absolute and proportional measures – in this right.
The issue originates in ancient Rome and Greece while medieval Europe carried on the tradition of “civil death” that criminals had suffered. Offenders were cut off from the community; they were unable to bequeath or inherit any property and perform any legal functions. English colonists have brought these laws to North America, and, while many legislative shortcomings were cut with the attainment of independence, the felony disenfranchisement has remained.
Back then, the convicted were among many social groups denied voting right. These included women, Afro-Americans, illiterates, and those who have no property (Manza, 2006). Nowadays it seems barbaric, so why felons should still be denied their right? Furthermore, inmate voting was restored in Israel, Canada, and South Africa by the decision of their respective supreme courts. The European Court of Human Rights did the same. These countries have different political traditions, yet all of them agreed that the right to vote is vitally important for democracy. Democracy should not operate with the principle of exclusiveness.
The USA has the highest prison population in the world, and there are more on parole or probation. To deprive them of their right to vote means to diminish the basic principles of democracy while this country used to be proud of its political system. A situation when even offenders convicted for relatively minor crimes are disenfranchised, in several states – for the rest of their lives – is unacceptable for a modern country.
As the issue has deep roots, it requires a complex approach in many areas. First of all, its resolution suggests several social changes. The inevitability of any changes is hard to accept, as it is easy to maintain the status quo (Homan, 2015). The problems of ex-felons are not that neglected, after all, the impossibility of employment is a common plot in criminal movies. Activist movements working towards the abolition of felon disenfranchisement already exist, like The Sententencing Project. Not surprising, considering the fact that about one out of 40 Americans of voting age cannot vote due to conviction.
It is worth noting that many activists are former felons themselves; the oppressed have not become the oppressors, as it may have occurred. They surely have a personal interest and investment in their project, and they have all the reasons to believe in its successful outcome, as there are several states that liberated their laws. It seems that the moment for action has already arrived. Now it is time to change the laws of states, where felon disenfranchised is particularly strict, like Florida, where restoring the voting right requires each ex-felon to submit an application (Sherman, 2014).
While certain victories were achieved, the worst mistake that can be made is to declare victory too soon. Instead, leaders of the campaign should use refines of their mid-term victories to tackle the major problem (Kotter, 2007). The ultimate issue with felon disenfranchised is that the very US Constitution permits the depriving of voting right. However the change of supreme law is not a manageable goal, activists should maintain their vision. The possible goal here is to cancel the anti-democratic laws on the state level. Although it is too soon to talk about inmate voting, those who served their sentence, or are on probation and parole should be restored in their rights.
Another possible solution is to treat the illness, not its symptoms. And the illness is probably the criminal justice system, because of which the US has that high prison population. The criminal justice reform may be the ultimate goal of those who protect felons’ rights (Chung, 2015). They should emphasize that the criminal jurisdiction may affect anyone, removing him from the political life of a certain state.
Although the abandonment of felon disenfranchisement would a certain degree lead to their re-integration into the community, society should prepare for changes in the political climate. For instance, most convicted felons belong to the lower class; therefore one may assume that this class’ interests may be neglected (Slater. & Fink, 2011).
In summary, I would like to say, that the mere existence of felon disenfranchisement is quite astonishing in the country proud of its democracy. Society is significantly more tolerant now than it was in the times of the Civil War. As we see, most of the demographic groups, who lacked the voting right before, eventually obtained it, why felons or at least ex-felons should be any different? Despite several victories scored, a complex work still lies ahead.
References
Chung, J. (2015). Felony Disenfranchisement: a Primer. Web.
Homan, M. (2015). Promoting Community Change: Making It Happen in the Real World. Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.
Kotter, J. (2007). Leading Change. Why transformation efforts fail. Web.
Manza, J. (2006). Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sherman, A. (2014). Voting-rights activist says one-quarter of disenfranchised felons in U.S. live in Florida. Web.
Slater, L. & Fink, K. (2011). Social Work Practice and the Law: Becoming a Collaborative and Critically Competent Practitioner. New York City, NY: Springer Publishing Company.