Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Exfelons

Introduction

Voting has been one of the most fundamental pillars of democracies. Ordinarily, it is thought of as a basic right for all people aged 18 years and above in the United States. However, many people have never acknowledged that some states do not allow ex-felons to vote. Kevin Krajick, in his article titled, “Why can’t Ex-Felons Vote?”, brought this aspect to the fore. He states that prison inmates in 48 states, probationers in 29 states, and parolees in 48 states among other people who are free are not allowed simply because they have criminal records. He underlines the importance of this constituency in the voting trends of the country by reminding readers that the rate of incarceration had increased by 600 percent since 1974. I would agree with Krajick’s opinion that this population should be allowed to vote.

First, the deprivation of ex-felons of the right to vote is undoubtedly undemocratic. According to Krajick, the condemnation of millions of people to political silence would be tantamount to the provision of alienation and bitterness. Unfortunately, “ex-felons are alienated from various other platforms such as becoming firefighters, teachers, members of juries or even plumbers and barbers”. In addition, they are forbidden from living in public houses or even receiving food stamps (Krajick, 19). It is improper that they would be deprived of the right to make decisions in the public platform, irrespective of the level by which their behavior may have been modified. This is the height of discrimination, which goes against the fundamentals of the constitution which argues against discrimination on any basis.

On the same note, barring ex-felons from voting seems to discriminate or alienate some communities. It is worth noting that the population of ex-felons is disproportionately made up of African Americans. Krajick notes that the “rule tends to deny about 13% of African American men their right to vote”. Statistical research that Uggen and Manza did in 2001 indicated that, a total of 7 % of African Americans living in the United States had been subjected to disenfranchisement laws of felonies (Krajick, 19). This is quite high compared to the 1 percent reported for other racial groups. In essence, these laws underline an element of discrimination and intrinsic unfairness to certain groups.

In addition, elections are mainly about allowing people to choose a party that would represent the ideals that people hold. Americans usually have to choose between democratic and republicans. The deprivation of ex-felons of their right to vote tends to give republicans an unfair advantage in the elections. This is especially considering that most African Americans vote for Democrats. As Krajick notes, republicans were quoted in 2003 as stating that they would oppose the restoration of voting rights of felons as they do not vote republican. In addition, studies done by Uggen and Manza showed that Al Gore would have taken or won the vote in Florida in 2000 if only the ex-felons been allowed to participate in the elections. The results of this study are complemented by a University of Minnesota study which showed that President George Bush would essentially have lost in the state had been ex-felons not been barred from voting, even under the assumption that a large proportion or percentage of ex-felons would not have voted or would have voted Republican (Krajick, 19). In addition, the studies have shown that about 7 republican senators would not have made it in elections since 1978 had everyone been allowed to vote. These studies underline the fact that barring the ex-felons eats into the democracy, which is the fundamental pillar of elections. This makes a sham of the elections as it shows that Republicans already have an unfair advantage.

As Krajick notes, the main argument that proponents put for barring of ex-felons from voting is that individuals who break the law cannot be trusted to make it (Krajick, 19). While this may be a valid argument, it goes without saying that barring them from voting borders on extrajudicial punishment of ex-felons. After they have completed their sentences and are set free or are put on parole or probation, ex-felons would have paid their debt to the society according to the laws of the land. Continued deprivation of their rights to vote would essentially be tantamount to a vote of no confidence on the ability of the legal system in assisting individuals in mending or changing their ways, in which case the most appropriate action would be to change the legal and prison system rather than eternal damnation of the ex-felons. In addition, it is worth noting that disenfranchisement would not serve as a deterrent to the ex-felons from carrying out new crimes. In fact, it merely serves as an indication that they will never become full citizens again.

In conclusion, deprivation of the right of ex-felons to vote is inappropriate in a democratic world. It gives one party (Republicans) an unfair advantage in the elections, which makes a sham of the elections. In addition, it tends to alienate or discriminate against one community, which makes up the highest percentage of ex-felons. On the same note, it seems to go against the democratic rights that are enshrined in the constitution pertaining to non-discrimination. In essence, it would be imperative that laws barring ex-felons from voting should be eliminated.

Works cited

Krajick, Kevin. Why Can’t Ex-Felons Vote? The Washington Post. Wednesday, August 18, 2004; Page A19. Web retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html