posted
...where you are so focused on finding the flaw in your opponent's argument that you start to make the argument yourself?
I'm coaching LD debate at a local high school and the new topic has been released, specifically "Resolved: In a democracy, felons ought to retain the right to vote."
I've been tearing my hair out trying to find good reasons that felons should lose the right to vote. The key phrase being good reasons. I thought maybe deterrence, after all if you value your right to vote, then you surely you would consider that before committing a felony! Yet we still seem to have quite a few felonies.
Either way, I'm trying to find some arguments made by other people, and I'm seeing many say that voting is a privilege, not a right. So to explain my topic title, I found myself saying, "Anyone who says that voting is a privilege should have their right to vote taken away." The contradiction slapped me right after I said it.
But I'm being honest, I am having a lot of trouble figuring out a good reason why felons shouldn't be able to vote in a democracy. Afterall, isn't it a selling point of democracy that even if your opinion is unpopular you can still voice it?
I'm stumped. I have plenty of decent reasons to say why the ought to have the right to vote, but not many on why they shouldn't. Those being that it can be construed as racist, democratic purism, etc. I'm finding some people saying the compromise is to use disenfranchisement, or taking away their right to vote for only a few years after the initial incarceration. But I'm still trying to figure out why we don't allow them to vote in the first place.
Now, I'm not asking you to do my job for me, but I thought it would be a good topic for some of the more opinionated hatrackers to sink their teeth into. Why should, or shouldn't we allow felons to vote?
ETA: I'll add some of the information I've been gathering in a minute.
ETA2: Actually I just looked at the time and am going to go to bed, but will come back to this later to squabble with the crowd.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By committing a felony, you establish the fact that you are not interested in anyone's best interest but your own. Further, you are willing to harm others in order to advance your own selfish gains. This makes you unsuitable to influence the working of our government. It's a government for the people, not for you personally.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: By committing a felony, you establish the fact that you are not interested in anyone's best interest but your own. Further, you are willing to harm others in order to advance your own selfish gains. This makes you unsuitable to influence the working of our government. It's a government <i>for</i> the people, not for you personally.
A better argument than some that I've been thinking of, but I still have to ask. Aren't there those who still vote off of entirely selfish reasons without committing a felony? Someone who votes based off of their bank account and which candidate will protect it the most is thinking of your self and not others. (I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just say it's not a vote 'for the people.')
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard to get to the polls on election day when you're in prison? Sorry, I'm having trouble coming up with any good reasons to prevent citizens from voting, whether they've committed a felony or not.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the things you vote for are people you think will uphold the law, or make good new ones that serve the people. A convicted felon has typically broken a law or laws. Thus, why should you have a say in who makes/enforces our country's rules if you're the kind of person who breaks rules anyway?
I know it's a stretch, and you have a point regarding selfishness vs. public interests; what I think it comes down to is reasonable doubt. Sure, a whole lot of people may be selfish or uncaring to the interests of the many. But unless you can read minds, convicted felons are really the only ones you should be able to punish. And all that "innocent til proven guilty" jazz.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would suggest doing some research in a law library. There have been numerous journal articles on felon enfranchisement. Many focus on the constitutional issue, but within that will discuss the policy arguments.
BTW, since someone is likely to argue that disenfranchisement of felons is unconstitutional, anyone arguing the negative ought to be familiar with the constitutional arguments favoring disenfranchisement.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, is it that much harder to say "here are some of the common arguments on both sides" than it is to say "before you have this conversation, please do research in a law library?" Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not having done the research, and off the top of my head:
Society is a compact, in which we all agree to perform certain duties and obey certain rules. Democratic societies are governed by voting. It is possible for someone to show such contempt for the laws of society that they are forcefully removed from it, at least for a time (incarceration). A different way of looking at it is that in breaking the compact they have removed themselves from society, and incarceration is a natural outgrowth of that. Another natural result would be that they no longer have the standing to help govern the society, either by holding office or voting.
Of course, taken to its logical conclusion this argument could mean that all elements of civil society would be denied to felons. They wouldn't pay taxes, and wouldn't be compelled to obey laws. They wouldn't be protected by the police. They could enter into contracts, but couldn't enforce them legally. So the fact that none of these societal benefits (and costs) are denied felons makes one question why particularly voting would be.
In response, I would argue that many of these benefits are hybridizations of civil benefits and private community benefits. But voting is more strictly a civil benefit and so may reasonably be the only societal benefit withheld.
But that's just off the top of my head, with no guarantees of logical consistency.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could say that in a free society, the people are guaranteed certain rights, like the right to vote and protection under the law, but that it is a two way contract, and that when a citizen breaks that contract by committing a felony, they lose some of the rights guaranteed to them under that contract.
Personally I don't believe that argument, but it's a sort of social contract theory philosophical argument you could try.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Of course, taken to its logical conclusion this argument could mean that all elements of civil society would be denied to felons. They wouldn't pay taxes, and wouldn't be compelled to obey laws. They wouldn't be protected by the police. They could enter into contracts, but couldn't enforce them legally. So the fact that none of these societal benefits (and costs) are denied felons makes one question why particularly voting would be.
The other benefits listed also affect others. For example, if you are not enforcing contracts for them, the other parties to the contract could potentially be harmed. If crimes are being committed against them, then a criminal is out there and will eventually target those still part of society. Denying voting, on the other hand, enforces that one's position in society is lost, but harms no one else.
There also might be an argument about convicts being easier to influence then others. Esp if they were still in jail or on parole. (Haven't really thought that out yet).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Canada's Supreme Court ruling which allows all convicted felons to vote came in 2002. There is a dissenting opinion, the core of which is here
quote:... In this case, while it has been conceded that s. 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act infringes s. 3 of the Charter, the infringement is a reasonable limit that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. ... Section 51(e) meets the proportionality test. First, the impugned legislation is rationally connected to the objectives. While a causal relationship between disenfranchising prisoners and the objectives is not empirically demonstrable, reason, logic and common sense, as well as extensive expert evidence, support a conclusion that there is a rational connection between disenfranchising offenders incarcerated for serious crimes and the objectives of promoting civic responsibility and the rule of law and the enhancement of the general objectives of the penal sanction. With respect to the first objective, the removal of the right to vote from serious incarcerated criminals does no injury to, but rather recognizes, their dignity. Further, the disenfranchisement of serious criminal offenders serves to deliver a message to both the community and the offenders themselves that serious criminal activity will not be tolerated by the community. Society may choose to curtail temporarily the availability of the vote to serious criminals to insist that civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law, as goals worthy of pursuit, are prerequisites to democratic participation. With respect to the second objective, the disenfranchisement is carefully tailored to apply to perpetrators of serious crimes, and there is evidence in the record indicating that the denial of the right to vote is perceived as meaningful by the prisoners themselves and can therefore contribute to the rehabilitation of prisoners. Lastly, many other democracies have, by virtue of choosing some form of prisoner disenfranchisement, also identified a connection between objectives similar to those advanced in the case at bar and the means of prisoner disenfranchisement.
Second, the impairment of the Charter right is minimal. Minimal impairment is about analyzing the line that has been drawn. This analysis does not require the Crown to have adopted the absolutely least intrusive means for promoting the purpose, although it does require that the Crown prefer a significantly less intrusive means if it is of equal effectiveness. Here, no less intrusive measure would be equally effective. Only “serious offenders”, as determined by Parliament, are subject to disenfranchisement.
I can't say I'm too impressed, the logic for the concurring opinion seems more logical and straight forward. But this may give you some ideas.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The right to vote is not the only civil right that a felon forfeits upon conviction. They also cannot carry a firearm, work in many regulated industries, move from place to place without restrication, recieve a security clearence (formal recognization of responsible civic behavior), hold most elective offices, etc. After the designated period of punishment/rehabiliation, a felon can petition the court for restoration of civil rights and if it is deemed appropriate they can be restored. I believe this is appropriate.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saephon: My brother and I talked about that idea, actually. The problem we came up with it was the idea of marijuana distribution. Distributing marijuana is a felony, and there was even a semi-recent case that the intent to distribute was a felony. The reason this matters is that with the idea of felonies taking down society, there are some who would vote to make their action not a felony. So on your question of why let people vote who break the rule, some people don't agree with the rule in the first place, and if given the chance, would vote against the rule. It's not to say that they would win, should the vote come up, but shouldn't they get the right to at least voice their opinion through the vote on the law they perceive to be unjust?
Dag: I'll definitely be looking at law journals and the pieces they wrote. The problem with the constitutionality argument, on either side, is that the resolution is not specific to the United States. It's a question of whether a democracy ought to give voting rights. We can certainly use the US as an example, but it doesn't prove the resolution in its entirety.
SenojRetep/Lyrhawn: Your ideas are sort of what I was thinking last night. I could have them argue a Hobbesian-esque social contract wherein I say that felons attack the foundations of the society. This brings us closer to the state of nature, and being in the state of nature is worse than being under an, at times, tyrannical ruler. It's generic so it's not US specific, but it doesn't have quite as much bite as I'd prefer. Especially because Hobbes' writing was used to defend monarchs more than democracy.
Mucus: Kind of the same problem I was having with Dag's suggestion on constitutionality. It makes a great example, but I do need to make sure it applies in general. There was a nugget I was able to take from that, which was rehabilitation. If I combine that idea with deterrence, it may help one of the kids write a stronger neg. Thanks.
Artimesia: Those are some very strong points that I think help tie into a social contract argument. They have broken the contract and it no longer protects them, one of the many benefits they lose should be the right to vote.
Thanks y'all, you've helped immensely for my lecture today. I did intend for this thread to be a two-parter because while I needed some ways defend the neg to teach, its a topic that interests me because ultimately, I don't agree with the idea of not letting felons vote. So if you guys want to continue the discussion, go ahead, I'd love to see what could come out from it. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
