Voting Felons

[Devils_Advocate]

I'm in debate club at my high school, and I'm doing Lincoln-Douglas debate format. It's a debate over a topic, and you defend the pro/con side based on a philosophic value. This time around, the question is:

Should convicted felons be given the right to vote?

Personally, I think not. The point of a prison system is to remove individuals from society. Giving them a voice in the running of it kind of defeats the point.

Just wondering what your opinions on this were, and what philosophic/moral/political value I could use to go pro/con (our sides are chosen for us).

Thanks!

Edited November 7, 2008 by Devils_Advocate

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Once they are released, perhaps. Presumably at that point they are no longer being punished.

[DavidV]

Should convicted felons be given the right to vote?

Here is a radical idea that might knock your opponent sufficiently off-balance that he will be unable to respond to you:

The premise of the question is that if someone is able to vote on the laws of a country, the government of that country has a moral right to impose any laws passed by the majority of voters. I don't believe that anyone has a moral right to initiate force against anyone else, so no one has a "right" to vote. The question should rather be - "which people can be trusted to ensure that the laws of a country do not violate anyone's rights?" According to the founding fathers of the USA, only wealthy landowners could be trusted with that responsibility. We can debate that criteria, but either way, the power to decide on the law of the land can only be trusted to a small minority (a natural elite) qualified to make such decisions.

[Texas Libertarian]

Here in the great state of Texas, once you have served all of your time, including post realease probation or parole, you are granted your voting rights back, as well as a limited version of your second amendment rights. I think this is sound policy

[DavidOdden]

The point of a prison system is to remove individuals from society. Giving them a voice in the running of it kind of defeats the point.

If you use that argument against a competent opponent, you will get massacred. I would start by considering what the point of punishment is (the relationship of "a prison system" is about 45 degrees off from "punishment" -- they aren't the same). Imprisonment is one form of punishment, but being a convicted felon and being imprisoned are not the same thing (not all felonies have prison sentences, prison sentences for misdemeanors also exist). The purpose of imprisonment is only sometimes related to the goal of removing individuals from society (namely, when the person is so evil that they cannot be left to roam the streets), and quite often the purpose of imprisonment is simply to be a form of pnuishment for a bad deed, sice we aren't allowed to torture people as punishment. That kind of "remove from society" consideration manifestly would not be applicable to Martha Stewart (as one example). Furthermore, your connection between the "point of prison" and "defeating the point" only argues that prisoners should not be allowed to vote while in prison. I don't know if they ever are. Once a person has served the sentence prescribed by law and are released, there is no remaining purpose "removing them from society" which is applicable to them.

The question that you've been handed has a number of presuppositions that are totally wrong, and I think GC's suggestion is really the best you can make of a bad situation. The flaw in the current loss of voting right approach is that it assumes wrong that otherwise every citizen should be allowed to determine the nature of government and how force is used. It follows that if only some citizens are so qualified -- those who have proven their responsibility -- then those who have proven irresponsibility are also not qualified.

[TuringAI]

Here is a radical idea that might knock your opponent sufficiently off-balance that he will be unable to respond to you:

The premise of the question is that if someone is able to vote on the laws of a country, the government of that country has a moral right to impose any laws passed by the majority of voters. I don't believe that anyone has a moral right to initiate force against anyone else, so no one has a "right" to vote. The question should rather be - "which people can be trusted to ensure that the laws of a country do not violate anyone's rights?" According to the founding fathers of the USA, only wealthy landowners could be trusted with that responsibility. We can debate that criteria, but either way, the power to decide on the law of the land can only be trusted to a small minority (a natural elite) qualified to make such decisions.

Isn't that the purpose of an electoral college?