OPINION & EDITORIAL
Felons should be rehabilitated, enfranchised
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andrew Wagner:
- Ashok, Chavez make bad duo (February 15, 2008)
- Offenders need not be damned (February 8, 2008)
- Afghanistan on brink of failure (January 25, 2008)
- Water resource policy crucial for U.S. (January 21, 2008)
- Spreading gender equality should be American mission (December 5, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Offenders need not be damned (February 8, 2008)
- Policies obstruct offenders' privacy (March 2, 2007)
- Milwaukee gang rape exemplifies state's prison woes (September 14, 2007)
- A case for prison reform (March 14, 2002)
- UW felon audit not cause for too much concern (March 3, 2006)
by Andrew Wagner
Friday, February 22, 2008
In a column earlier this month, I revisited the topic of
residency restrictions for sex offenders after their release from prison. For
the sake of making it easier to reintegrate into society, I argued that they
should not face arbitrary bans on how far away they can live from community
buildings.
Recently, another topic — concerning the corrections system
but affecting a much larger number of individuals — has received some attention
both in Wisconsin and in other states. The issue at hand concerns the right of
felons to vote in prison, on parole or probation and after the entirety of
their sentence is completed.
There remain a number of states in America today that
continue to deny voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their
sentences. In Virginia, Kentucky, Delaware, Nebraska and Wyoming, if felons have
completed a prison sentence and probation or supervision, the only way for them
to get their voting rights back is to wait several years after the completion
of their sentence to apply to be able to vote again.
In Mississippi, the only way to get re-enfranchised is to
have a local legislator sponsor a bill that passes both houses of the state
Legislature to specifically re-enfranchise the felon. Frankly, I think the
waiting period and reapplication requirements are overly onerous if felons have
successfully completed their sentences. The situation has improved from the
days of banning all ex-felons from voting, but these states continue to
maintain barriers to voting that should not exist.
Several other states also limit the rights of ex-felons
after they complete their sentences. Depending on the offence, such as if their
crimes are violent or drug-related, felons may have to go through a more
intensive review process or wait additional time. Yet this treatment seems
counter-intuitive. Should not the sentence for committing the crime,
established by a judge, be the distinguishing feature for these felons? Once
they have completed it, should they be treated any differently? I think not.
While the above cases are interesting, I think the area that
contains the fiercest arguments on each side concerning felon voting rights is
voting while on parole or probation. Here in Wisconsin, Rep. Joe Parisi,
D-Madison, recently introduced a bill to the state Legislature that would give
voting rights to every felon currently done with their prison sentence and on
probation or parole. Nationally, this is an idea that has been adopted in
places all over. Roughly 30 states ban parolees and probationers from voting. Additionally,
five states ban only parolees from voting.
While at first I was uncertain what my opinion on this bill
was, a little thought has made my position on it clear. In theory, the
correctional system should be both punishing criminals for their actions and
steering them in a better direction. Of course, it doesn’t take much to see
that this isn’t usually the case.
However, allowing parolees and probationers to vote would be
being faithful to the same tenet that argues against placing residency
restrictions on sex offenders: Give released felons a stake in society rather
than pushing them to the margins. While these felons are still under sentence
when they are on probation or parole, the reintegration process should start as
early as possible once they leave prison.
Undoubtedly there will be many detractors of this course of
action. The argument that “If they wanted to vote, they shouldn’t have
committed the crime” is a seductive one. Yet this argument fails to try to
address and resolve the real issue of reducing crime.
The bottom line is that some people will commit crimes. Our
job is to make sure that they don’t do it again. One way to discourage
recidivism — short of executing every second-time offender — is to actually
give them a chance to reintegrate into society.
Giving felons their voting rights back after their sentence
may help. Even if it does not, I don’t really see how it could hurt the system
or anyone else.
That being said, I do not endorse the practices of Maine and
Vermont in giving incarcerated individuals the right to vote. Prison isn’t
meant to be a place where an inmate retains all of his or her previous
privileges. There need to be restrictions in place while an offender is there.
I can’t say that I place high hopes for the success of Mr.
Parisi’s bill. I would not be surprised to see it voted down. However, for what
it’s worth, I applaud and endorse what he is doing and hope to see Wisconsin
join the ranks of states that encourage the reintegration of released felons
into society.
Andrew Wagner (awagner@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in
computer science and political science.
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 12:14pm):
Wisconsin prohibits felons who are incarcerated, on probation, or on parole from voting. Once their incarceration, probation, or parole periods are over, their voting rights in the state are restored.
Disenfranchisement is a very dangerous thing. If a particular group ends up being disproportionately targeted by a set of laws, then losing the right to vote makes it less likely for those laws to be repealed or reformed. A particular example is happening with regards to people of color in this country in the context of the war on drugs. A white suburban college student is significantly less likely to serve jail time than an inner city youth for the same offense. The result is all too reminiscent of the Jim Crow laws in place between Reconstruction and the 1960s.
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 2:49pm):
"A white suburban college student is significantly less likely to serve jail time than an inner city youth for the same offense."
Wow, that seems racist when you put it like that. So, personally, you see no difference between the inner city (ghetto) and a college campus? Me oh my, I wonder why the police would be trying so hard to clean up one part of town with strict drug sentences?
So, 12:14, just leave the ghetto alone? Is that your plan? Give gang-prone, crime-prone thugs a slap on the wrist just like the pot-head hippies. Yeah, racist... perhaps the "ghetto" should invest in some hemp clothing and Grateful Dead CDs.
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 2:57pm):
i think they should definitely be allowed to vote for democrats too. along with illegals, dead people, al qaeda, communists, kindergartners, and the usual host of crazy liberal bedfellows.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 1:12pm):
very good article. Thank you for this
Anonymous (April 9, 2008 @ 11:40pm):
Originally, few members of Congress were actually lawyers, but average businessmen and other like citizens - there for a term and anxious to get back home.
Now, almost all have degrees in poly-sci and a jd behind it. Has the Judicial Branch co-opted the Legislative Branch? Can you honestly say we do not have two-thirds Judicial, and one-third Executive running this country?
How does doing the time pay one's debt to society if that one cannot get work and lodging, once back on the street? That one will feel compelled to do another crime just to survive, and it's Les Miserables all over again, times 100,000 a day. -- Arky51, SP, FL
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
