Yes, Criminals Should Vote
Start writing a post

Criminals Have The Right To Vote Just As Much As Anyone Else

Every single person should have the right to vote.

7
Criminals Have The Right To Vote Just As Much As Anyone Else

The Fox News article "Meghan McCain and Whoopi Goldberg clash over voting rights for Boston bomber: 'He is a terrorist!'" by Sam Dorman discusses a question posed on "The View."; Should felons, or people in prison be allowed to vote? Specifically, should the Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, be allowed to vote? The exchange came as a result of the Presidential Town Hall where Bernie Sanders supported the right to vote for convicted felons, terrorists, and sex offenders, even while they are still incarcerated. He states that "Every single person should have the right to vote."

The View co-host, Meghan McCain, a white republican, states on Twitter, "No one who thinks literal terrorists deserve the right to vote has any business leading our country. Full stop." This public statement refers to her lack of support for Sanders' ideas. Another cohost of The View, Whoopie Goldberg, a known Democrat, supports this idea. She states that ""Our Constitution says if you've done your time, you have — we hope — been reformed, you've been changed ... If they let him out, that means they feel his time is up and he gets to become the American citizen again."

Bernie Sanders makes a compelling argument when he says "Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, 'That guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,' you're running down a slippery slope." In his statement, he is defending the right to vote of all people who have committed crimes, regardless of what crime. This is important because the current prison statistics are heavily stacked against people of color, minorities, and people of low socio-economic status. Many incarcerated people committed drug crimes, in states where those drugs are now legal, but they have not been released, nor have their criminal records been expunged. Prison is as much a social justice issue as the right to vote, however, I am choosing to focus on the right to vote.

The questions raised by this article are: Do people who have committed crimes have the right to vote? Do they have the right to vote after they have been released from prison? Do they have the right to vote inside prison?

Ethically, what is the right answer?

This topic is especially interesting in the context of ethics (where we want to do the right thing, but do not know what that is,) because the people we are talking about have, in some way, chosen not to do the right thing, and are convicted criminals. This assumes that every person found guilty by our justice system did actually commit the crime of which they have been accused. It has already been stated that the demographics of incarcerated people do not match the demographics of the population at large, and so there is some social justice issue at work disturbing the equality of those numbers.

From my perspective, the right to vote should be seen as an obligation more than a right, and an act of fulfilling a duty. The ability of a person to fulfill their purpose in a democracy would be dependent on their ability to vote, because voting is the foundation of democracy. Even at that basic level, fulfilling their duty is dependent upon the ability to vote. Some argue that incarcerated people have been removed from society and so democracy, but that is not the case financially, and certainly is not true for the people who are incarcerated and then released. All tax-paying citizens support the prison system, and no incarcerated people have their U.S. citizenship revoked when they are incarcerated. This indicates that we are all part of the same system, and the same democracy, and therefore on that basic level, all have the same duty to vote.

If the inequalities that put certain groups of people into prison more than others cannot be addressed by this debate, then let the equality of vote be addressed. The right to vote should be given all people living within a democratic society, including those who have been convicted of crimes, and who are still serving sentences for their crimes. A number of ethics theories state that some duties are absolute, and although voting is not one of the duties listed in those theories, they can be extended to people living in a society that requires certain activities for that society to function. The defense of the vote for criminals, in turn, defends the rights of the marginalized people that the justice system has systemically failed. Defense of the right to vote defends democracy, which is what our country has sworn to do, domestically and abroad.

I personally feel that the right of a terrorist to vote is offensive, however, I must check my own privilege when I say that. That terrorist may absolutely disgust me, but does that mean that I should support the erosion of the rights of others based on his crimes? I am a college educated, working, white, cis, woman. I have never been convicted of a crime, and I have never been inside a prison. I don't know anyone who has committed a crime for which they have gone to prison. So, I have a lot of ignorance on this subject. However, I do know that the statistics of prison populations are severely skewed against minorities, people of color, and people of low socioeconomic backgrounds. I believe in democracy, and I believe that supporting the right to vote is a function of that democracy. I believe that removing the right to vote from certain people is a way to further discredit, disenfranchise, and make powerless the same people already being systematically injured by the justice system. This injury may prove beneficial to those in politics who choose to take advantage.

For this reason, I believe we must protect the right to vote for all U.S. citizens, regardless of their incarceration status.

Report this Content
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.
Featured

An open letter to my father

What you did sounds dumb to me

249
An open letter to my father
The Truth About My Parents' Divorce

Considering im 18 now & you're one of the best men i've ever met since you have a child; me. I want you to know that I love you, more than anyone, I love you. I don't forgive you for the way you hurt my mother. I'm hurt because you broke our family. Thing went down hill the day you found Laquita. You we're distant & shortly after my mother turned into the coldest, saddest women to walk past me. She's my best friend & so are you. Not one day goes by where I don't wonder what she did wrong. How on earth could you trade your family & the women who loved you unconditionally for a home wrecker? Sounds dumb to me.

Keep Reading... Show less
Featured

Is God Reckless?

Exploring the controversy behind the popular worship song "Reckless Love"

990
Is God Reckless?


First things first I do not agree with people getting so caught up in the specific theology of a song that they forget who they are singing the song to. I normally don't pay attention to negative things that people say about worship music, but the things that people were saying caught my attention. For example, that the song was not biblical and should not be sung in churches. Worship was created to glorify God, and not to argue over what kind of theology the artist used to write the song. I was not made aware of the controversy surrounding the popular song "Reckless Love" by Cory Asbury until about a week ago, but now that I am aware this is what I have concluded.The controversy surrounding the song is how the term reckless is used to describe God's love. This is the statement that Cory Asbury released after many people questioned his theology regarding his lyrics. I think that by trying to clarify what the song was saying he added to the confusion behind the controversy.This is what he had to say,
"Many have asked me for clarity on the phrase, "reckless love". Many have wondered why I'd use a "negative" word to describe God. I've taken some time to write out my thoughts here. I hope it brings answers to your questions. But more than that, I hope it brings you into an encounter with the wildness of His love.When I use the phrase, "the reckless love of God", I'm not saying that God Himself is reckless. I am, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. What I mean is this: He is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His actions with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being. His love isn't crafty or slick. It's not cunning or shrewd. In fact, all things considered, it's quite childlike, and might I even suggest, sometimes downright ridiculous. His love bankrupted heaven for you. His love doesn't consider Himself first. His love isn't selfish or self-serving. He doesn't wonder what He'll gain or lose by putting Himself out there. He simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return.His love leaves the ninety-nine to find the one every time."
Some people are arguing that song is biblical because it makes reference to the scripture from Matthew 28:12-14 and Luke 15. Both of these scriptures talk about the parable of the lost sheep and the shepherd. The shepherd symbolizes God and the lost sheep are people that do not have a relationship with God. On the other hand some people are arguing that using the term reckless, referring to God's character is heretical and not biblical. I found two articles that discuss the controversy about the song.The first article is called, "Reckless Love" By Cory Asbury - "Song Meaning, Review, and Worship Leading Tips." The writer of the article, Jake Gosselin argues that people are "Making a mountain out of a molehill" and that the argument is foolish. The second article, "God's Love is not Reckless, Contrary to What You Might Sing" by author Andrew Gabriel argues that using the term reckless is irresponsible and that you cannot separate Gods character traits from God himself. For example, saying that God's love is reckless could also be argued that God himself is reckless. Reckless is typically not a word that someone would use to describe God and his love for us. The term reckless is defined as (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action. However, Cory Asbury is not talking about a person, he is talking about God's passionate and relentless pursuit of the lost. While I would not have chosen the word reckless, I understand what he was trying to communicate through the song. Down below I have linked two articles that might be helpful if you are interested in reading more about the controversy.


Keep Reading... Show less
Student Life

10 Signs You Grew Up In A Small Town

Whether you admit it or not, that tiny town will always have your heart.

1221
The Odyssey

1. You still talk to people that you went to elementary school with.

These are the people you grew up with and the people you graduated high school with. The faces you see in kindergarten are the same faces you’ll see for the rest of your life.

Keep Reading... Show less
Student Life

150 Words For Anyone Who Loves Football Games

Why I love high school football games, even though I don't like football.

2343
Dallas News

When most think of high school they think of friend drama, parties, getting your drivers license, and best of all foot ball games.

Keep Reading... Show less
Politics

10 Greatest Speeches In Modern American History

The United States is a relatively infantile nation, but its legacy of spoken rhetoric is one of the richest in the world.

4924
flickr

Rhetoric, in all its forms, arrives under the scrutiny of historians both for its historical impact and literary value. Dozens of speeches have either rallied the nation together or driven it drastically apart –– the impact of speeches in politics, social movements, and wars is undeniable.

Keep Reading... Show less

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Facebook Comments