Post-retributive felonial disenfranchisement in the United States should be abolished.

The Affirmative advocates that citizens convicted of felonies under the legal system who have subsequently fulfilled all allotted punishment requirements, including jail time, parole, probation, etc. should regain their right to participate in the American democratic process. Throughout this discussion, felons who meet the above criteria shall be referred to in shorthand as "ex-felons". "Felon(y) disenfranchisement" will also be used to refer to the resolutional topic. Under the status quo, Kentucky and Virginia impose lifelong disenfranchisement punishments against persons convicted of felonies. Other states deny felons the right to vote for various lengths of time after their punishments have been fulfilled. The Affirmative argues that the continued withholding of democratic rights is an arbitrary obstruction to the operation of the democratic process. Natural rights are characterized by man's inherent nature as a political animal, a social animal, a property-owning animal, and a maker of things. Any necessity directly arising from these characteristics, or from a necessity to life and self-preservation, thus falls under the category of natural rights. Theories of retributive justice concern what action should be taken if one's natural rights are violated by a third party and to what extent the rights of the third party can be violated in the cause of justice. The United States operates as a representative democracy, and as a result, citizens must maintain the right to participate in the democratic process in order to operate as political animals within the current system. When a person commits a felony, the criminal relinquishes certain rights in the name of communal protection. That is, the system of justice takes appropriate measures in order to assure that the criminal does not harm society or violate the rights of members of society. The system of justice determines the level of punishment required according to the severity of the crime; if it does not fulfill this task then it cannot claim to uphold justice. Once the criminal has fulfilled their punishments, they are released back into society. The justice system gives implicit consent that the criminal is ready to function within society: if they still posed threat to society, they would obviously remain incarcerated. However, felon disenfranchisement continues to restrict citizens from participating in society. Because the right to vote within a democracy is a direct extension of man's rights as a political animal, the continued disenfranchisement of ex-felons stands as an unjust and unneeded barrier that impedes the direct appropriation of justice and obstructs the reintegration of the criminal back into the social fabric. Regardless of whether the job of the criminal justice system is primarily a retributive or protective one, felon disenfranchisement only constitutes an arbitrary obstacle to democracy and obstruction of natural rights. This shall stand as the primary thesis for my position, although additional points will certainly arise from this central argument. I await my opponent's response. Referenced: http://jim.com...