In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Negative- I stand in negation, "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote." I offer the following definitions for clarification of the resolution: ï¿½ Democracy- the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives. (If argued in CX, state that felons do not favor the government because they cannot abide by the rules that the government has set forth.) ï¿½ Felon- Someone who commits a felony; A Felony is a level of crime that is higher in comparison than a forfeiture or a misdemeanor. A felony can include things like murder, treason, grand theft, robbery, kidnapping, and rape. (Forfeiture- minor crimes that at one point or another we are likely to commit (i.e. – speeding, staying in a parking stall after your meter has expired.) (Misdemeanor- a misdeed, or illegal deed (i.e.- vandalism, disorderly conduct) ï¿½ Ought- Used to indicate advisability or prudence. ï¿½ Retain- To keep or hold in a particular place, condition, or position. ï¿½ The right to vote- a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. Or, "The Franchise". Subsequently, the taking away of that right would be known as "Disenfranchisement". ï¿½ The obvious value for the negative in this round must be democracy, as stated by the resolution. The optimal criterion for democracy must be Locke's social contract, which articulates that governments are instituted to protect the most fundamental rights. Examples of these rights are: life, liberty, and property. People in society then follow basic rules in exchange for the protection of these rights. When people violate these rules, people are punished in some fashion. One section of their punishment MUST be disenfranchisement because since they cannot abide by the laws that society has set forth, they cannot vote on said laws. Another reason that disenfranchisement is important in the punishment of felons is that a felon has committed a crime against another citizen's fundamental rights and should not be a part of society because they are a risk to those fundamental rights. My final reason that disenfranchisement is important is that if they are not disenfranchised, these individuals have a vested interest in voting for candidates and policies that are going to be light on crime. This may introduce some derogatory incentives into our political system that we do not want. ï¿½ Contention 1: Felon disenfranchisement is consistent with the Lockean social contract First, felon disenfranchisement laws are justified on the basis of the Lockean notion of a Social contract: as Judge Henry Friendly once put it, someone "who breaks the laws" may "fairly have been thought to have abandoned the right to participate" in making them. Furthermore, "it can scarcely be deemed unreasonable for a state to decide that that perpetrators of serious crimes shall not take part in electing the legislators who make the laws, the executives who enforce these, the prosecutors who must try them for further violations, or the judges who are to consider their cases." That same reasoning motivated Massachusetts then-governor Paul Celluci in 2000 to support a ballot initiative stripping incarcerated felons of the right to vote after prisoners began to organize a political action committee. A Massachusetts state legislative leader commented about the State's now-abolished practice of allowing incarcerated felons to vote: "It makes no sense. We incarcerate people and we take away their right to run their own lives and leave them with the ability to influence how we run our lives?" Therefore, since not following the social contract ultimately brings down democracy in society, you must look to my standard of the Lockean social contract because it upholds democracy. Contention 2: In order to achieve democracy, it becomes incumbent on society to uphold the social contract. ï¿½ SubPoint A: We cannot allow felons to be destructive of society in any way. A justification offered is the purity of the ballot box.George Brooks from his article on Felon disenfranchisement: law, history, policy, and politics; from the Fordham Urban Law Journal states that: "A State has an interest in preserving the integrity of her electoral process by removing from the process those persons with proven antisocial behavior whose behavior can be said to be destructive of society's aims." Critics respond by arguing that being convicted of a felony does not necessarily diminish one's "moral competence" and that in any event, the result is to fence out groups of minority voters. The Green court found that denying felons the right to vote was reasonable, in light of the Lockean conception of the social contract as well as on more practical grounds . This is especially so when account is taken of the heavy incidence of recidivism and the prevalence of organized crime. ï¿½ SubPoint B: Locke's social contract theory has withstood the test of time; it served as a rationale for the enactment of felon disenfranchisement laws in the past, and remains a compelling argument today. When someone commits a crime, he commits it not just against the victim, but against our entire society. Protests that time served is enough, and that society should prioritize the rehabilitation and reintegration of felons should fall on deaf ears. Opponents of disenfranchisement claim that the inability to vote stymies felons' "remittance into a law-abiding society." Yet they neglect to explain why the tonic of voting did not curtail felons from committing crimes initially. ï¿½ Thus you should negate because Locke's social contract is optimal in upholding democracy and in preventing the downfall of democracy.