Felon Disenfranchisement

Because the interests of felons does not truly represent the interests of the wider population I urge a negative ballot. My value is the preservation of a democratic society because that is the foundation for what democratic societies ought to do. Retain: to keep in possession The resolution asks us what we ought to do. But it does not ask us what we ought to do in a vacuum, rather it says what we ought to do in a democratic society. Thus my criterion is upholding a democracy that best serves the interests of the people. This is necessary for preserving a democratic society because the purpose of having a democracy is to take the people's consideration into account while making policy decisions. I offer 2 contentions for this criterion. Contention 1: It is in the people's best interest to uphold the social contract, and the social contract suggests that felons ought to be disenfranchised. Social contract describes is a set of agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. Such social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government and other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order. This literally functions as a contract, if one side doesn't hold his own, the other side doesn't have to either. There are several reasons why the people want to maintain the social contract: First, without the social contract there would be no consequences for breaking the rules. It would be impossible to preserve a democracy when it allows its residents to do whatever they please. Second: the social contract serves as a check for the government as well. If a government follows the social contract, it will avoid corruption or excessive power. Third, the social contract makes citizens feel safe and allows them to live normal, unselfish lives. If people knew that there were no consequences for crime, they would always be protecting themselves and not others because they are very likely to be robbed or hurt. Disenfranchising felons is clearly consistent with the social contract: The felons didn't listen to the government, so the government doesn't have to listen to them. By committing such a serious crime, the felons gave up their right to make rules. At the very least, this true for felons and committers of electoral fraud. Richard L. Lippke writes, Certain crimes, by their very natures, constitute direct assaults on democratic forms of political organization. Such crimes consist either of attempts to overthrow or undermine democratic governments, as in cases of treason or sedition, or efforts to manipulate or thwart the outcomes of democratic elections, as in cases of ballot tampering or other types of electoral fraud. Not only do democratic governments seem warranted in prohibiting conduct that threatens their effective and appropriate functioning, a plausible case can be made that those guilty of such crimes are prime candidates for disenfranchisement. Their offenses, are different from other kinds of criminal offenses, since they exhibit obvious contempt for democratic political processes. As a matter of fairness it is only fitting that those who act in ways inimical to the operation of democratic governments should be denied the opportunity to participate in determining who will occupy official roles in such governments or the policies enacted and enforced. Those prepared to act in ways that deprive others of realization of the interests served by democratic political participation cannot consistently demand that the state continue to secure such interests for them by not interfering with their exercise of the franchise. Contention 2: Allowing felons to vote does not best represent the interests of the broader electorate. Government is supposed to determine laws that will best benefit society. By their conduct, felons have demonstrated that they don't think it is necessary to follow these laws, therefore giving up their right to make the rules. Society has chosen laws that they think will best protect them and people around them, yet the felons completely disregarded these rules proving that they are either incapable or unwilling to abide by the rules that are necessary to benefit society. Because of this these should be the last people who we allow to make the laws for society. Now I offer this following under view: We cannot embrace static conclusions about what we ought do in a democracy. Amy Gutman and Dennis Thompson explain: Keeping the decision-making process open --recognizing that its results are provisional--is important for two reasons. First, in politics as in much of practical life, decision-making processes and the human understanding upon which they depend are imperfect. We therefore cannot be sure that the decisions we make today will be correct tomorrow, and even the decisions that appear most sound at the time may appear less justifiable in light of later evidence. Second, in politics most decisions are not consensual. Those citizens and representatives who disagreed with the original decision are more likely to accept it if they believe they have a chance to reverse or modify it in the future Even if you are convinced every argument in my opponent's case is true, we should never foreclose discussion in a democracy. Foreclosing discussion is dangerous because we might enshrine an ideal that is later proven irrelevant. So even if my opponent's case is entirely true, we still wouldn't affirm because that would end democratic discussion by establishing a normative rule. Moreover, even if the affirmative doesn't end democratic discussion, what ought be done in a democracy is to follow the agreed upon rules of that democracy. Thus, we cannot establish the resolution as something that democracies universally ought to do. NOW THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE: Ok so first my opponents criterion: human rights is not a good value for this debate because voting is not a human right, it is a political right. Human rights are the set of rights that humans are entitled to no matter what society they live in, voting can only be a right if one lives in a democratic society, thus it is not a human right. So you can reject my opponents entire case because his value is not relevant to this debate. Now his criterion: Equality definitely is important in a democracy, but there has to be limits. We should treat people equally UNLESS they have proven to us that they do not deserve some rights. For example, we don't allow felons to carry fire arms. Likewise, we shouldn't allow felons to vote because they have proven to us that they do not care about the welfare of society. His first contention: First, my opponent talks about how black people and women couldn't vote in history, but that's different because there was no good reason for disenfranchisement there. There is clearly a reason to disenfranchise felons. Second, my opponent talks about how it is undemocratic to not let certain minorities vote. But is that really true? Children are minorities, but why don't we let them vote? I think many "children" under 18 are much more mature and have better judgment than felons. Second, the purpose of a democracy is to benefit the citizens. The citizens have chosen laws that they believe will best benefit themselves and others, but the felons blantantly disregarded these laws showing that they don't care about the general welfare. His second contention: Let me make this clear- I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE DISENFRANCHISED FOREVER (sorry for caps just wanted to make it stand out lol). I only have to prove that felons ought to lose the right in prison, based on my definition of retain. Allowing felons to vote will not help them reintegrate into society, get jobs, or get an education, especially if they only lose it in prison. It just does not make sense, and even if it did reintegrate them, it is so little that it is not worth disregarding social contract. Cont. 3: LET FELONS VOT