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

I will begin by attacking my opponent's case. Value: Both parties have agreed to justice as the accepted value for this debate. Criterion: Although I agree that for a democratic society to exist we must preserve it, that does not in any way make his criterion superior to my own. In order to preserve democracy certain actions must be taken. These actions would fall under my criterion, retribution, and thus makes my criterion superior to my opponents. 1st Contention: Racism First of all, America should not be discussed in a societal debate. But even then, there is no correlation between the exoneration demographics and racism. The only obvious correlation I see is that more black people commit crimes than white people, and because there is a smaller black population in America the per capita arrest rate is much, much higher than the white people's respective arrest rate. 2nd Contention: UN's Advice Again, the UN has no pertinence to a societal debate, but even then I will still rebut your claim. America is an independent sovereign nation, and as such should look within for governmental advice rather than to others. Other nations inherently want to claim superiority over us, so taking there advice would be detrimental to our nation as a whole. However, even if we were to listen to the UN, we must realize that they pose an ideal system. Ideally, rehabilitation should be valued over retribution. But because rehabilitation is impossible with humanity because of human nature, we must dismiss it as a possible course of action. 3rd Contention: If everyone else is doing it, we should too Again, temporal affairs should not be discussed in a societal debate, but I will still rebut your claim. As a society, it is the government's responsibility to uphold justice. In order for this to occur, certain actions must be taken. If a criminal is given the right to vote, it speaks poorly of our society's ability to govern. Of course all citizens of a democratic society should be given the right to vote and participate in said government. But if one infringes on another's rights, then we must take proper action. For instance, in a democratic society, one should be able to do anything. But then chaos would erupt. So we decide that one can do anything as long as it doesn't infringe on another's right to do anything. So, a felon is someone who has violated another's right, why should he be able to participate in the society he clearly disobeyed and disrespected? Now I will defend my own case. Criterion: Retribution does form justice and order within a society. Retribution can be any action to balance another action. For instance, if one steals a car, we do not steal his car to fulfill our society's burden, we simply incarcerate him for a certain amount of time. The eye for an eye philosophy is actually extremely important for a society to uphold justice. Without retribution, nothing would deter crime. I could simply kill you, because my rights would not be jeopardized in the process. Fear is the best deterrent, and so retribution is necessary to uphold justice, which would in turn preserve democracy. 1st Contention: Maintaining order Please do not bring your treason to this debate. The government is clearly not racist, and I am tired of talking about it at this point in the debate. The act of temporary imprisonment is just that, temporary. If I told you that if you stole 500 dollars out of my wallet, I would force you into time out for 5 minutes, would you try and take the money? What if I was gone and there was little chance you would be caught? Now ask yourself the same questions if the punishment was 5 minutes in time out and you were not allowed to own a house for the rest of your life. You could substitute nearly any action into phrase "own a house" and the fact that that action lasts a lifetime makes it an enormous burden. So, the act of permanent disenfranchisement actually does deter crime. 2nd Contention: Social Contract Although I use the act of murder as an example, it is not the only criminal action that constitutes the removal of one's rights. In fact, just by the word criminal the action is already known to violate another's rights. Drug use may seem like a "victimless" offense, but several people are being hurt. You are becoming useless to society as you will not be able to function normally. Also, your friends and family will be devastated, and any immediate family or spouses will reap the financial detriments that are soon to follow with drug addiction. Also, violating any law is against the overall preservation of a democratic society as people directly or indirectly voted those laws into existence. By violating society, your own rights should be respectively violated. Voting Issues: 1. I have proven that my criterion (Retribution) is superior to my opponent's criterion (Preservation of Democracy) because retribution is needed to insure the preservation of democracy. 2. My criterion better supports the accepted value of justice. 3. His ENTIRE case is based on temporal affairs, which should be dismissed in a societal debate. 4. Rehabilitation is inherently inferior to retribution as rehabilitation is inherently impossible to utilize within a society. 5. Every action requires a counter action for order to be maintained, which is the highest goal of society.