Prisoners should be given the right to vote

My opponent starts off by saying that these humans that have been incarcerated for something we aren"t even 100% sure that they have done, are no longer people who have valid opinions.My opponent is essentiallly saying that since they have been guilty of a crime, they lose their rights. My opponent also assumes that the crime committed, is bad. And I say this because it should be obvious to everyone that just because an authority says something is bad, doesn"t mean it"s bad. Con essentially states that judge"s decisions are right, and that they dictate what is right, which is not the case. The opinions of a jury or judge saying that someone should be removed from society, does not mean that they actually should be removed from society. My opponent then makes the statement that there is difference between people who give back to society and those who are sitting in jail. But wouldn"t voting be giving back? And my opponent forgets that being a criminal and giving back to society isn"t mutually exclusive. Criminals are essentially people who makes mistakes, and isn't that part of what makes us human? There are smart people with good opinions in prison, and people with bad opinions out of prison. Therefore we can"t pick on prisoners and say that because they have maybe made a greater mistake, their opinions aren"t sound. Also I don"t know how my opponent deems what a functioning member is like, and would like my opponent to provide it. And being normal doesn"t necessarily mean good. Think of any remarkable person, let"s say Einstein, he was smart which makes him relatively above the normal. My opponent"s next point states that there are two types of rights, those that are needed to live and those that are extra, and basically just begs the question by saying that the right to vote should not be given to them without providing any reason, and states it"s justified because they are extra rights. This fails to explain why they don"t deserve extra rights, instead it explains what kind of rights there are. Con feels that it"s justified to remove the rights of someone to voice their opinion who has made a mistake but doesn"t give a valid reason why. Next my opponent goes on to say that prisoners being able to vote would lead to corruption. This goes back to the point that con assumes that they have not changed, or not smart, and that there aren"t people that aren't smart on the outside. Also my opponent tries to makes it seem like someone like hitler could run for president. There are of course certain restrictions on the power of the president which would not let the people of the world (not just prisoners), do another holocaust. Also my opponent assumes that there are more people who would intentionally want a corrupt president than those who don"t. Unless my opponent is claiming that prisoners are stupid, and that people outside of jail aren"t. Nevermind, my opponent has made the point that prisoners are less educated than those who are outside. If prisoners wouldn"t care about the presidency, then they most likely wouldn"t vote. My opponent neglects that high degree criminals are smart, such as ted bundy, jack the ripper, and the zodiac killer. Taking away the right to vote is essentially telling the prisoners that their opinion doesn"t matter because they have made a mistake and that their opinions are dumb because of said mistake. We as a just system, are suppose to not only hear the voices of the majority, but also take into consideration, that of the minority. Because it"s not always the case that the majority change things for the better. These decisions will change their life, and not letting them vote removes their ability to make it good. It"s unjust to remove the right for prisoners to be able to demonstrate their concern for future generations. The right to vote is what people in america have fought for, and have struggled through for years. By letting prisoners vote, we make the purpose of votes better, by making the votes more representative.