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

Attorney and philosopher George Brooks once said, "When someone commits a crime, he commits not just an action 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." The fact is felons have hurt society, and the privilege of suffrage must be a punishment as otherwise they will continue to hurt society. Thus I negate the resolution, and believe felons should not retain the right to vote. Definitions Democratic Society - A society that has political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who vote directly on laws Felon - somebody who is guilty of a felony, and serving time for one year or more Retain - To maintain possession of Right To Vote – A right granted to all citizens and protected by a government, which enables citizens to have power or say in government; suffrage Highest Moral Value - Justice Justice is defined as "giving someone what he or she is due [or deserves]." A felon has committed a crime, and deserves to be punished. Today's debate is a question of whether taking away suffrage should be a part of the punishment. Felons should be disenfranchised. I justify this based on my criterion of Justice Value Criterion – Societal Welfare Societal welfare is "acting in a way which uphold the good of a society as a whole." When serving justice to a society, we must consider societal welfare, as a society achieves justice (giving each citizen what he or she deserves) by making decision that benefit the welfare of a society. My first contention will be Felon's Set the Precedence That They Have Bad Judgment by Committing a Crime. My second contention will be John Locke's Philosophy And Theory of Justice. Contention #1 – Felon's Set the Precedence That They Have Bad Judgment by Committing a Crime a) Felon's have hurt society; we should limit this harm by removing suffrage rights I'm sure my opponent will agree that a citizen who has raped or murdered a fellow citizen has shown he or she has bad judgment. Thus it would hurt society to allow these people with bad judgment to vote. A November 21, 2005, Washington Times article stated that "perpetrators of serious crimes have violated the public trust and cannot be permitted to help determine the future of the communities they harmed." The fact is, there are good and bad people in all societies. Felons are bad people. They have violated another's individual rights, thus showing they had bad judgment and they no longer deserve suffrage. Disenfranchisement is the only way to uphold justice. b) Universal Deceleration Of Human Rights Article 29 (2) states "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society." Most simply, the UD of HR is saying we can justify take away a right of a citizen if he or she has hurt the welfare of society. Contention #2 – John Locke's Philosophy And Theory of Justice a) Who Locke Believed Has A Say In Society Locke once said "if you don't respect the laws, then you shouldn't have a say in them." Felons show no respect for law, and should thus have no power in the formation of the law. b) What Locke Believed Was Appropriate Punishment Locke believed that "under certain circumstances citizens can lose even the rights they do have by nature. Someone who violates another's rights to life, liberty, and property forfeits his own rights to these things; society can legitimately punish him by removing these rights. The criminal has broken the social compact and violated the trust of his fellow citizens." Most simple, individual rights are a privilege, not a birth right. If you improve society, you keep you rights. If you harm society, you don't deserve these rights. Conclusion. In conclusion, negating the resolution is a very easy thing to do. A felon has shown bas judgment by hurting society. Because they have hurt society, we must punish them in a just way. Disenfranchise is a just punishment as it aids societal welfare. I will not move on to my opponent's case. So with this information in consideration please cast your vote in the con's side.] Now to attack. In your first contention you stated that there is not enough felons to cause election fraud. This is true that they are spead out enough not to cause major damage, but what if there is a close race. There are 2 example of this: In California the deciding for mayore came down to one vote. In Alaska a schoolboard official got voted in on a coin flip. Would you really want someone that went against society to choose a leader of the free world. Your second cotention was about disenfranchisement working against rehabilitation. This is just plain retarded. Disenfranchisement has nothing to do woth rehab. 55%of all felons commit multiple crimes so rehab doesnt work anyway. Now time for you to attack my case Good Luck and lets make this fun.