Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

1. Suppose a missionary and four cannibals are stranded on an island. Does justice demand that the issue of what's for lunch be settled democratically, with a vote granted to each of the five residents of the island? Pro argues that democracy is the preeminent value of justice, that no one can be excluded from the society, and that fencing off any demographic, in this case the cannibal demographic, is clearly wrong. If these arguments are true, then the missionary is not only in the soup, he should be pleased that justice has prevailed. I argue that such is not the case. 2. I accept the definitions offered by Pro. I note, however, that the definition of a "right" does not tell us what is and what is not a right. Moreover, there are inevitable conflicts among rights which must be resolved. The U.S. Constitution grants no right to vote for president. The electors for the President are determined by state legislators "by any means." Clearly, the Constitution does not make voting a preeminent right. The Constitution defines a republic, which subordinates the right to vote upon legislation to voting for legislators. There are clauses granting equal rights based based upon race and religion, and equal voting rights based upon gender, but there is nothing that prevents voting restrictions based upon other criteria. The right to vote is not granted to those under the age of eighteen. That limitation shows that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment. Convicted felons are another class of citizens whose judgment is reasonably called into question. Resident aliens are excluded from voting on the grounds that their interests are not necessarily coincident with the interests of citizens. The interests of convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole, who want to be protected from criminals. That is stronger grounds for excluding convicted felons than the grounds for excluding resident aliens. 3. Pro cites Thurgood Marshall as evidence in supporting the proposition. Justice Marshall is a distinguished jurist who is an expert on interpreting laws. However, being highly qualified to interpret laws does not qualify one as an expert on making laws. The good justice claims that once a prison sentence is served, that felons have "fully paid their debt to society." Whether or not they have fully paid there debt is a matter of law, and ultimately of the values of society as reflected in the lawmaking processes. For example, convicted sex offenders must register with the government and are restricted from certain interactions with children. The "three strikes and you are out" laws identify career criminals and remove them from society. The justification for both sex-offender registration and "three strikes" is that convicted felons are more likely to commit additional crimes than persons without a criminal record. It is arguable what the correct level of continuing debt to society ought to be, but the fact that convicted felons are more likely to commit crimes is unquestionable. The U.S. Bureau of Justice reports that "...over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years" http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.... Note that the two-thirds only reflects released felons who where caught within three years. It does not count those who committed crimes but were not arrested. Overall, only about 45 percent of violent crimes are solved, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics http://www.ncpa.org.... Factoring in the criminals not caught, we may reasonably suppose that the true recidivism rate is in the neighborhood of 85 or 90 percent. The "debt to society" at the heart of this issue is not with respect to serving a sentence for a particular crime, it is in having adopted a criminal lifestyle. The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle. For example, that might be established after ten years without an arrest for a felony. It is not established by release from prison. Only eight states currently prohibit convicted felons from voting for life. Two states permit felons to vote while in prison. Thirty-three states remove the franchise while convicted felons are on parole. Thus even if one accepts Thurgood Marshall's argument that voting rights should be restored after felons have "paid their debt," it is not at the heart of the issue. The issue is mainly about criminals who are in prison or on parole and have not paid their debt. 4. Pro claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, "The fact that these voters were disenfranchised caused a serious lapse in democracy, and therefore did no justice. Because Disenfranchisement restricts the democratic process the resolution is a just principle." I agree that in close elections the votes of those with an established criminal lifestyle voting for someone they feel to be in their interests could determine the outcome of an election. That is a powerful argument that justice demands that election not be determined by such people. 5. Pro claims "It must be agreed that fencing off a certain voter demographic is a fundamentally unjust principle." I do not agree. It depends upon the reason for fencing off the demographic. People under the age of 18 are fenced off on the just grounds that in general they lack the knowledge and experience to cast an informed vote. Note that this is done despite some sixteen and seventeen year olds being more informed than some citizens who are fifty or sixty years old. The fencing off is justified because the odds are so heavily against it. Similarly, not all convicted felons remains committed to the criminal lifestyle. But with about 85% recidivism, the odds are much against it. Therefore, it is reasonable and just to identify the demographic and exclude them. Convicted felons are, I agree, an identifiable demographic. That makes them an identifiable target for politicians, who can go to prisons to seek votes by making various promises to tilt the justice system in favor of criminals. (Note that the proposal is to for convicted felons to retain the right to vote, with no criteria that they even have been released from prison.) Politicians are clever enough not to make the appeal directly, as that would alienate other voters. They would use surrogates who espouse "improving" the justice system by weakening it. Even if no targeted appeal were made, criminals would figure out for themselves which candidate was most likely to facilitate their lifestyle. Crime victims are also an identifiable demographic. However, victims are less likely to vote based upon the single issue of weakening the justice system. Victims are citizens who worry about the health of the economy because a good economy facilitates their making a living. A criminal lifestyle, however, is only facilitated by weakening the justice system. Therefore, the fact that criminals constitute a single-issue demographic is just grounds for excluding them from voting. 6. Justice is not served by having cannibals voting democratically on the fate of missionaries. The interests of justice are best served by subordinating democracy to human rights. We should not want people whose prime interest is in pursuing a criminal lifestyle determining the outcome of close elections.