In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote

NEGATIVE I negate: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote [Definitions] (1) Democracy: a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected officials (2) Felon: a person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year (3) Retain: to keep in possession or use [Observations] (1) Because America is a democracy, a society, and should not allow felons the privilege of voting, the United States complies with all restrictions in the resolution, thus implied by the resolution (2) The resolution clearly states "felons" versus "ex-felons". An ex-felon is somebody who has completed their sentence, and a felon, as stated in the resolution, is somebody currently serving their sentence. Therefore, my opponent must prove how letting felons vote in prison is upholding a just democracy [Value/Value Criterion] Value: Justice Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness The Negative values justice. Justice is implied by the resolution because it deals with the punishment of felons. In order for a society to be democratic, all punishment must be fair and just. If punishment is not fair and just, a democracy cannot prosper. In this debate, I will show why this punishment is perfectly just. I will show my value of justice through the maximization of fairness. Democracy is a majority rule. Currently, the United States is comprised of over 98% of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, versus the less than 2% of society that are murders and rapists. 98 to 2, who should get the rights? To prove my point, I make the following arguments (1) Retribution. Retribution is giving punishment that is deserved, or punishment that fits the crime. When somebody commits a felony, say rape, they treat their victim as a moral non-entity. An entity is a human being, so treating somebody as a non-entity is treating somebody less than human. So, the government has an obligation to punish this criminal. Does the government then in turn rape the felon? Of course not. This would be treating the felon as a moral non-entity, just as he did to his victim. This is cruel and unusual punishment that would make the government no better than the felon. But, the government still has to punish the felon. What is the government to do? The government must treat the felon as a political non-entity, in order to punish the criminal, yet not be cruel and unusual. Treating a felon as a political non-entity includes revoking the privilege of voting. 2) Legal Consistency. When felons are incarcerated, they are essentially removed from society – both for the punishment of the criminal and for the safety of the rest of society. In their removal from society, they lose certain rights that they would normally possess; they lose their social rights and the freedom of activity, occupational rights and the freedom to engage in the workforce, parental rights and the freedom to raise children, etc. Why, then, should criminals be allowed to maintain their political rights and the freedom to vote? There are many rights which are more basic taken away from the individual during his imprisonment; if we are to uphold some level of legal consistence and be uniform and fair in the level of punishment afforded to prisoners, then there is no reason why we should afford felons the privilege of voting and every reason not to. 3) Double Standard. By affirming the resolution, you are essentially condoning violent acts, which, as a democratic society, we are morally obliged not to do. By affirming the resolution, you are giving felons superior rights. You are not only treating felons as equal, but you are giving them rights that make them superior to normal, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. You make the law-breakers into the law-makers. By affirming the resolution, you are saying that people who brake the law in the most brazen way, by committing a felony, would be better than a law-abiding citizen because they broke the law and still have the same amount of rights. As you can see, this is simply wrong. Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution [Rebuttal] Value: Equality I have 3 responses --> equality (of rights) is impossible during incarceration. If felons were to be equal (in rights), then there would be no punishment. For example, the government puts you in jail. Right there, the government automatically takes away your right to liberty, pursuit of hapiness, and countless other rights -->My opponent is dejustifying all forms of punishment. If incarceration is unjust in and of itself, than there is no way for society to punish criminals --> This creates a 'double standard' (3rd contention) VC: Democracy I have 2 responses --> Democracy, as a form of government, must exhibit the ability to protect society. My opponent then must prove how dejustifying all punishment would help protect society --> Maximization of Fairness better upholds justice. For a government to be just, it must exhibit fairness to its consitituents. However, a democracy is not always just, and a just government is not always a democracy [Contentions] (1) Enfranchising felons is directly proportional to the increase of democracy My opponent is saying that letting these parasites of society vote will have more democracy I have two responses --> you cannot have 'more democracy' --> you can have more people participate in democracy, say children, but this would not uphold my value and value criteria (1a) Felon Disenfranchisement hurts democratic values and rights I have 2 responses --> democratic values include protecting society by way of just punishment. I have already proven how I have met that burden. Let's also not forget how they became a felon: by committing a felony. A felony inherently hurts society, and therefore government --> he brings in race towards the end. This is not resolutional. Because the court of law deals with punishment, you are essentially saying that the court is racist and corrupt. Because the court is racist and corrupt, then any punishment given by the court is corrupt, thus dejustifying all forms of punishment (1b) Restoration of the right to vote enables rehabilitation and reintegration into (a) democratic society I have two responses --> If you agree with my opponents logic, then the opposite (disenfranchising) felons automatically destroys the opportunity to rehabilitate them. Yet, this is false. Many people can become a member of society without having the right to vote. Look no further than Ted Stevens, the Alaskan senator who was found guilty of a felony, yet he serves the best nation in the world --> Once a felon re-enters society, they are considered an ex-felon by society, therefore, anything dealing with an ex-felon is not resolutional (In a democratic society, FELONS....) Cont 2: Allowing felons to vote, once released, is consistent with the return of other rights --> not necessarily. For example, the government revokes the right to bear arms, the right to serve on a jury, the right to privacy, ect. --> Once again, when a felon re-enters society, they are considered an ex-felon by said society, therefore not resolutional and or pertaining to the resolution Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and that is why I negate the resolution