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

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. When looking at the basis of the resolution, we read in the first prepositional phrase "in a democratic society," therefore the resolution assumes that felon disenfranchisement is taking place in a democratic framework. Even if some people would view those preferences as "bad" society, a procedural view of democracy would hold that there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected and equality of all is the implied value. To define key terms: Felons - A person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. Democracy (root of democratic) - Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy, Of or for the people in general; popular, Believing in or practicing social equality The value for this round will be equality, and my criterion will be democracy. This means that whoever allows for the equality by the ways of democracy, will win this round. This is a fair value and criterion because the resolution is talking about what is best for a democratic society, ergo my criterion; and equality is essential to a democracy, ergo my value. Moreso, a democracy is defined as in having or practicing social equality and inversely, without equality, a full democracy cannot be established. CONTENTION ONE: ENFRANCHISING FELONS IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE INCREASE OF DEMOCRACY A. FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT HURTS DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND RIGHTS Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, http://www.abanet.org..., accessed September 9, 2008 Regarding individuals who complete their sentence, it is difficult to develop a compelling argument for the denial of voting rights. Americans long have professed that once you "pay your debt to society," you are free to rejoin the community. But a felony conviction may continues to deny these rights of citizenship decades after a sentence has been completed, even for a one-time, nonviolent offense. (Regrettably, policymakers in recent years enacted a series of collateral consequences of conviction, many tied specifically to drug offenses, that also extend after sentence. These include bans on receiving welfare assistance, living in public housing, and obtaining financial aid for higher education.) But serious questions can be raised as well regarding the loss of fundamental rights for people currently serving a felony sentence, whether in prison or on probation or parole. Our legal system generally makes a distinction between punishment-the loss of liberty whether in prison or on probation-and the loss of rights. The only exceptions generally conceded by law and policy are those exercises of speech that might conflict with public safety concerns. If we think of voting more broadly, as a fundamental expression of speech, then disenfranchisement becomes an even greater challenge for a democratic society. Suppose, for example, a legislator proposed a bill to make it unlawful for a probationer to write a letter to the editor or to participate in a protest rally. Surely few policymakers or citizens would find this an appropriate consequence of a conviction. Yet in the twenty-nine states that currently prohibit probationers from voting, such restrictions on political expression are firmly in place. The traditional goals of sentencing also leave little justification for disenfranchisement and most other collateral consequences of conviction. Other than serving a retributive function, disenfranchisement certainly does not meet the goals of incapacitation or deterrence. Individuals who are not already deterred from crime by the threat of incarceration are unlikely to be swayed by the prospect of losing their right to vote. Placing a character test on voting eligibility also is reminiscent of past practices that run counter to modern notions of democratic procedure. Once we begin to impose character requirements, voting slips back from being a right for all Americans to a privilege granted by the powerful. The racial impact of disenfranchisement policies is sometimes justified as an inevitable if unfortunate aspect of a race-neutral criminal justice system: if members of a particular racial or ethnic group are more involved in crime, the consequent disproportionate loss of voting rights is merely a result of their activity. Such an argument, though, ignores the compelling evidence of discriminatory racial dynamics in the criminal justice system-racial profiling by law enforcement agencies, the racially disparate prosecution of the war on drugs, and glaring inequities in adequacy of counsel as a function of both race and class. Affirming the resolution allows for reenfranchisement, which changes how felons function in the electoral system. B. RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE ENABLES REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION INTO DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, http://www.abanet.org..., accessed September 9, 2008 In a more positive vein, the restoration of voting rights can be seen as being in harmony with the rehabilitative goal of sentencing. If an objective of sentencing is to encourage offenders to become less antisocial, then it is in society's interest to engage offenders in productive relationships with the community. Voting is clearly one means of doing so. Such a rationale is employed by the many nations (and the states of Maine and Vermont) that do not relate voting rights to criminal punishment and permit even prisoners to vote. By the standards of most democratic nations, American disenfranchisement policies are extreme, as is our excessive use of imprisonment. No other democratic nation disenfranchises former offenders for life; some countries deny voting rights to citizens after they have completed a prison sentence, but this generally is for a limited period of time and for specific offenses. During the past decade, constitutional courts in Canada, Israel, and South Africa have affirmed the fundamental right of all citizens, including prisoners, to be part of the electorate. The Israeli case is particularly intriguing because it resulted from a challenge to the voting rights of Yigal Amir, the man convicted of killing former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Reintegration is a key step to achieve a truly democratic society, which increases the legitimacy of democracy. Democracy impacts to providing the most social justice through the protection of rights, both on a domestic and international scale. CONTENTION 2: Allowing felons to vote, once released, is consistent with the return of other rights. Jeffrey Reiman, "Liberal and Republican Arguments against the Disenfranchisement of Felons," Criminal Justice Ethics, 2005 Technically, disenfranchisement is not considered part of an offender's sentence but only a "collateral consequence" of conviction. Consequently, one rarely sees judges defending disenfranchisement as punishment. With regard to imprisoned felons, the argument implied in this rhetorical question has some force. Because the idea of Felon Disenfranchisement does not promote the best for society in the form of the preservation of democracy and the creation of justice, the reverse must also be true. If Felons were re-enfranchised It would strengthen the democratic process and would be the most just solution because it preserves democracy by means of marketable ideas being expressed.