Prisoners should be given the right to vote

Apologies for the forfeit last round! However, now I'm back in business! To start off: I would like to reaffirm my points and bring them back after my opponents commendable attempt at a rebuttal. They firstly started off by saying "if they go to prison, why should they lose their rights (especially the right to opinion)?" My first response to this is that obviously, because they are in prison. As I have stated, since they are already in prison they have minimal rights and this is what the justice system has decided for them. Currently, as they are in prison, they don't even get the right to see their family everyday, let alone what they eat or wear. So as they have committed a crime, it is obvious that they do not get their full rights only very basic ones. The right to vote once again, gets withdrawn from them because it is not a basic right that they should be entitled to and is deemed a privilege as they are in prison which once again leads me to reiterate that they have committed a crime that has had a negative impact on society and has taken away another individuals rights. I firmly believe in the saying "if you can't do the time, don't do the time" as well as the fact that your rights stop where someone Else's starts. Secondly they have raised the point of "how do you know they did the crime" and "sometimes the justice system is wrong" "sometimes judges are wrong". To step back and analyse this, there are only very RARE cases where people are imprisoned on false grounds. It's pretty easy to pinpoint who the perpetrator of a rape or armed assault is due to things like evidence and forensics. Furthermore, this goes through a court case and it would not even be taken to court without enough evidence for a judge and jury to rule that they have committed a crime worth imprisonment. In most cases, imprisonable crimes are crimes that authority and the rest of society not only deems, but knows, are bad. It's very hard to imprison someone for tax fraud, serious assault, rape and murder (imprisonable offenses) without sufficient evidence. To reiterate my point about the difference between people free in society and people in prison and about "giving back" voting is most certainly not a form of directly giving back or contributing to society. The term 'giving back to society' in this context means they are entering the workforce or contributing to a community in some way- instead of leeching off family members from the inside of a jail cell and expecting to have a say on who the next government will be. All the while ladies and gentlemen, from the inside of the jail cell. They may not even be out by the time this government they vote for is in power. They essentially are not experiencing the experience of the people outside jail who are directly affected by their vote, trying to live vicariously through other people, which defeats the whole purpose of jail because they have been isolated from society for a reason. Next, pro has tried to make out that some people "make mistakes". I reiterate: "if you can't do the crime, don't do the crime." If we all saw every murder or aggravated assault as a "mistake" then noone would be in the wrong and no-one would have to answer for anything. Let me give you an example: a case where a father beat his twin boys who were less than a month old, to death. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...) Pro expects us to view and accept this as a "mistake that makes us human". There is huge flaw in this argument and people like this deserve to be imprisoned and have minimal rights let alone the extra right to vote. The reality is, many cases to people who are in jail long enough for the elections to come by and not just under a year, have committed heinous crimes such as this one and do not deserve to have many privileges, let alone a say in who runs the outside government. Another example: Dylann Roof aka the Charleston shooter that shot 9 African American people last year. He deserves to be incarcerated, with all his rights taken away because he took away from society and took another person's right to live away from them. He didn't make a "huge mistake" he took actions to put himself in the position he is in and did not seek help and instead, took someone right to live away. People like this should not be given privileges like the right to vote or the right to move around freely because they committed a crime which had a devastating consequence and regardless of whether they are smart or not, they do not deserve this extra right because what they did had a rippling effect on many individuals. My point here is, that many case of people incarcerated are like this whether they have raped someone or killed someone or even committed tax fraud, they have taken away the rights of someone else and taken away from society in general and are isolated for a reason. They are not in jail to netflix and chill, they are in jail because they have negatively affected individuals, families, communities and torn them apart. Finally to rebut my opponent's main point/s that firstly they should basically have their right to opinion preserved because of a "mistake" and secondly to preserve the democracy. My response to the first point they brought up is that once again killing someone or raping someone cannot simply be classified as a mistake. If we take an example that con used themselves of giving high degree criminals like Ted Bundy or the Zodiac Killer, aside from the fact that they are smart, they are serial killers and psychopaths that have meticulously planned and actually enjoyed killing and torturing their victims. This proves my point that you cannot classify this as a "mistake" and no, these mistakes do not make us human because if serial killing and necrophilia are mistakes that make us human and should furthermore be pitied- then I am scared of what the world would be like if we implemented cons viewpoints. If we also implemented this idea that con has of "just because they are imprisoned they should keep their rights because they are still humans" where is the line drawn? How many people do you have to assault and rape before there is anything wrong and the only thing you should be given is empathy not punishment and rehabilitation? The underlying fact is that these people are isolated from society and not given any 'extra' rights as I aforementioned because they have taken other people's rights away with devastating effects. These extra rights cannot possibly be given to the prisoners while incarcerated because they are facing justice for their time. To conclude pro has said "The right to vote is what people in America have fought for, and have struggled through for years" but I would like to point out that the right to justice over bloodshed, grief and trauma is something that people not only fight long and hard for, but also struggle with for years after the crime has happened. A person that has had a family member killed cannot have them back and the consequences of this are dealt with for years afterwards, even if the killer is behind bars. The last thing I would want to have as a victim of a traumatic incident such as a rape is knowing my rapist is voting and getting the sense of merging into society like "everyone else" and not really feeling the consequences of his crimes which is isolation from society. An election comes round every 3 years (in my country) and this should not be prioritised over justice and the isolation of a person who committed a felony from society (as prison does) and taking away any extra rights they may have is something they deserve as once again, one person's rights stop where another person's starts. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.