Post-retributive felonial disenfranchisement in the United States should be abolished.

When analyzing this round we must first address the recurring issue of natural rights and its application to the law. My opponent asserts that the Declaration of Independence holds no official legal bearing. Through this reasoning my opponent fallaciously dismisses the legal philosophy of natural rights in this entirety. Of course such reasoning is actually devoid of reason. For instance, there is no law forbidding my from lying to my mother, but this fact does not make such an act acceptable. Likewise, there have been and are such thins as unjust laws. Obvious examples include the institutionalization and regulation of slavery. There are also such things as unjust systems of governance, exemplified by Nazi Germany, pre-fall Soviet Russia, etc. The fact that we can point towards such obvious examples of unjust regimes or laws shows us that a just law derives legitimacy from something other than government rule. This standard is ultimately that of natural rights. A government cannot be declared just if it dehumanizes its constituents. The exception, however, constitutes the majority of our criminal justice system. Natural rights do not exist to the extent that they violate the natural rights of another. That is, I may hold the right to liberty, but that right does not extend to my being able to endanger the life of another. The job of the criminal justice system is to arrange reparations whenever a person violates the rights of another. Of course, the main obstacle then besetting the justice system is determining what punishment is justified. Constitutional law expressly forbids cruel and unusual punishment. The government cannot in clear conscience imprison someone for life for certain crimes. This is why, after a period of time, those convicted of minor felonies are released back into society. The large section of the second round (which my opponent intentionally disregarded) served to show that the government grants implicit approval of the reinstatement of the natural rights of the felon upon release. A punishment is created to fit the crime, and once time is served, the ex-felon should be allowed to reintegrate into society. This reintegration cannot be maintained under a system that disenfranchises felons, and evidence already mentioned in previous rounds demonstrates the harms that result. My opponent also asserts that the felons supposedly knew what they were signing on to when they committed the felony in question, and that they implicitly accepted the punishment in the criminal act. The first issue we have to address is that a possibility of prior foreknowledge does not make a punishment just. For example, several Middle Eastern countries punish minor larceny by cutting off the offender's hands. Although the thieves in question may have known of this punishment beforehand, this knowledge does not justify the punishment. The second issue which must be tended to is that this potential foreknowledge does not apply in many cases. A 16-year old incarcerated for, say, stealing hubcaps would have his natural rights as a political animal withheld fore he was even able to experience and enjoy these rights. Analysis of the study regarding Megan's Law can be largely disregarded. This point was only mentioned to demonstrate the dubious effectiveness of post-retributive punishment efforts. Direct application of this concept to disenfranchisement laws can be found in studies already mentioned. Lastly, my opponent demands that I demonstrate the damages of disenfranchisement and the benefits of its removal. I would direct him to reference the studies mentioned in the previous round, which seem to have been ignored. To reiterate, disenfranchisement does not lead to higher rates of return to prison, and those felons who are allowed to participate in democracy and act upon this liberty have significantly lower recidivism rates than those who do not. This reason alone is enough to negate the resolution, as disenfranchisement laws have been shown to be both ineffective at preventing crime and an obstruction to the rehabilitation of the felon. Ultimately, disenfranchisement laws fail on both pragmatic and ethical fronts. The Negative has not yet offered any direct opposition to these faults, and instead baselessly declares them unfounded or otherwise ignores them altogether. The resolution stands.