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

My thanks to my opponent for a rousing debate. The first issue which must be addressed before we can progress to our final analysis of the topic concerns the studies referenced in earlier rounds. My opponent attempts to discredit the studies in question; however, not only are the "flaws" he pointed out invalid, but the i no way relate to the issue at hand in today's debate. First we will address the issues that my opponent has with the Uggen/Manza study. A link to the study can be found below for those who wish to analyze my opponent's refutative shortcomings firsthand. http://www.soc.umn.edu... My opponent first attempts to discredit the chart found on page six, saying that it misleadingly attempts "to show a spike in felon voting, when the increase is merely ONE PERCENT IN TWENTY FIVE YEARS". However, when looking at the table in question, it is clear that the table actually concerns "Felon Disenfranchisement as a Percentage of the U.S. Voting-Age Population, 1974 to 2000". It shows that, as a proportion of the US voting-age population, felons have risen from about 1% to about 2.3%. Further, not only is the Negative's attempt at refutation misleading, but it has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not ex-felons should be allowed to vote. My opponent proceeds to critique the method used to calculate the table on page 17 demonstrating the potential impact felon voting could hold. To summarize this table briefly: in 2000, released felons in the state of Florida could not vote. The survey determined that felons supposedly vote in favor of the Democratic Party and thus would have likely changed the decision in the 2000 presidential election, potentially resulting in Kerry's election instead of Bush. My opponent states that the sample size used in this calculation is too small to determine how felons across Florida would have voted. My response: So what? My opponent fails again to link his criticism to the issue of disenfranchisement. The actual issue for which I cited this essay, which was to prove that felon disenfranchisement does not deter crime, stands completely uncontested. Whether felons vote Republican or Democrat is of no weight in this debate. We then move on to the paper by Mr. Gabriel Chin. Again, for those following along, the link is provided below. http://papers.ssrn.com... The actual reason for which this paper was cited was to underline the fact that ex-felons exercising their democratic rights have dramatically lower recidivism rates. Chin cites the previous Uggen/Manza study for statistics but was cited due to his concise and simple analysis of these statistics. "For those with criminal records and without, voting reduced future criminal involvement. Of those who voted in 1996, 5.2 per one thousand were arrested, and 4.7 per thousand were incarcerated in 1997-2000; of those who did not vote, the arrest rate was 15.6 per thousand and the incarceration rate 12.4 per thousand. Separating these statistics into those with and without prior criminal records showed the same effect. Of those with prior arrest records, 26.6 per thousand of non-voters were rearrested, while only 12.1 per thousand of voters were rearrested. Of those with no arrest history, 10.1 per thousand of non-voters were arrested, while only 3.5 per thousand of voters were arrested. The correlation between voting and law-abiding behavior held when using self-reports of criminal behavior: Those who voted were much less likely to admit having committed a property or violent crime for which they were not arrested than those who failed to perform their civic duty." This evidence clearly highlights a direct relation between voting rights and low crime rates. Again the Negative ignores the sections of my citations that are actually relevant to the arguments for which they were cited. With the issue of evidence clarified, we move on to our analysis of the topic. For a law to gain legitimacy, it must be just (through adhering to the standard of natural rights) and it must be effective (by achieving some worthwhile goal). Laws that are not just should be eliminated because they are oppressive, and ineffective laws should be eliminated because they serve no purpose, or, in the case of disenfranchisement, actually work in opposition to the principles of justice. The opposition has agreed that a just government only violates a citizen's natural rights in protection of those of another. He has remained silent on exactly how a person's natural rights are violated through felon voting. Felons are presently allowed to vote in many states, and yet there are no instances of people being unable to function as human beings for this reason. I later made the point that persons convicted of felonies as teenagers had no way of realizing the rights which they forfeited when committing their crime. Pro made no response. The negative also states that a precedent is set for restricting felon's natural rights after prison through Megan's Law. When I pointed out that such laws do not violate the natural rights of the offender, he ignored the issue. The opposition attempts to claim that disenfranchisement is set to protect democracy from "harmful" persons. He fails to elaborate on how felons "harm" democracy. In fact, this point would seem to be countered by the previous evidence considering disenfranchisement and recidivism, and by my opponent himself, who claimed that "only those felons who are actually stable enough not to violate the law again actually care enough to vote." Persons with mental handicaps are not prohibited from voting, even though some would believe that limited decision making capabilities would "harm" democracy. In Civil War-era America blacks were denied the right to vote when many people held the opinion that blacks held lower metal capacities than white males. Voting rights for marginalized minority groups, such as blacks (previously) as well as the mentally handicapped and ex-felons (presently), are often contested on these grounds. Ultimately, however, the issue lies in the boundaries of natural rights. This standard has not been contested by my opponent. The opposition has provided no reason to believe that felons would harm democracy, but even if they did, disenfranchisement is still negated because man's rights as a political animal are defended for ex-felons just as they are for the mentally handicapped or for any other eligible citizen who is capable of exercising their natural rights. In further support of the resolution, disenfranchisement is negated on pragmatic grounds. The possible goals of disenfranchisement that have been discussed are: as a protection of democracy, as a deterrent of crime, and as a method of controlling recidivism rates. As already covered, there is no reason to believe that felons endanger democracy, especially because allowing felons to vote can only expand the scope of democracy. This reason is also opposed by the principle standard of natural rights. The latter two issues have been extensively covered by research and evidence. When addressing this evidence, the opposition provides reasoning that is both inaccurate and irrelevant. This debate is not about whether or not a felon would have voted for Bush or Kerry: this debate concerns whether or not felons should have been allowed to vote in the first place. The opposition misleads the reader and fails to address the portions of evidence that actually pertain to the issue of disenfranchisement. Ultimately, then, we come to the conclusion that the status quo fails on the front of the protection of natural rights ad on the front of effectiveness at pursuing a worthwhile goal. Addressing the former, Con fails to demonstrate how felon voting harms natural rights, and with the latter he fails to address the issue entirely. The resolution stands. Vote Affirmative.