Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

Judging: As this is to be a Values debate I ask that it be judged objectively based on who presented better arguments. Also who's criterion came out to be superior and best fulfilled the Core Value that came out superior.(sorry this is a bad explanation) Opponent: I ask only one thing and that is some experience with LD style debate(essentially how it works and the structure) As stated by Former Supreme court justice the late Thurgood Marshall "It is doubtful...whether the state can demonstrate either a compelling or rational policy interest in denying former felons the right to vote. [Ex-offenders] have fully paid their debt to society. They are as much affected by the actions of government as any other citizen, and have as much of a right to participate in governmental decision-making. Furthermore, the denial of a right to vote to such persons is hindrance to the efforts of society to rehabilitate former felons and convert them into law-abiding and productive-- (dissent of Richardson v Ramirez) Because I agree With Justice Marshall I affirm the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote." My Core Value will be that Of Justice. John Rawls Believed That Justice was created in a Democratic Society when citizens are free and equal, and that society is a fair system of cooperation. Justice is the best core value for this debate because the resolution specifies a democratic society and the goal of every democratic society is justice also the reason a society is democratic is they believe it to be the most just form of government. The Criterion Is Preservation of Democracy. Preservation of Democracy means to do what is best to preserve the democratic process and democracy itself. This means not only allowing everyone to participate in governmental decisions but listening to the voices of everyone. A democracy is beyond a simple majority rule system it means also to listen to the minorities such as felons. This is the most relevant to the resolution because again the resolution specifies democracy and for that society to exist we must work to preserve it. This ties in with my core value of justice because by allowing felons to vote we are ensuring a free, equal and cooperative society and therefore creating justice. Definitions: Democracy: the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves Right: a Moral or legal entitlement to have something (oxford) Ought: to indicate a desirable or expected state(oxford) 1st Contention—Democratic Perfection and Maximization of Rights The creation of justice, by preserving the democratic society, is the pathway towards the achievement of the perfect democracy. Democratic perfection is the highest state of being for a democratic society and is created when the full possibilities and potentials of living in a democracy flow to each and every member of that society. If you take the right to vote from any segment of that citizenry you are automatically depriving everybody else of the possibility of that ideological state. As said by former Supreme court Justice Hugo Black "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." Therefore the right to vote must be protected in a democratic society along with all other rights. So if we take the right to vote from any member we are harming the entirety of society. Look at it like a piece of fabric, if it is whole is cannot be easily broken, you can tear at it but it will not break. But if there is the smallest of holes, there is a weakness from which the fabric can be ripped in two. By disenfranchising felons you are putting that whole in the fabric of the democratic society and weakening the entire structure. By damaging just that part you are endangering the whole. Because it substantially weakens democracy felon disenfranchisement does not create justice, therefore proving the resolution to be a Just principle. 2nd Contention—Impact on the democratic process The United Nations released a "Standard Minimum Rule for the Treatment of Prisoners" that stated "The treatment of prisoners should emphasize not their exclusion from the community but their continuing part in it" This standard establishes that it is the best interest of society to fully rehabilitate ex-prisoners back into society because it provides for the betterment of that society Approximately 4.7 million adults are disenfranchised or 2.0 percent of the eligible voting population. Lets look at the democratic implications of felon Disenfranchisement In 1996 the number of disenfranchised eligible voters in Florida was 647,100. In the 2000 Elections George Bush won Florida By 1725 Votes. The state of Florida has 27 Electoral votes. In that election George Bush won the presidency by 5 electoral votes. If all of these Voters were re-enfranchised and 1726 more of those voters cast ballots in favor of Al Gore Rather than George Bush the presidential election would have turned another way. So, by disenfranchising voters, Florida brought down the potential voter turnout, and by doing so restricted the democratic process by impacting not only the country but world politics. The fact that these voters were disenfranchised caused a serious lapse in democracy, and therefore did no justice. Because Disenfranchisement restricts the democratic process the resolution is a just principle. 3rdst contention—Fencing out a Demographic It must be agreed that fencing off a certain voter demographic is a fundamentally unjust principle. By disenfranchisement this is precisely what we would be doing. Blacks comprise 13 percent of the national population, a minority, but 49 percent of those in prison. Nationally, blacks are incarcerated at 8.2 times the rate of whites. Furthermore around 70% of all felons exonerated on DNA evidence are black. This also means that statistically speaking there are a greater number of innocent blacks in prison who have not been exonerated. Not only is there evidence to suggest an unwarranted racial disparity but, certain crimes punish blacks more heavily. Take Cocaine for example, Possession of 5 grams of Crack Cocaine is a felony. However Possession of a similar amount of powdered cocaine is a misdemeanor. This makes no sense because 5 grams of powder will make more than 5 grams of crack and the active ingredient is the same. 81% of everyone convicted of felony crack possession is black while only 20% of those convicted of Powder possession. So not only are we sentencing and wrongly convicting this minority, more often we are punishing crimes that tend to be committed by black more harshly. By doing this we are fencing out a group of voter and silencing a minority, which works against the preservation of democracy therefore denying justice. Because, as I have proven, 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.