In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote

Introduction Attorney and philosopher George Brooks once said, "When someone commits a crime, he commits not just an action against the victim, but against our entire society. Protests that time served is enough, and that society should prioritize the rehabilitation and reintegration of felons should fall on deaf ears. Opponents of disenfranchisement claim that the inability to vote stymies felons' 'remittance into a law-abiding society.' Yet they neglect to explain why the tonic of voting did not curtail felons from committing crimes initially." The fact is felons have hurt society, and the privilege of suffrage must be a punishment as otherwise they will continue to hurt society. Thus I negate the resolution, and believe felons should not retain the right to vote. Definitions Democratic Society - A society that has political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who vote directly on laws(wordnet) Felon - somebody who is guilty of a felony, and serving time for one year or more (encarta.msn.com) Retain - To maintain possession of (dictionary.com) Right To Vote – A right granted to all citizens and protected by a government, which enables citizens to have power or say in government; suffrage (American heritage dictionary) Highest Moral Value - Justice Justice is defined as "giving someone what he or she is due [or deserves]." A felon has committed a crime, and deserves to be punished. Today's debate is a question of whether taking away suffrage should be a part of the punishment. Felons should be disenfranchised. I justify this based on my criterion of Justice Value Criterion – Societal Welfare Societal welfare is "acting in a way which uphold the good of a society as a whole." When serving justice to a society, we must consider societal welfare, as a society achieves justice (giving each citizen what he or she deserves) by making decision that benefit the welfare of a society. Contention #1 – Felon's Set the Precedence That They Have Bad Judgment by Committing a Crime a) Felon's have hurt society; we should limit this harm by removing suffrage rights I'm sure my opponent will agree that a citizen who has raped or murdered a fellow citizen has shown he or she has bad judgment. Thus it would hurt society to allow these people with bad judgment to vote. A November 21, 2005, Washington Times article stated that "perpetrators of serious crimes have violated the public trust and cannot be permitted to help determine the future of the communities they harmed." The fact is, there are good and bad people in all societies. Felons are bad people. They have violated another's individual rights, thus showing they had bad judgment and they no longer deserve suffrage. Disenfranchisement is the only way to uphold justice. b) Universal Deceleration Of Human Rights Article 29 (2) states "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society." Most simply, the UD of HR is saying we can justify take away a right of a citizen if he or she has hurt the welfare of society. Contention #2 – John Locke's Philosophy And Theory of Justice a) Who Locke Believed Has A Say In Society Locke once said "if you don't respect the laws, then you shouldn't have a say in them." Felons show no respect for law, and should thus have no power in the formation of the law. b) What Locke Believed Was Appropriate Punishment Locke believed that "under certain circumstances citizens can lose even the rights they do have by nature. Someone who violates another's rights to life, liberty, and property forfeits his own rights to these things; society can legitimately punish him by removing these rights. The criminal has broken the social compact and violated the trust of his fellow citizens." Most simple, individual rights are a privilege, not a birth right. If you improve society, you keep you rights. If you harm society, you don't deserve these rights. Conclusion. In conclusion, negating the resolution is a very easy thing to do. A felon has shown bas judgment by hurting society. Because they have hurt society, we must punish them in a just way. Disenfranchise is a just punishment as it aids societal welfare. I will not move on to my opponent's case. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------On to my opponents case----------- I will start with my opponents frame work. (1) my opponent incorrectly claims that the United States in a democratic society. My opponent never defined democratic society, so my definition stands for the round. In a Democratic society, people vote directly on laws. That is not how it is done in the USA. We vote for people to represent us. Thus, the USA is a constitutionally limited republic, not a democratic society. (2) has no relevance in the debate, so i guess i accept My opponents 1st contention a) this is irrelevant to the debate. The resolution is asking about felons, not people who were never caught. Again, my opponent never defined felon. Looking at my definition, these people never caught are not felons. Thus this argument is void. Furthermore, just because certain people were not caught, there is no argument here why this matters to people who were caught. His argument is if we allow 5 people with bad judgment to vote, we should allow 10 more. That is illogical b) this is irrelevant to debate for reasons stated above. a misdemeanor is a much less serious offence than a felony, and who knows, maybe people who commit a misdemeanor should be disenfranchised. either way it is irrelevant. c) again the resolution says nothing about misdemeanors. i think they should also be disenfranchised d) really an ignorant claim. under this logic, we should never put murders in jail becuase some may be innocent, and we wouldn't want to risk one innocent person in jail. i agree, it is a sad truth that innocent people will be disenfranshed, but it is for the good of a society as a whole. e) there is great reason to believe that felons have bad judgment. they killed or murdered or raped someone. they don't even pay taxes in jail. they should thus obviously have nothing to do with laws they didn't view as important. again my opponent infers something about misdemeanors, which i have previously answered. on to contention II a) the criminal had the right to vote before he committed a crime----this didn't stop him or her from committing a crime it is that simple---my opponent provides no sources for his 50% less likely study, b) based on US, not a democratic society. and it is a conspiracy theory. this is not a problem of they system in place, but the people. further more, saying that there was problem in 2004 or 2006 does not prove anything. there is not facts to support my opponents claims. a) again purely hypothetical, no evidence b) again, USA not relevant to debate c) really just a stupid argument which defeats itself. if someone is dumb enough to think that they cant vote when they can, then they shouldn't vote cause their retarded In conclusion, my opponents entire case is based on the United States. He did not define Democratic Society, so my definition stands threw out the debate. Moreover, my opponents entire case is based on technicalities and hypothetical arguments with no evidence to support them. Thank you for reading, I look foward to my opponents reponce.