Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?

I believe people shouldn't be jailed forever, so have a different consequence like remove voting privileges. I find it on a moral point of view to remove their privilege. Not major privileges that should be accessible to anyone, but only to those who deserve it. Also another point of view is that: I don't want felons voting. Generally felons don't have such good points of view morality and rational wise. Maybe they are power hungry or have no morals. I don't want those people voting. This really can't be confirmed until they do something as bad as a felony. This logic on it's own shouldn't be the reason why felons shouldn't be able to vote, but both logic.

You Choose the Topic!

Firstly, and fundamentally, we must recognize that these people have decided to not follow the rules and regulations of society. By breaking these rules they have shown they do not want to function in society. If this is the case, why should they be able to vote, an active part in our society? If they have broken the rules set by the people we have elected, they clearly don't show enough respect to be allowed to elect people. After a criminal has served the sentence given to them, they are now an active part of society, and should be allowed to take part in all areas of it, voting included. But while they are not an active member of our society, they don't deserve the right to take part in things such as voting, they have made their choice and that is the consequence. People that have broken the laws set don't get a say in the laws we make. Perhaps they want to vote someone in who will change the law that they have broken, because they don't agree with it? Fine, that is their choice, but only after they have been punished for the law they broke. The U.S. prison population is very excessive due to an unnecessary war on drugs (sorry for the digression), so the prison population is just such a large factor that allowing it to vote would not be beneficial at all to our society. Don't allow people that have broken our laws to make them.

Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections

Thank you to the person who accepts this debate. I wish you luck and hopefully one of us will be able to convince the other. Felony disenfranchisement or in simpler terms – denying the right of a felon to vote, has been a long practiced throughout many parts of the world. People who agree with this say that the felon in question has broken their 'social contract' with society and therefore should not be allowed to vote. First off we have to consider the people who this law affects. Many people get convicted in high school of minor crimes that still fall under the heading of a felony. An example of this would being stealing street signs. Then many years later that person who by now has presumably learned their lesson and paid their debt to society wants to take part in one of the greatest and most important acts they will ever do - voting. But because of their past crimes they will be denied their right to do so. What if someone is convicted for a crime like drug possession, but they and many other people think that it shouldn't be a crime. Because of laws that prohibit them from voting you are denying perhaps their only way to disagree with the system that got them in trouble in the first place. It is because of examples like the ones above that Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. We have prison sentences and fines handed out by the courts for a reason, which is to pay your debt to society. To add onto this by denying people the right to vote, by saying because of something that you did in your past and now regret you will never be allowed to vote again is heinous.

Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote.

Thank you for this challenge, henryzietlow. I accept the challenge and will debate you on the topic that, "In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. I would like to define felons as a person who has committed a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. This is the way the United States Government defines the term, according to the U. S. Department of Justice.

Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.

My main points were: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Statistically speaking, many ex-felons return to prison after they have been convicted of a felony. If many of them return to prison, even after they have been let off on parole, it can be said that these people have invalid judgements and are not capable of making informed and educated decisions. Therefore they indirectly effect citizens who are able to weigh the consequences of their decisions, and should not be afforded this right unless they can prove that their judgement is valid. Once a person commits a felony, it should not be assumed that he/she is of a stable mental state when he/she is released from prison, and as such the right to vote is no longer a right but a privilege. I have proven that revoking this right does not constitute an "excessive sanction" and does not in any way violate the constitution.

Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.

I extend all my arguments to the fourth round. I also have effectively refuted all of Pro's points, and by forfeiting, he is conceding this. He has also not refuted either of my assertions, so those are still standing. As I have proved, I come out on top with the two arguments that felon voting isn't a federal issue and that these felons have bad judgment, I win this debate. Thank you, henryzietlow, for this challenge, and I urge a vote for the Opposition, or Con, side of this debate.

This debate only focuses on felons. I wold hardly consider a speeding ticket to be a felony charge. I am asserting that only those who have served time in prison should not have the right to vote because they do not care enough about the laws to follow them. Why should we let them vote when they have done something terribly wrong?

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

In this debate I will argue that the United States has unethical laws regarding felon voting rights, and that these laws should be loosened. I do realize that some states already allow felons to vote upon release from prison. However, I will argue in this round that the laws should be changed so that all convicted felons in the United States gain voting rights upon release from prison. Round 1- Acceptance/Any definitions con wants to make Round 2- Constructives Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Summary

Nothing is necessarily permanent in most developed free countries, other than what follows execution. Applications can be submitted to repeal anything, and applying for the right to vote many years after committing a minor felony should never be futile.

In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

First I will begin by responding to your refutation of my main points P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime Although I was not able to find data for the rate at which ex-felons return to prison after 3 years, I'm sure it is still a significant percentage, especially after being let off of parole or probation, where they are no longer monitored. The simple fact that many ex-felons are convicted of another crime should be proof enough that all ex-felons should not be allowed the right to vote. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony You are correct in your statement that " the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak". However, by refusing ex-felons the right to vote, are we really hindering their ability to assimilate back into society? I don't think so because this right does not define who is a member of society and who is not, nor does it prevent an ex-felon from doing other things such as getting a job, or driving a car. So the daily interactions involved in "normal life" are not effected by an ex-felons inability to vote. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid By serving a full sentence in jail, should an ex-felon really regain the right to vote? Who is to say that serving a full sentence in prison is only a part of the punishment committing a felony, and that an ex-felons inability to vote serves to remind him/her that a life of crime is not worth it, and that they will have to prove that they are productive members of society to regain this right. I think that once a felon gets off of probation or parole that he/she can choose to be evaluated by a psychologist to see whether or not his/her judgement is valid in order to regain the right to vote. However, this would be something that our lawmakers would decide upon so I'm sure a reasonable solution could be agreed on. Now I will move on to your arguments and refute them P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote? Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment, because it does not prevent them from performing daily functions of life. So as I mentioned earlier, the right to vote does not effect an ex-felons ability to function in society and in no way directly harms him/her (indirectly perhaps). As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed? P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. Well I would like to point out that African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement "creates an imbalance between races" would be true regardless. Its not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin. That is almost like saying that if we let all prisoners vote, the minorities would have helped Obama win and therefore we are restricting their ability to vote in an attempt to sway election results. Simply not true, for all we know, half of them supported Obama and the other half Romney, so skin color does not determine how a person will most vote. You claim that "people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it." Relating to my first point, if they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote. That would be like if I smoked weed even though its illegal because I support its legalization (I don't smoke, but the war on drugs is expensive and ineffective). My individual opinion about the legality of weed was not heard, but does that mean that I can proceed to break the law? Absolutely not. I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc. This would still allow them a chance to voice their opinion. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly (as I have pointed out in my third point). You are right, the next president will effect the lives of them as well. However, the president is meant to make decisions in the best interest of the majority, with the goal of producing a solution that satisfies both if possible. Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority? It just does not make much sense for people who have made a "BIG mistake in life", as you put it, to be able to influence the outcome of an election that will effect all of us. Thank you, I patiently await your response :)

Extend all arguments

Intro: Voting is a right that everyone should have, voting allows people to express how they feel and different opinions and this is a belief that is an important American value to have. Since ex-felons are citizens and since they have served their time and went through all the requirements to get out of their punishment they have every right to vote. Also not allowing criminals to vote will not change the way they act or help them become productive citizens so there is no benefit from it anyway. 1.Broadness of a felon/some committed crimes as kids A felon could be a man who raped and murdered someone in cold blood, but also could be a young man who, after crashing his car into another, drove off out of fear. A felony conviction doesn't automatically make someone so bad of a person that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also some committed a crime or action as a kid or teenager and since then they have changed or learned from it, so their right to vote should be given back. 2.Taxation without representation "If you are free and required to pay taxes, which funds the salaries of government officials, then you should have the right to vote for those who will receive those salaries. "America was founded on the concept of no taxation without representation. If felons have paid their debt to society and did the time for their crimes, they should be allowed to vote. They shouldn't be required to pay sales tax and income tax without the ability to influence governmental policy through the ballot. 3.Some claim that some ex-felons go back to jail "Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. "So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4.Benefits of ex-felons voting "According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. IF we really want to remain status as a free country as a country you can have opportunities in we shouldn"t limit freedom of speech. "Returning the vote to ex-felons promotes re-integration and gives them representation not only in presidential and state elections, but in the evolution of the laws governing the criminal justice system, which most of us can agree is imperfect also the best way to see problems and issues with the criminal justice system is from people who have experienced it themselves. 5.Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting "In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable. Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens " or nearly one in 13 African-American adults " are banned from voting because of these laws. This is way more than the amount of white individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement "may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election." Conclusion: the main point however is the fact that no harm comes from letting a ex-felon, even a felon vote. I am not arguing for felons but I am just trying to point out something here. Felons/ex-felons are just as ignorant to politics as most Americans so they have the overall similar political knowledge, since both ex-felons and Americans harm voting by overall being ignorant of the voters they are voting for, both should be allowed to vote. Response to what my opponent said: Since most of the felons/ex-felons who commit these crimes as a kid tend to be in poorer/ghetto areas they do not have any knowledge whatsoever over the privileges lost when doing something, they do not realize they will lose the right to vote.

Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote

Thank you, Caseyuer, for posting this debate. I feel this is a topic that I can argue persuasively and, at the very least, a pleasure to compete with another new member. I would flip your statements on you. Felony disenfranchisement is a necessary evil to provide us with a just society. Roger Clegg, of the General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity wrote, "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgement. [. .. ] so the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. " While there might exist special circumstances that might be deemed unjust; there are just as many examples of felons who express a pathological hatred for justice. . http://www.youtube.com... The episode I provide, produced by gonzo documentarian Louis Theroux, gives insight into the thought processes of prisoners who are currently moving through the justice system. Technically, the people contained have the right to vote. Already, a majority of them have a sense of sudo-honor, a vigor for throwing "piss-bombs" and public masturbation (usually pointed at female guards). Members of the public can reasonably come to the conclusion that these people would not vote in favor of the public good. Instead, they would vote, lobby and manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means. And these inmates depicted are FIRST time offenders. You point out that former felons could possibly be in these circumstances because society has not given them the opportunity to give their opinions. While this sounds like a good point, you could also say the reverse. In that if you give them the capacity to vote their opinions to the legislative branch, you would have a chunk of society who would be in a state of permanent dissent. That, being said, I hold a similar premise to the voters of Massachusetts in 2000. In one of the most liberal states in the country, they collectively voted to bar inmates from voting. This showed, even in liberal circles, that public opinion is against serious lawbreakers from electing representatives. My final point regards the constitutionality of barring voting rights. I acknowledge that the eighth amendment bars excessive sanctions and demands that punishment be to the scale of the crime. However, this amendment is ultimately refuted by the following particulars of the constitution: *Article 1, Sec. 4; *Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment. Overall, this legislation provide states the right to strip criminals of their voting rights. So, because of the examples I've provided, Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of just punishment.

Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.

in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote

An excellent opening argument put forth by my opponent. My opponent's contentions were P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid I'll start by refuting them. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or different crime It may be true that many ex-felons are convicted again, however, my opponent fails to realize that a felon is usually put on parole and/or probation for 3 or more years after being released from prison. These felons are allowed to vote if and only if they are released from all kinds of probation/parole. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony My opponent claims that giving citizens and ex-felons on even ground is somehow unfair to the group that did not commit a crime (normal citizens). However, the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak. But how can they blend back if they forever have a black shadow looming over them? It would not be "fair" to hand a prisoner a lifelong sentence if they've already served their time, but this is what my opponent wants to do. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid The main point here is "gain the right to vote" not HAVE the right to vote. By serving their sentence and fulfilling their civic duties, felons gain their full rights. Also, I'd like to request that my opponent provides evidence for this point and put forth a more detailed solution. How will they earn the right to vote? Having refuted all my opponent's points, I'll move on to my own: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. I've proven in the previous round that not just one, but multiple amendments are violated. 1. The 8th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement for LIFE falls under the category of "excessive sanctions." The prisoner has already served his sentence. He's supposed to be free now, right? But the government still sanctions him on the right to vote. This is clearly a violation of the felon's 8th amendment rights. 2. The 15th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement after release from prison/probation/parole is like denying the citizen the right on account of "previous condition of servitude." The main point here is PREVIOUS condition. It is (quite obviously) true that a ex-felon has been in prison, and I'm not arguing for them to be allowed to vote FROM prison. But after they're out, logically their right should be returned to them by the 15th amendment. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. When so many people of a minority race are not allowed to vote, this clearly creates an imbalance between races. America is known as the "Great Melting Pot" of diversity, but how can we continue to boast this if one minority is a million people down at the ballot box while others go on almost like normal? An overwhelming majority of ex-felons are African American or Hispanic. Not only is this unfair, it actually bolsters crime later on -- it backfires, doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do. According to USA Today: The right to vote helps people get more educated on issues they care about. Also, people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it. Sentencing Project: An overwhelming 78% of all repeated offenses had been disenfranchised. This creates an endless cycle: person commits crime, person can't vote, person commits crime again, person still can't vote. We need to prevent things like this from happening by allowing ex-felons to vote. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is essentially a person who makes a mistake. True, a BIG mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. They are still human beings and part of our society, like it or not. They could be limited on the issues they are allowed to vote on, like bills and laws, but they should be allowed to vote in elections. Ex-felons are still affected by the next President. They are still affected by their next Senator. If they're going to follow the law, they should have a say in who makes the law. People can't be persecuted for the past. This concludes my argument for this round. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response :)

I accept your challenge and will be arguing that convicted ex-felons should not be able to vote in all US elections. I look forward to debating with you :)

Not allowing felons to vote is not an infringement on equality. Anyone can commit a crime and become a felon. Everyone is born with the assumption that when they turn 18 they will be allowed to vote. The standards and the expectations are the same for all citizens. Voting is not the only important way to function as a part of a democracy. The revoking of voting serves as an occasional reminder of mistakes.

I must make clear that my position is in favor of the status quo. I may disagree states that I do not live in but I accept their decisions and the shared federal government that results from our individual election systems. If I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also. I say leave the states alone and keep to your own business in your own state. Freedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism.

So since I only have five minutes to make an argument I will make this quick. Felons sholuld not have the right to vote because they have broken the laws therefore surrendering their rights. If they wanted the right to vote they should have never broken the law. My opponet did not make an argument therefore I won.

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Since they have been in prison they have basically admitted that they are not capable of making rational decisions. We should not give them the opportunity to pick who will be the president or choose other prominent officials that will make decisions for everybody else. Yes all men are "created" equal, but they do not always end up like everybody else. Some choose to live an honest life and others don't. I would say that breaking the law is certainly not caring about it. If you cared about the rules and the law you would not break them in the first place. Felons don't understand the importance of the laws or else they would follow them. Yes all people have the right to vote but some need to understand that if you break the law things are going to be taken away from you. By felons being able to vote all that would do would be to create problems. Those opposed to this issue could backlash and maybe they will stop voting. Felons would only vote for who will give them what they want, not what is best for the country.

Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals). Third round is constructive and rebuttals. Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments). Fifth round is summary and impact weighing. Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework. Thanks, and good luck! -Lulu P. S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.

2. Felons should be allowed to vote People need to learn there are consequences to their actions, and punishment is involved. Felonies are big crimes, and there is consequences to your actions. My claim: Felons should not be able to vote.

You Choose the Topic!

Today I stand to affirm the resolution: "resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison." Not only are American felon voting laws outdated, they work against the democratic process, and they slow rehabilitation back into society. 1. One of the foundations of democracy is that everybody should vote, and that those elected into the United State's government are those who are supported the majority of the population. By not allowing released felons to vote, it is taking the vote away from up to 7% of the adult population in some states (1). In fact, in 2010, 5.9 million people in the United States were left unable to vote (2). Because of this, up to 6% of the United States (5.9 million people) are left without a vote, and their voices are not heard as loudly in government. This takes away from the democratic process, as despite the fact that the United States is built off of giving everybody a voice, these felons are left with none. So, not allowing felons to vote is taking away from the democratic process, and is making electoral decisions not truly represent the views of the people. 1a. Restricting felon voting rights can change the results of elections. If felons in Florida were allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election, it would have affected the result. Ex-felons have been seen to almost always vote democratic, and the 527 vote margin of victory of George Bush would undoubtedly be wiped out if the 600,000 felons barred from voting could have exercised their opinions (3). So, it is clear that not allowing felons to vote can change the results of elections, and by not allowing felons to vote, elections clearly do not always represent the people's true views. 1b. Taking away the right to vote does not make logical sense. A fundamental of the American Justice system is that once you complete your prison sentence, your punishment is over. Not allowing felons to vote for extended periods after their release from prison is extending their punishment, and by not allowing felons to vote, it makes rehabilitation into society even harder. This claim is supported by former Attorney General Eric Holder, as he said that taking the right away from felons "Defy[ies] the principles of accountability and rehabilitation that guides our justice system" (1). So, taking away a felon's right to vote is unethical, and unnecessarily extends punishment. 1c. The bill of rights in the constitution of the United States "prohibits excessive sanctions", and reads "punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense". Not allowing felons to vote for decades seems to be "excessive," as it is a fundamental right of being an American Citizen. So, not allowing felons to vote for decades is going against the concepts of excessive sanctions, and is an unnecessary right to remove. 2. Allowing felons to vote would help with their transition back into society. Felons without voting rights often feel fed up with the slow pace it takes to be fully re-admitted into society, and because of this, they are often three times more likely to re-offend than those with full rights upon release from prison (1). So, if felons were allowed to vote upon release from prison, not only would they transition more smoothly back into society, they would also be less likely to re-offend. 2a. Small offenses, like even tampering with crab traps illegally can trigger over 7 years without voting rights is some states (3). This simply does not make sense, as these criminals are clearly non violent, and have no intention of hurting anybody. Furthermore, these criminals usually show nothing that hints towards an inability to vote. 3. Felon voting laws are racist, and take the voice away from racial minorities. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, up to 20% of adult black males are left unable to vote in some states due to felon voting restrictions (2). African Americans are already a minority, with a relatively small voice in government. By taking the vote away from up to 20 percent of adult male African Americans, the voice of a relatively unspoken minority is being further quenched, as less of them can vote. This gives them even less of a say in elections, and is thus making them further under-represented in government. This also gives white people, the majority, an even larger voice in government. So, felon voting laws take voice away from already overshadowed minorities. 4. Felon Voting laws in the United States are outdated. In most other industrialized countries, felons are allowed to vote, sometimes even while still in prison (1). Additionally, they are even encouraged to do so, in promotion of the democratic process (1). In comparison, American felon voting laws, which take away voting rights until long after prison release seem incredibly restrictive, and outdated, while the laws in these other countries are innovative and modern. If American felon voting laws were loosened to this level, the United States would appear to be a modern, innovative country in one more way, and it would maybe gain more international respect. So, it has been shown that felon voting laws defy the democratic process, make elections seem not to fully represent the people's views, are unconstitutional, harm rehabilitative processes, take the voice away from under-spoken minorities, and are outdated. As such, it seems that felon voting laws need to be changed to become less restrictive. Sources 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.startribune.com... 3- http://america.aljazeera.com...

I will attempt to construct my arguments in a similar fashion in order to keep the format consistent Contentions: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Definitions: Recidivism- Measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release. P1: With many felons returning to prison within three years, how are we to be able to have faith in their good judgement? These are obviously not simple crimes, and if so many return to a life of crime as soon as they get out, then why should they have the right to vote? The effectiveness of our criminal justice system is for another debate, but as it is now, its not actually correcting anybody, its simply detaining them. Here is some interesting data: "Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%)." This would allow all of these felons, most of which return to prison within several years for the same crime, to vote in elections. There is more information on Recidivism rates here [1]. P2: Why should citizens who have been convicted of a felon have the same right as those who have never been convicted of one? Certainly they are not of equal value to society when one was thrown in prison for being a danger to society. If these felons are at risk of recidivism, of which many of them are, then I don't quite think their judgement is valid enough to allow them to vote in elections that could effect the rest of society. P3: Perhaps there should be a system in place for convicted felons to earn the right to vote. I feel that this would be a lot better than simply giving them the right to vote once they had served their time. This would ensure that we do not have voters with compromised judgements, and that they cannot vote before proving that they are able to be productive members of society. Otherwise, they may base their vote on a topic of interest, such as the legalization of a certain drug, etc. [1] http://www.bjs.gov...

I'll begin by responding to refutals P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. You asked "Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do?". To that question, I respond by saying that this right would be taken away because of something an ex-felon has done in the past and is LIKELY to do again (according to statistics, I know that not every ex-felon is going to be convicted again, but a majority are). I believe that the punishment of disenfranchisement lasts for life simply because its meant to prevent citizens from committing a felony, and thus give them an incentive not to become a felon. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. I think that it is perfectly justified to implement bigger consequences for those who have broken the law in the past, in an attempt to prevent them from doing so again. However, if a criminal is determined to start a new life as a law abiding citizen (who would not be shoplifting or anything of the sort anyways), then who is to say that they are not able to find work? Sure, it may be more difficult, but not impossible, and that is just one of the social consequences of breaking the law the first time. If you wanted to become the next CEO of a major corporation, you probably should not have committed a felony. So obviously ex-felons are barred from high ranking positions, and that's because of society, but there are plenty of jobs out there if one is looking for them and is determined to work hard. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. The life long consequences of breaking the law do not mean that a felon cannot become an ex-felon, that's absurd. Once a felon is released from prison, he/she can pursue anything he/she wants, and the inability to vote will not directly effect that freedom (once again, perhaps indirectly). Clearly somebody who has committed a felony has at one time had an invalid judgement, and so, should we really be required to allow them to vote if they are still in a similar state of mind? Would we want a mentally ill person voting? Not an irrelevant comparison, as both may have distorted views of what is right and wrong. Thus the implementation of some sort of psychological evaluation would be enough to confirm a certain level of mental stability and reasoning that is acceptable. Clearly somebody with a reasoning that its ok to kill or steal should not be allowed to vote in elections that influence all of us as a whole. Their judgements and by extension opinions are invalid. Now on to refuting your points P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) I meant that if a US citizen commits a felony, it is justifiable to revoke their right to vote for life (I'll explain why later) B) Although revoking the right to vote lasts forever, I do not believe it to be an excessive sanction either. Once again, individually, the right to vote does not effect normal life in society, and you can function perfectly fine without it. C) Here I was saying that an ex-felon's right to vote was revoked simply because they broke the law, not because of the previous condition of servitude itself. The mere fact that they were in prison does not effect the right to vote, its the felony that was committed. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) Your statement that minorities " occupy the majority of prison cells" is correct. However, even if they could vote, the imbalance would still very much be there. Also, just because many prisoners are minorities does not make it acceptable to give them the right to vote, based merely on that fact. They did something wrong, and the color of their skin has nothing to do with that (although it may be linked to socio-economic background). This is implemented across the board, so even though many ex-felons are minorities, white ex-felons do not have the ability to vote either, and so the law does not discriminate against race. B) You said "Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats". While this may be true, we cannot assume that they would vote for any one candidate, and so revoking an ex-felons ability to vote cannot be seen as an attempt to suppress Democratic voters. That would be openly admitting that most ex-felons are Democrats due to the fact that they are minorities. C) You asked "Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons?" Well I have found no data that would suggest that crime rates and disenfranchisement have any correlation at all. If I had to guess, I would say these countries have a lower crime rate because of their social safety nets and superior public education systems, but I honestly do not know. D) I did not suggest that ex-felons replace the right to vote, I was simply implying that there are other ways to express an opinion other than voting. According to your argument, ex-felons resort to breaking the law if their opinions are not heard, but expressing your opinion can be done through many other ways, and not just through voting. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) How are we supposed to gauge whether or not an ex-felon is capable of using this right responsibly? He/she may vote for a candidate with many flaws because he/she does not have the judgement necessary to see or even weigh these things against possible benefits that the candidate may provide to him/her specifically. B) By voting for the next president, ex-felons indirectly decide which policies and bills are implemented or signed into law. Although they do provide a larger group that is voting, are every single one of their opinions valid enough to be able to effect us all? This is why some kind of evaluation should first be done to ensure that ex-felons are able to reason, and subsequently weigh pro's and con's of candidates in elections. Those were some very strong arguments you put up, I look forward to the final round :)

Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. If you include those brain damaged by a felon, that number would be much, much higher. (Pause.) My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society. Contention 2 Felons are not silenced by not voting. The affirmative wants you to believe if a felon cannot vote, he cannot participate in the political process, but Felons CAN actively campaign for issues or candidates if they so desire. Think of Carrie and Cindy or the thousands of brain injured victims of felony crimes and contrast their loss of rights to that of the felons. Then ask yourself if that is equal or just. Contention 3 Permanently keeping felon's from voting serves equality and justice. According to FBI Homicide Reports from 76 to 2005, over 90 percent of homicide victims were old enough to vote, yet were silenced by a felon. Over 81 percent of homicides had multiple victims, meaning that one felon silenced more than one voter. According to the National Child Abuse Center, felons injured over 900,000 children in 2003 alone. Over 700,000, or 80% of abused children are left with a psychiatric disorder by age 21. These disorders, including severe brain injuries, can disqualify them from voting, too. Face it, felons are savagely stealing votes from their victims while fleecing the public for voting rights in the name of democracy. Are you going to find this FAIR? To recap, felons chose not to vote, they are not silenced from politics, and not allowing them to vote serves equality and justice. Therefore, I negate the resolution. Now, let's look at my opponents case and see why it doesn't hold up.

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

A felony is a serious crime in the United States and previously other common law countries. The term originates from English common law where felonies were originally crimes which involved the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Most common law countries have now abolished the felony/misdemeanor distinction and/or replaced it with other distinctions such as between summary offences and indictable offenses. Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud. People have the right to vote to form a democracy. A democracy is run by the people and for the people. The people vote on there leaders, there laws, and many other important issues. If the people think that felons should not be given suffrage, then in order for a democracy to be kept they mustn't vote. In some cases like maine and vermont voting is allowed by all felons because they have so many prisons in such little area that they make up much of there population in these states. Is this who we want to be voting? or should we have the hard-working americans who actually abide by the laws that felons help make?

they still should not be able to vote

I accept.

Judge, we have to realise that giving people a second chance doesn"t hurt, and in some cases, felons are unintentional. A robbery happens usually for money to support a family and to make ends meet, and some murders are unintentional, usually done in self defense. We cannot degrade felons and snatch their voting rights from them, because that will have devastating effects on how the society views them as an individual. According to MSNBC, when felons are given voting rights,they, 93% of the time, will not commit a crime again. Now lets see how this helps felons blend back: According to Columbia Univ., when given the right to vote, felons feel as if they are like everyone else when they are giving their opinion on who should be the person who they want to govern over them. they feel like they have a say in the nation"s matters, which makes them fit in. After all, voting is a constitutional right and as citizens they should have that right regardless of their past. Judge, not only does giving felons the right to vote help them blend back into society, it also helps the SOCIETY ITSELF. Fox News said that felons usually help in services such as helping people become fit, marriage arrangers, and overall, jobs to enhance a person"s life. The reason is simple: a person wants to give back what they "stole" from the society, and basically, they are giving back to the society. Judge, our point is clear: voting rights help felons blend back comfortably, and in the end, it positively affects the society as a whole. One of the largest purposes of prison is to make sure that the crime never happens again with the same person so why would we not let these citizens vote if it prevents more crime from taking place, helps the citizens rehab to become a normal citizen, and lets them blend back into society? Also, maybe these felons broke the law because they did not support it. The felons should have a say in it because they are citizens. As citizens, they have the constitutional right to vote. They aren't making the laws because it also requires society to agree with them. It just gives them a voice that they don't have in anything else which helps them in the long run to fit back in and rehab, and prevents more crime from taking place.

When you go against society, and commit a felony, you lose this societies trust. We don't let children vote, or the mentally incompetent vote, because we cannot trust there decisions. The same comes with felons. We cannot trust them, because of their poor judgment to commit a felony, therefore they cannot vote. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. When they decided they were going to go against society, they also decided they are going to lose their right to vote. Value: Justice It is not fair to give an equal voice in society to someone who has been a law abiding citizen, and a felon who has gone against society all together. When someone commits a felony, they should lose there right to vote. If a person wants a say in a Democracy, and wants to be able to vote in a Democracy, they must not go against it and commit a felony. Now why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives? If you're a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you have bad judgment. Why would we want people with that judgment picking our representatives? Criterion: just deserts Just deserts is basically giving people what they deserve. It is doing wrong and taking action for your wrong doing. In this round, you will see that people don't deserve the right to vote after they have committed a felony. My first contention is that it in not fair or equal to give a felon who has gone against a democratic society and a law abiding citizen equal voting rights. My second contention is felons being used by candidates running for office. My third contention is the public opinion rejecting felon voting rights. Contention 1: By committing a very serious crime, ex-felons demonstrate disrespect for the law. Therefore, they should have no input in determining who writes these laws. Felons shouldn't have the same voting rights as regular, law abiding, hard working Americans. In 2000 the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote. This means it is the state legislature's power to decide who is qualified. If you are a citizen over 18 you are automatically qualified. If you are considered mentally incompetent, or commit a felony you are disqualified. This is about being disqualified from voting. The same comes with gun rights, if someone abuses guns; we take that right away from them. So if a felon abuses a society, the society takes away the felon's right to vote. The American citizens who make up the democratic society are the people who should be the ones deciding who there leader is going to be, not the felons that have become outcasts of this society by going against it. The felon made their choice when they decided to go against society. Contention 2: There are currently 5.3 million felons in the United States who have lost there right to vote. Say these 5.3 million felons could vote and one of the candidates was going to be extremely less harsh against criminals. These extra 5.3 million votes would almost surely give a candidate a victory. Do we, law abiding American citizens want our representatives to be decided on by felons? No. If you are a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you obviously have bad judgment, so why should a society let you use your judgment to pick out the better candidate? The voting is not only voting for a presidential candidate, but also the local elections. In a city in California, called signal hill, the vote for mayor came down to one vote. In a school board election in Alaska, it was a dead even tie, bringing it to a coin flip. If there would have been one more person voting, a felon, they would have decided who was going to win. Do we really want felons deciding who a mayor or a school board member is? Contention 3: Much of the American public supports the disenfranchisement if felons. To be exact 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. Less than one-tenth of people surveyed believed that felons should keep there right to vote. These people believe that felons should lose their right to vote even after serving prison time because they still cannot be trusted. According to the Florida Department of Correction, over 40% of offenders commit another crime within 3 years of there release; and for those under 18 this number skyrockets to 73%. Furthermore a 2003 Department of Justice report found that more than 70 percent of arrestees tested positive for drugs. The American public has spoken, and the outcome was that most do not want felons to be able to have any part in voting. A democracy is a government made by a society's people. So if the American people think that felons should not be able to vote by this much of a margin, felons should not be allowed suffrage. In my first contention I proved that felons don't deserve equal rights because the have gone against the law, and in my second contention I showed that felons could get used by candidates, and I gave facts about them not being trustworthy. In my third contention I spoke about how the American public doesn't want felons voting, and they are the democracy. With the evidence I have brought up and the case I have given I would urge your ballot toward the negative side.

I'm just going to respond to my opponents speech. Unless he can substantiate his claims, I just need to rebut his claims since they're baseless. My opponent has the full burden of proof. I'll provide one source, and I will have destroyed my opponent's opening statements. My opponent opens with his opinion. Opinions can't be substantiated. He says we need more people voting, but somehow it doesn't make sense that felons should be the ones filling the polls instead of law abiding citizens. The proper solution is to get more law abiding citizens to vote. He assumes that all felons committed their crime a long time ago. That's an assumption used as a blanket statement. Blanket statements only need one example to be destroyed, and here I can provide a standard that breaks his statement. The minimum punishment for a felony is 48 hours [1]. He says that they're still citizens so they should vote. Something about committing a felony is that they're forfeiting certain rights by damaging the American public. Voting is one of those rights. I await a response. ------------------------------------------- Source: [1] http://www.cga.ct.gov...

ex felons should be able to vote

Now into the summary and impact round! No new arguments and refutes as this is the last round :) thanks To summarize, my points were P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Ex-felons cannot be barred from voting on legal premises since disenfranchisement for life violates the Constitution. It violates the excessive sanctions part of the 8th amendment as well as the 15th amendment. America needs to defend everyone's voting rights, but how can we fulfill this if ex-felons are still not allowed to vote? Everyone is supposed to be part of the American Dream. We all should have an equal opportunity at life, but ex-felon disenfranchisement violates this. Voting still is a big part of society. Ex-felons are affected by the results of elections. They should be able to have a say in who leads their country. Once a felon starts fulfilling his/her civic duties, they should have their full rights returned to them. On top of all moral values, ex-felons who actually have a say in their government are less prone to committing crime again. Since this reduces crime rates, it only further proves that ex-felons SHOULD be able to vote. What this debate really comes down to is weighing my opponent's main points (bad judgement and potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes) against the simple reality that ex-felons are people who abide by the law and deserve their full rights. If a person has bad judgement, does that mean he can be denied his Constitutional rights? The fact remains that ex-felon disenfranchisement is illegal. Furthermore, the past is the past; we cannot continue to punish ex-felons for mistakes they made long ago. They are already on lower ground than normal citizens. Also, if an ex-felon has bad judgement, he would not have gotten out of parole or probation -- felons have to be reviewed to get fully free. The potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes are not relevant because studies show that ex-felons who can vote are way less likely to commit crime. This is what sets me over my opponent. He has failed to prove the morality and legality behind disenfranchisement, but I've proven the moral and legal reasons behind allowing ex-felons to vote. I suggest voters cast their ballot for my side because I've proven convicted felons released from prison/parole/probation should be able to vote for both legal and moral reasons. I've refuted all of my opponent's refutations/contentions effectively (his refutations were quite repetitive and can be refuted by my rebuttals in previous rounds) and provided more detailed evidence. Overall, I have presented a stronger case. Thank you. Also, I'd like to say thank you to my opponent for an excellent, engaging debate. Your arguments were very well thought out. It was fun debating with you :)

My three main contentions are: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Definitions: Felon = an individual who has committed a felony. Felony = a crime punishable by heavy fines, jail/prison time for more than 10 years, and/or death. Disenfranchisement = restriction of an American citizen from voting. FRAMEWORK: The topic strictly states ex-felons, meaning felons released from prison, parole, and/or probation. P1: Restricting ex-felons from voting violates the Constitution. Voting is a right given to all US citizens by the Constitution. Since an ex-felon has been fulfilling their duties as citizens, they must be able to enjoy the full rights of citizens, which includes the right to vote. Also, ex-felon disenfranchisement violates the 8th Amendment. According to the 8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " According to the Atkins v. Virginia Supreme Court case: The 8th Amendment "succinctly prohibits excessive sanctions. " Disenfranchising an ex-felon is an excessive sanction in the sense that it extends the punishment beyond the felon"s sentence. Furthermore, the 15th Amendment is violated by ex-felon disenfranchisement. According to Section 1 of the 15th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Since ex-felons had already been released from prison, according to the 15th Amendment, they cannot be denied the right to vote. We can conclude that ex-felon disenfranchisement is unconstitutional. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A disproportionate percentage of convicted felons are a minority race. According to the Guardian: The people overwhelmingly affected by felony disenfranchisement laws are minorities. Only 2.5%, 5.8 million people in the voting age population were made ineligible to vote by felon voting laws in 2010. That percentage tripled to 7.7% among African-Americans. Another way of putting this is that 38%, 2.2 million, of all those stopped from voting by felon restrictions are African-American. About a million African-American ex-felons are disenfranchised. According to the Washington Post: In Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida, 1 in 5 African Americans are affected by felon disenfranchisement laws. This is way more than the amount of Caucasian individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement "may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U. S. Senate elections and one presidential election. " When P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is only released from prison, parole, and/or probation after they have abided by the law, paid off their fines and/or served their sentence. Ex-felons have already paid off their debt to society. Inflicting disenfranchisement upon them is unfair. They deserve the right to vote, no matter what they've done in the past. Emphasis on the PAST. Many other countries allow felons to vote. According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. According to the 2012 Sentencing Project: Nearly 6 million Americans are barred from voting due to their previous conviction. This means that 1 out of 40 adults in this country cannot vote. America is supposed to be a democracy, but how is it democratic when so many otherwise eligible citizens can't vote due to crimes they've committed and have already been punished for? These people deserve their full rights. They deserve to vote. Thank you, this concludes my argument.

Felons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country. If we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me. Yes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself. If felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place. Yes people are born with equal rights, but when someone chooses to break the laws that have been set in place, and then they have given up the chance to be treated equally with everybody else.

Accepted. Good luck!

As Con, I will argue why felons shouldn't have voting rights. Good luck!

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1) “5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1)http://www.ncsl.org...

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1) “5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1) http://www.ncsl.org...

R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America. ”(1)“5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored. ”(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs.

I'm sorry, I'm going to waive this last round, I'm sorry Kasmic. Feel free to award Pro conduct, but vote who had more convincing arguments. It's always a pleasure to debate you Kasmic.

i think ex felons should vote because we need more people voting and why should something they did a long time ago be agianst them now but i understand that ex felons most of did something very bad but they are still us citizens and all us citizen deserve to vote for their country.

ex felons should be able to vote

Also thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation. The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote. You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting. Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections. My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral. There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?

Five point three million Americans are denied the right to vote, simply because of their criminal records. If these convicts were able to vote it may amount to the difference in who our country's own president may be. It could have a huge impact on the laws that are in affect as well. This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution; Resolved: in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Jeremy Travis, stated that, "In more than a dozen states, a convicted felon loses the right to vote-for life. Thirty-two states prohibit offenders on probation or parole from voting." "In states with lifetime bans, the consequences for democratic participation are deeply disturbing." Before we discuss the topic any farther I would first like to establish and clarify some key definitions and terms. Democratic:pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all Society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members Felon:one who has committed a felony Retain:to continue to use, practice Right to Vote:a legal right guaranteed by the United States Constitution Contention 1:Convicts and Ex-convicts are treated like any other average citizen in every other aspect of their lives. Felons are expected to follow and obey the laws just the same as you and me. Why should we not give them the right to help choose the leaders they have to follow and vote on the laws that they are expected to obey? If felons are responsible to uphold the standard set by society, they should have the same rights and privileges as others. Steve Chapman stated, "We let ex-cons marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property, and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination, or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their home in a time of war. But, the assumption in most places is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders. If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place." In some states, Maine and Vermont, felons are allowed to vote even while being incarcerated. How can one justify this being fair to a convict in Missouri. It should be a standard all across the board that everyone's voting rights are treated equally, even a felon's(see Equal Protection Clause, Contention 3). Allowing one felon to vote and not allowing another to is creating a double standard based on location, which has no legitimate effect on voting rights. Contention 2:Felons are serving or have served the punishment they were sentenced for their crime. A judge is a highly trained professional. They make decisions to determine punishments and consequences accordingly. When they sentence a felon they sentence them to a punishment that is adequate to the crime they committed. There is no reason for society to think of themselves above a felon and impose further regulations. It is not our place to judge others when we ourselves could just as easily be in their place. By denying a felon this right we are demoralizing them and depriving them of their basic human rights. We are alienating them from society. A felon has already been given a punishment for the crime they committed so why should we make them keep suffering for something that happened in the past and was already dealt with? We are taking away the capability for a felon to fix their life and reform into the "average Joe." By doing this we are putting society in a susceptible position. Contention 3: The right for everybody to vote is protected by the constitution. Amendment VIII of the Constitution states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted." Also according to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, "Congress finds that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right." Contrary to the beliefs of many that voting is a privilege, Congress itself wrote that it is a right that ALL United States citizens have, regardless of any discriminatory factor. Lastly, there is this little part of the Constitution that is referred to as "The Equal Protection Clause.(Amendment XIV, Section 1)." It states that, "No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This makes it clear that any ordinance outlawing a citizen's right to vote is unconstitutional. The United States was established under the values and morals of our country's founding fathers. As I have shown with my three points of contention, they clearly had the intent of allowing all citizens the right to vote, no matter what the circumstances may have been. Felons, as I stated in my first contention, are expected to follow the same laws. Taking away more basic human rights separates them from society. If citizens expect laws to be followed, everyone needs equal input on the making of these laws. Not only do we need to follow through with the resolution because of the hypocrisy and double-standards involved, but also because it is protected constitutionally. The VIII amendment to the constitution, The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Equal Protection Clause all reference that disenfranchisement is wrong. Also, Making a felon pay for their mistake even after completing their sentencing completely violates my second point of contention. They were given an appropriate sentencing. Taking away the right to vote was not included in it. For the reasons I have stated above I know the affirmative side is the right side. This is why I urge you to return a negative ballot today. Thank You.

Felon Voting

I'll respond to my opponent's defenses of his main points. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do? Why not give all of them life sentences while you're at it? Obviously the answer is that they don't deserve a sentence for life. It's too big a punishment, However, isn't this what disenfranchisement is? It's inability to vote -- for LIFE -- just because of something they might or might not do. Is this fair? P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. Citizens are not on even ground with felons. For example any person with a criminal record (ex-felons fall under this category) will get heavier fines and punishment than a normal person if they were caught shoplifting or exceeded the speed limit. It's also harder for convicts to get a job, because (admit it) no one wants to hire a criminal no matter how changed they are. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. If disenfranchisement is a punishment, then the disenfranchised convict is not an ex-felon. Since we're debating ex-felons, the point about disenfranchisement being a punishment is invalid. My opponent also argues that a felon needs to prove that his/her judgement is valid, however, voting is very subjective and varies from person to person. There is no such thing as a "valid" vote in an election. No politician is going to go up there and say, "We should legalize all types of drugs and drop the smoking age completely." We all know that's completely crazy and the millions of non-felons in the US are going to vote against it. A felon's vote won't cause something really crazy to happen, but their vote will matter when it comes to something like the Affordable Care Act. Now I'll defend my main points. I will be splitting the defenses into A), B), C), etc. since my opponent made multiple refutations to each point. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) "If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote?" Actually, I do agree that a convicted felon shouldn't be able to vote from prison, jail, or while on parole or probation. But after the sentence is over, the right should be returned along with the felon's liberty, freedom of speech, etc. However, since we're debating ex-felons here, my opponent's point is invalid. B) "Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment..." I never said this. I said ex-felon disenfranchisement violated the part of the 8th amendment about excessive sanctions. C) "As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed?" Again, we're debating ex-felons, not convicted felons in general. Perhaps disenfranchisement could be a form of capital punishment, but once the felon is free and served all sentences, he/she can't have the right to vote taken away. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) "...African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement "creates an imbalance between races" would be true regardless." The problem is that even though these races make up a minority of the country's total population, they occupy the majority of prison cells. If felon disenfranchisement didn't exist, the imbalance would be gone. B) "It's not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin." It's not just race, it's class and socio-economic status. Race and class are inseparable because minorities make up much of the lower income class, more so than the majority race. Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats. Wealthier people tend to vote for Republicans. Indirectly (please note this statement is not trying to discriminate) Caucasians tend to vote for one candidate while minorities vote for the other. C) "...If they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote." Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons? These countries have a way lower crime rate than the US and other ex-felon disenfranchisement countries. Obviously, a felon's right to voice his/her own opinion prevents him/her from breaking the law. D) "I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc." Remember, the topic states ELECTIONS. Not laws or policies. Felons need to vote on who leads their country for the next 4 years of their lives. Felons can't petition for a new president. How do you suggest to replace the right to vote in elections? P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) "I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly" My opponent seems to think that if felons are allowed to vote, they'll somehow vote to legalize marijuana or something, but again the topic states elections not issues. The most felons will base their vote on is ObamaCare and other extremely controversial issues because no candidate is going to come out and say they want to legalize marijuana. B) "Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority?" My opponent has asked me a direct question. My answer is that no, it will not be a detriment, because again I'm arguing for them to vote in elections, not on bills or policies or issues. They make up part of the population and their voices need to be heard. This is actually better for the majority as there are more opinions on the election rather than just one group. Thanks, I look forward to the next round.

Vote for me please.

ex felons should be able to vote

"Well if they lost them for commiting a crime they should not be able to get them back.The way you put it they shouldn't be taken away to begin with so after they commite a crime they should be able to go back to there life without any changes so there rights haven't changed at all and it's like they didn't commited the crime at all." --> I never said they should be taken away, however for the desirability of the resolution we need to also see the imapct of returning to society. *He refutes none of my case, thus extend the whole thing.*

Generally, PRO goes first. However, if you accept this debate, then you forfeit your right to go second and will therefore go first (I don't feel like going first) Felony disenfranchisement is the term used to describe the practice of prohibiting people from voting based on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony. I stand against felon disenfranchisement, convince me otherwise [...]

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote

I will be debating against the topic, "Resolved: In the United States, Felons should not be allowed to vote upon release from prison. " Now, to jump right in. Sorry about that last round; I was a little bit busy, but I would like to provide constructives and rebuttals in this round. I would first like to point out one statistical discrepancy in the proposition"s case. He has stated that 5.9 million people, or 6% of our country"s population cannot vote, but this is clearly an incorrect statistic. According to the most recent statistics from 2014, our country"s population is 318.9 Million. 5.9 million people out of 318.9 Million is just under 2%, not 6%. This brings us to question all of proposition"s evidence and empiric. Now, to get on to constructive assertions. 1: Allowing these felons to vote is not a federal issue and cannot be decided by the U. S. Government or the Supreme Court to encompass the entire United States, as proposition is arguing. According to the Bill of Rights, this issue is decided by the states. Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one. If voters choose to change state laws regarding felons and voting, it's their prerogative. Federalism allows for such state-level experimentation, and it's at the state level where the consequences of new felon-voting laws will best be judged. This assertion itself negates proposition"s whole case. Proposition is arguing that we should make a law encompassing the entire United States to allow these released felons to vote. This is not legal, according to the 14th Amendment of our Bill of Rights. 2: The reason we don"t let children vote in the United States is because they have not developed proper judgment and cannot decide which party to vote for. These felons are not allowed to vote for this same reason. If someone has gone to jail for over one year, then they have committed a fairly bad crime such as assault, they have shown that they are not trustworthy and their judgment is not good. I will now strengthen my case with rebuttals. As pointed out earlier, we come to doubt Pro"s evidence because of the discrepancy. Rebuttal to 1a: A change of an election outcome is not enough reason to base changing the law on. If children were allowed to vote, the result of elections would drastically change, but they are not allowed to vote. A change in outcome has nothing to do with the positive or negative values of Felon voting. Many things may cause a change in the outcome of elections. That doesn"t mean they are good. Rebuttal to 1b: In fact, punishment, more often than not, does not end after a prison sentence is over. Parole is a punishment that is given to the majority of felons coming out of prison, which means their punishment is being continued to make sure that they have learned their lesson. Rebuttal to 1c: Pro has provided no solid evidence for this point, just that it "seems to be excessive" to not let these felons vote. But we have these punishments for a reason. Rebuttal to 2a: This point is invalid to this debate, because this debate is about felons, and tampering with crab traps is not a felony, its only major punishment is a fine. A felon is someone who has been convicted to death or one or more years in prison for a crime. Rebuttal to 3: It is not racist that these felon voting laws are not allowing these felons to vote. The laws are the same for all races. If the laws specifically didn"t allow African Americans to vote, then they would be racist. But the fact that minorities can"t vote because of these laws doesn"t prove the laws to be racist, it just proves that these minorities commit more than the average amount of crimes. Rebuttal to 4: This argument about other countries having felon voting as a law is invalid because the fact that other countries have instated these laws doesn"t prove they are good. Pro has provided us with no statistics to show that with these laws, these other countries were benefited, and all he says is that America "would maybe gain more international respect. " First of all, America doesn"t need any more international respect. And second of all, it is not gain respect in the eyes of other countries if we go against our own constitution. I have refuted all of Pro"s points and added two points to this debate.

My opponent didn't attack my first contention so it holds contention 2 THE FELON HAS COMMITTED A CRIME the criminal has done a crime and should be punished for it.

In ordor to better form a flowing argument, I will boldface quotations from previous arguments and leave a line "---" to clarify a natural pause. If readers can recommend a better way to quote previous arguments then please leave a comment explaining the technicalities or a guide that details this.---"Thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation."This video is the most recent, valid source I could find of people that showed a mentality that fundamentally opposed organized law. Whats more--A lot of these men were unconvinced, thus they still, technically, retained the right to vote. Citing this video was a way for me to express the prison culture of violence that is embedded into the minds of many ex-felons.Overall, There are many reasons for me formulating this opinion. This video does not encapsulate my entire morality foundations. Also, personal rational is not on debate. The legitamacy of stripping felons of their rights is the topic of this debate.---"The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote."I cited grounds for denying them voting rights in my previous argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.These are cited example in our legal code which enable states to strip citizens of their voting rights. I would flip your argument on it's face.It is more immoral to strip states of their rights, which are documented on the books at the federal levelthen it is to strip citizens of their voting rights. I'm sure there are judges out there that calculate the stripping of these rights into their final judgment. (Example: A judge sentencing a felon to 35 years in prison, and later being stripped of their voting rights rather then a more sever length of sentence with retained voting rights.)If Felons object to a lose in voting rights in that state, then they should move to another state that allows them to vote. Nobody is demanding that they stay; As long as it doesn't break their probation.There is a historic president for this. After the Civil War, many confederates left the southern states for the Great American Southwest. There, these traitors could remake themselves, elect representatives and build a society they wanted.---"You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting."You claim to care about children growing up and conducting themselves in a democracy. Wouldn't this contradict your account on the rights of citizens to retain full rights after they ‘serve' their time in jail?Rational: How do you feel about pedophiles rights? Is a judge saying, "We need you to stay away from children" outside his sentencing procedure? You can see the necessity in keeping pedophiles away from Middle Schools and Elementary Schools, right? But, in your legal system, a judge would not be allowed to do that. That sort of bias against pedophiles would be unconstitutional by your standards.And, as a reminder, it is constitutional to strip felons of their voting rights according to the article and two amendments I cited in my earlier argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.---"Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections."The fact that felons, as you admitted, account for two percent of the United States population just means that the stripping of voting rights is good deterrent for people to not commit crime. You said that the majority of inmates do not "‘hate'" justice, but you have nothing to cite otherwise.---"My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral."Why should the American tax payer pay for the incarceration of these felons, but then be on an even keel with them when they are released. I say that you are the one trying to strip people of their rights. You are the one advocating the stripping of states rights, as guaranteed by the constitution, but then asking them to catch the bill of these felons. That is the true definition of taxation without representation.---"There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?"Yes. We should deny them their vote.A vote in favor of felons voting rights is a vote against taxpayers and state rights as guaranteed by:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.Vote Con.Thankyou, and Jesus bless America.

Countries like our own are succeeding with letting their felons vote Half of all the European countries allow all current inmates to vote, and virtually all former inmates in Europe have full voting rights. Take Ireland for example. For elections in the Republic of Ireland, there is no disenfranchisement based on criminal conviction, and prisoners remain on the electoral register at their pre-imprisonment address. Prior to 2006, the grounds for postal voting did not include imprisonment, and hence those in prison on election day were in practice unable to vote, although those on temporary release could do so. In 2000 the High Court ruled that this breached the Constitution, and the government drafted a bill extending postal voting to prisoners on remand or serving sentences of less than six months.However, in 2001, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling and the bill was withdrawn.After the 2005 ECHR ruling in the Hirst case, the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 was passed to allow postal voting by all prisoners. Also, judge, we have Germany, in which the law even calls on prisons to encourage prisoners to vote. Only those convicted of electoral fraud and crimes undermining the "democratic order", such as treason are barred from voting, while in prison. However, as soon as they are released from prison, they regain their voting rights! Now judge, i would like to mention how these countries are going in their criminal ways. According to a 2004 study done by Oxford Univ., former prisoners who vote are half as likely to re-offend, and so far, half of these European countries, whom are letting their felons vote, are having their repeating felons reduced by half. Judge, this shows that with letting their felons vote, these countries are not having repeated crimes! This is reducing the amount of crimes committed by ex-felons by HALF, Lets also think about this logically. these countries are both democracies, and their governments are very similar to ours. and yet, they are letting their felons vote. while letting their felons vote, they are not only reducing the amount of crimes occurring in their countries, but they are also letting more people have a say in who gets to govern over the people. How judge, how can this be harmful to anybody? and judge, as i will state in my 2nd cont., giving people a second chance does not hurt, and in some cases, it even provides benefits.

First off, i would like to point out that my competitor used the U.S. as an example, and this resolution is not specific to any one democracy, nor is the ban of double jeopardy an inherent trait of democracy. I also would like to add that by losing the right to vote while in prison, felons are not "retaining" that right, because it has been lost for a period of time, therefore by arguing that felons should only have the right to vote after their process in the penitentiary system is finished, my competitor is validiting my side of the argument.

Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society

I will first reply to his comment that only 2% of American population is not allowed to vote, he is saying that that isn't enough Americans worth fighting for, there are a total of 316.13 Americans in the U.S. Just 2% is a big chunk. Also what my opponent is clearly saying is that if lets say only 5 million Americans lets say, had any sort of rights violated, or needed help it doesn't matter. My opponents next argument is about prioritizing companies hiring the ex-felons rather then voting rights, I agree that getting them a job is important, so why not do both? All we have to do to allow them to vote is get a law passed or a bill or whatever may be needed to get them to vote, there is no reason why you can't prioritize both. Again in my case I specifically talk about how some felons go back to the economy and find jobs so of course that is on my side and has no impact onto he round. Here is part of the contention I posted earlier for reference. an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. His main point however is that we should teach them a lesson not to break the law, and I agree with that, but I don't see how removing voting rights will make them better citizens or effect them heavily, yes they would love to vote but removing voting rights isn't as sever a punishment as going to jail or being fined. The punishments already set for a felony are more then enough to teach them a lesson. "Nineteen states "may terminate the parental rights of convicted felons. "In twenty-nine jurisdictions (includes states and the District of Columbia) being convicted of a felony is "legal ground for divorce." "In twenty-five jurisdictions, convicted felons can never hold public office. "In six states a felon can never hold public employment. "Federal law forbids felons from holding many government jobs or receiving federal contracts. "In thirty-one jurisdictions convicted felons are permanently barred from serving on a jury. "Federal law forbids all convicted felons from owning a firearm. "Forty-six jurisdictions require former felons to register with local law enforcement. "All sexual offenders must register with local law enforcement officials for at least ten years after release from prison; longer times for certain offenses. The names of those registered are made available to any member of the public. "People convicted of a drug felony can be denied all forms of federal assistance, including food stamps. Although states can opt out or narrow the focus of these penalties, only twelve states have entirely rejected them; slightly more than half have narrowed the scope of these rules. "Everyone convicted of a drug-related felony, and indeed, many former felons, can be denied access to federal housing. "The Higher Education Act of 1998 suspends their eligibility for student loans for at least a year, even for simple possession; longer, for second offenses and for selling drugs. This loss of benefits may be reinstated if the person goes through an "approved" drug treatment program. The scope and significance of these collateral consequences show that the real world of punishment is far different from the one most people imagine. In this world a felon's debt to society is rarely paid in full. For these felons the Mark of Cain is permanent. The current punishment is just like my opponent wants it, deadly, strict, and hard to resolve, he wants to add even more punishments for felons in general and keep them restricted instead of helping them develop the qualities of a proper citizen to ensure crime is less. Felons have more then enough punishments so why not give them the right to vote? Also the only reason some felons are repeat offenders is because lack of job opportunities , "Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. So since some find job opportunities and become citizens they should be allowed to vote, again I agree if we provide more job opportunities for ex-felons this method will be even more effective. So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4. Racial disfrenchment laws are still a big problem as I pointed out "In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. I also pointed out that if these people were allowed to vote it would have effected as much as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election. Conclusion: I agree that some level of punishment must be set for actions in order to ensure order and tranquility continute to be established, however I believe the current punishments are more then enough and that crimes committed at a order age, either due to the influence from their environment or stealing food because they are poor and hungry shouldn't make them lose the right to vote in the future. Sources: 1. http://www.bing.com... 2.http://www.justice.gov... 3.http://www.hughlafollette.com...

I regret that my opponent has forfeited this round as I enjoyed the debate.

In a democratic society, felons out to retain the right to vote.

Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1)“5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/5,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) Sourceshttp://www.ncsl.org... Comment if interested.

R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

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

Rules: Clarification: Minor as in like, a crime as a child, minor theft, driving away from a car wreck out of fear, basically anything that isn't huge like rape, or murder. Childhood crime could be minor theft. 1. Try not to forfeit. 2. have fun 3. go by resolution

Obviously we shouldn't jail people forever (unless they have committed a VERY serious crime) which is why we have the 8th amendment. However, stripping them of their right to vote is cruel and unnecessary punishment. Voting is not a privilege, voting is a right. If you were born in a country you have the right to vote in elections. Would you argue that the right to a fair and speedy trial is a privilege? Or that the 2nd amendment is a privilege? Or that the 1st amendment and all our freedoms are just privileges? Who are we to say that felons don't have good morals? Thomas Jefferson had slaves, he wasn't felon but I wouldn't argue those are good morals. Donald Trump grabs women by the p*ssy. He isn't a felon but I would't argue those are good morals either. People make mistakes, people also commit horrible crimes. But regardless, we can't dehumanize them. We can't say, "Oh you committed tax fraud? You are no longer an American citizen! Haha, go to jail and when you come out you don't get to vote because you don't count anymore." We don't get to decide who votes to benefit ourselves. We allow the democratic process to occur because we are a democracy. You serve your time in jail and then you are released. Your punishment should be over.

You Choose the Topic!

um...my opponent barley responded. Extend my arguments again. I clearly won this round.

Extend my arguments

ex felons should be able to vote

This is an infringement on equality because felons are in fact not equal with the rest of the citizens. And in a democracy, everyone has to be equal, or it is no longer a democracy. Punishment is for people to learn from mistakes. If felons are punished by taking their right to vote away FOREVER, then they will never learn becasuse they wont have that chance to learn. In a democracy everyone must have equal rights and the same individual rights.

Whoever excepts this debate please have some knowledge of how LD debate works. The Affirmitive side always goes first so whoever excepts this challenge should go first.

In a Democratic Society Felons ought to Retain the Right to Vote

My sincere condolences are extended to opponent, as surely only a crisis of major propositions would have prevented him from typing the word "Continued" some time within the three day response period. Proponents for felons retaining the right to vote often suppose that withholding the right must be either punishment or retribution. Such is not the case. We imprison serial killers not only on grounds of punishment or retribution, we imprison them to prevent them from committing similar bad acts. Depriving a felon of the right to vote is unlikely to be a significant punishment to discourage criminal behavior. Even as retribution it would be trivial. However, removing the right to vote prohibits the felon from committing the bad act of voting for a candidate because the candidate is likely to weaken the justice system. As an example, consider the famous Willie Horton case http://forerunner.com... that came up during the 1988 presidential campaign. Michael Dukakis opposed George H.W.Bush. Willie Horton was a convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. However, as governor of Massachusetts Dukakis permitted Horton to be let out of prison on a furlough program that Dukakis thought would aid rehabilitation. During a furlough, Horton murdered another person. As governor, Dukakis commuted so many sentences for first-degree murder that the time actually served for life without parole was 19 years. (op. cit.) I have no doubt that Governor Dukakis was sincere in his belief that leniency leads to rehabilitation. However, felons will certainly want leniency regardless of whether rehabilitation occurs or not. The recidivism rate proves that most often it does not occur. We may therefore suppose that allowing felons to vote would sway close elections to the side of leniency, particularly when issues other than the justice system dominate the campaign. Felons should not have the right to vote in the interests of pursuing a life of crime. Suppose that there are no criminal justice issues evident in a campaign. We know that many convicted felons are characteristically averse to working for a living. They are therefore likely to vote for whichever candidate promises the largest amount of unqualified government benefits. This is also contrary to the interests of ordinary voters, who are likely to be willing to help the poor, but unlikely to want to support criminals. For these reasons, the resolution should be rejected.

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

I extend all my arguments.

I extend all arguments.

Voting is a right, but not an unconstrained one. The right to vote is not granted to those under the age of eighteen. That age limitation demonstrates that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment. Resident aliens are excluded from voting on the grounds that their interests are not necessarily coincident with the interests of ordinary citizens. Convicted felons are another class of citizens whose judgment is reasonably called into question. The interests of convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole, who want to be protected from criminals. The U.S. Constitution does not grant individual citizens the right to vote for president. The electors for the President are determined by state legislators *by any means*; Clearly, the Constitution does not make voting in a preeminent right. The Constitution defines a republic, which generally subordinates the right to vote upon legislation to voting for legislators. There are clauses granting equal rights based based upon race and religion, and equal voting rights based upon gender, but there is nothing that prevents voting restrictions based upon other criteria. Non-citizens are also excluded from voting. That is because the interests of non-citizens are likely to diverge from those of citizens on some important issues. The argument that the interests of criminals diverges from that of ordinary citizens is stronger than that for non-citizens. Convicted criminals have demonstrated where their interests lie, but for non-citizens it is only a reasonable supposition. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall claimed that once a prison sentence is served, that felons have "fully paid their debt to society" [1] However, being a jurist qualifies one to interpret laws, not to make them. Whether or not felons have fully paid there debt is a matter to be determined by law, and ultimately of the values of society as reflected in the lawmaking processes. For example, convicted sex offenders must register with the government and are restricted from certain interactions with children. The "three strikes and you are out" laws identify career criminals and remove them from society. The justification for both sex-offender registration and "three strikes" is that convicted felons are more likely to commit additional crimes than persons without a criminal record. One can argue what the correct level of continuing debt to society ought to be, but the fact that convicted felons are more likely to commit crimes is unquestionable. The U.S. Bureau of Justice reports that "over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years" [2]. Note that the two-thirds only reflects released felons who where caught within three years. It does not count those who committed crimes but were not arrested. Overall, only about 45 percent of violent crimes are solved, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics [3] Factoring in the criminals not caught, we may reasonably suppose that the true recidivism rate is in the neighborhood of 85 or 90 percent. Because recidivism rates are so high, the debt to society at the heart of this issue is not with respect to serving a sentence for a particular crime, it is in having adopted a criminal lifestyle. The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle. For example, that might be established after ten years without an arrest for a felony. It is not established by release from prison. Only eight states currently prohibit convicted felons from voting for life. Two states (Vermont and Maine) permit felons to vote while in prison. Thirty-three states remove the franchise while convicted felons are on parole. Thus even if one accepts Thurgood Marshall's argument that voting rights should be restored after felons have paid their debt, it is not mainly about criminals who have done so. The issue is mainly about criminals who are in prison or on parole and have not paid their debt. Criminal rights advocates claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, that felons would likely have swayed the presidential election to John Kerry and away from George Bush. They claim that preventing that was undemocratic. There is no doubt that in a close elections the votes of those with an established criminal lifestyle voting for someone they feel to be in their interests could determine the outcome of an election. That, however, is a powerful argument that justice demands that election not be determined by such people. Criminal rights advocates claim that fencing off a certain voter demographic is a fundamentally unjust principle. In reality, it depends upon the reason for fencing off the demographic. People under the age of 18 are fenced off on the reasonable grounds that in general they lack the knowledge and experience to cast an informed vote. Note that this is done despite some seventeen-year-olds being more informed than some citizens who are fifty or sixty. The fencing off is justified because the odds are so heavily against it. Similarly, not all convicted felons remains committed to the criminal lifestyle. But with about 85% recidivism, the odds are much against it. Therefore, it is reasonable and just to identify the demographic and exclude them. Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians, who can seek votes by making various promises to tilt the justice system in favor of criminals. Politicians are clever enough not to go to prisons to make the appeal directly, as that would alienate other voters. They would use surrogates who espouse "improving" the justice system by weakening it. Even if no targeted appeal were made, criminals would figure out for themselves which candidate was most likely to facilitate their criminal lifestyle. Crime victims are also an identifiable demographic. However, victims are less likely to vote based upon the single issue of weakening the justice system. For example, victims are citizens who worry about the health of the general economy because a good economy facilitates their making a living. A criminal lifestyle, however, is only facilitated by weakening the justice system. The issue has frequently posed as one in which removing the right to vote is either punishment or retribution. This a false dichotomy. A completely separate reason for imprisoning criminals is to keep them from doing further harm. That is why convicted felons should not be allowed to vote. We should not want people whose primary interest is in pursuing a criminal lifestyle determining the outcome of close elections. 1. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu... Richardson v. Ramerez, in which three ex-felons sued to restore their voter registration. The applicants lost the case. 2. Bureau of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... Recidivism 3. http://www.ncpa.org... National Center for Policy Analysis, Violent Crime Clearance Rate http://www.ncpa.org...

In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote.

I hold all three contentions. Seeing as my opponent has forfeited the round i think it's only fair that i too do that. I trust that he probably had something more important to do and couldn't find time to debate.

Since you must have had something important going I will also miss this round to keep things fair. I hope you have not quit this debate. I hope the judges do not dock points.

i need help :[ with this topic..

I negate the resolution: Felons Ought to Retain the right to vote. My value for determining this is social contract. My criterion for this is the ability of the social contract to uphold societal welfare. Contention 1: By breaking the social contract, citizens have forfeighted their right to vote. By granting any felon the right to vote would contradict the purpose of the social contract.

Look forward to a great confrontation in round 3! BOPNow, my opponent's case is that felons should be able to vote; logically, this means we should restore voting rights for all felons, and that future felons would not be penalized by removing their right. My opponent bears sole BOP, which means he is responsible to prove that felons should be able to vote. If he fails to do so, or I demonstrate any situation where a felon should not be allowed to vote, I would win. Contention 1 - Government is just, and its powers derive from societyThomas Jefferson says it best in the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The idea of God-given rights form the cornernstone of American justice and a key part of traditional American values. Jefferson continues: " That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". That is, government exists to protect rights. Its powers, when derived from and held by the people, are just. This includes, by nature, the power to punish those who violate rights. Contention 2 - Punishment consists of revoking of rightsWhat does punishment entail? In general, the idea in common law is that punishment should fit the crime - that is, the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment. The most common methods of securing punishment - those society has, throughout our history, deemed most just - are through fines, community service, and imprisonment. Outside of a governmental context, these all would be crimes. If I were to forcibly take money from you, require you to work without pay, or lock you in a small room and make it impossible for you to leave, I would be arrested. But, for governments, this is fine. Why? Because when you violate the law, you forfeit rights. Essentially, by refusing to respect the rights of others, you lose some of yours. Loss of voting privileges is just another way to punish people. It's serious nature connotes the seriousness of the crime. Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal opportunity says "It makes sense that felons should lose their right to vote. You don’t have a right to make the laws if you aren’t willing to follow them yourself. To participate in self-government, you must be willing to accept the rule of law. We don’t let everyone vote – not children, not noncitizens, not the mentally incompetent. There are certain minimum and objective standards of trustworthiness, responsibility, and commitment to our laws that we require before people are entrusted with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. Those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. "[1]Contention 3 - Voting rights should only be revoked for violent criminals. One area of common ground might be that there are many people who are felons that do no deserve that connotation. Felonies should be limited to the most serious crimes - things like arson, sex crimes (rape, child rape, incest), murder, and treason. In the past and presents, states have been too loose in regards to drug crimes. People can become felons for what should be minor drug crimes, if they should even be crimes at all. The definition of 'felon' should be reduced to violent or treasonous crimes - the most despicable and terrible of actions. It is on firm ground to say a convincted child rapist, murderer, or rapist has forfeited his right to decide laws for others through his actions. These violent criminals have rejected society and its laws, and society is well within its rights to reject them. Contention 4 - Rights could be restored through an arbitration committeeAfter a felon has served their time, it might be reasonable to consider returning their right to vote. This would not be automatic - it might be handled in a similar way to how we handle parole - there might be a voting board, which would thoroughly vet the person to determine if they are truly sorry for what they have done and are committed to living by the laws of society. This would provide incentive for felons to reform - they will be accepted back into society if they are willing to accept the laws that the government of the people has made. ConclusionIn short, there is nothing wrong with restricting voting rights for felons. It works with the American legal tradition, and is a reasonable way to punish those who have decided to reject the laws of society. While the definition of 'felon' might need to be smaller, and a system to allow restoration of rights might be reasonable, there is no reason a pedophile or murderer should be allowed to decide the laws of a society he plainly rejected. References:1. . http://www.ceousa.org...;

again my opponent seems to be absent, therefor this debate will have to be again postponed until a later date

I took the core value assumed by Pro to be achieving justice. Pro claimed, "The creation of justice, by preserving the democratic society, is the pathway towards the achievement of the perfect democracy." Now Pro seems to claim that justice should be defined as whatever democracy produces, no matter how unjust. The vote of cannibals provides a simple example of the fact that democracy does always achieve justice. Moreover, the fact that democracy does not achieve justice is reflected in the U.S. Constitution by its establishing a republic, by using a system of electors chosen by state legislators "by any means," and by having a Bill of Rights that protects individuals from unfettered democracy. Moreover, the exclusion of minors and the exclusion of non-citizens is done to foster justice at the expense of unfettered democracy. Pro made no argument that justice would be achieved by expanding democracy. In his opening statement Pro asserted "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." then in rebuttal he contradicts himself by asserting "Also felons are only 2% of the population not enough to win an election." Pro was correct in his first assertion, and the numbers Pro recited prove that 2% more than enough to swing an election. Pro asserts that recidivism rates are "mere speculation." It is not speculation that convicted felons still have a substantial interest in preserving a criminal lifestyle. When about 60% are rearrested and more are not caught, that is solid proof that they maintain that interest. It would be a fine idea to exclude felons who have never been caught from voting, but the lack of a practical way of doing that does not mean we should honor the judgment of those we know to have interests in weakening the justice system. Pro asserts that the only purposes of imprisonment are punishment and rehabilitation. I refuted that at the outset. An additional purpose is to prevent the offender from committing additional bad acts upon the public. Denying the vote to a convicted felon prevents the felon from committing the bad act of fostering criminal interests through the voting process. That can, fortunately, be prevented without imprisonment. Note that the proposition restores the vote to felon who are in jail or on parole, yet Pro seems to insist that the issue is solely about those who have completed their sentences. The fundamental error in the Pro position is the assumption that greater democracy always means greater justice. Clearly it does not. I therefore urge a vote against the proposition.

My opponent has conceded his points to me because of forfeit. Please vote neg.

Wow.I was looking forward to a great debate. I don't feel as though I need to post another argument here, I summed up my points and they were not refuted. Due to the fact that my arguments stand on their own I have negated the resolution and hope that you VOTE CON. Thank - you.

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

Forfeit I have no arguments, and I have too much work to continue this. Thanks for debating anyway.

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote

I affirm the resolution "in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote" For the purposes of clarification I would like to define the following terms Democracy-government by the people Felon-any person who has committed a felony Retain-to keep All of these definitions came from the Webster's dictionary I would now like to offer the following value of Equality Equality is defined as the right of all people to have the same opportunity as everyone else in this case voting. Equality is essential because if you don't have equality in a democratic society then it isn't a true democracy because all people don't have the right to have a say in that society. To accompany my value is would like to offer the criterion of Mills Marketplace of Ideas This criterion pertains to the resolution because it states that the best or most accurate idea comes from when all people have a say in an idea. This is perfect for a democracy because it lets all people have a say in the democracy. And when the most people have a say then the best outcome happens and this is the best thing for society. Moving on to my first contention Felons wouldn't use their votes for election fraud. The argument that a felon would commit election fraud with his/her vote is an invalid argument for many reasons. First there aren't enough felons to significantly create a large scale fraud. Second they have no reason to. There is evidence to support this Harvard Law Review 1 says In their most straight forward incarnations, these two concerns have been expressed respectively, as a fear that ex-convicts might use their votes to alter the content or administration of the criminal law as a relief that the disqualification of former felons is necessary to guard against vote fraud and related election offenses. No evidence suggests that ex-felons would base their votes solely, or even partially, on candidate's positions on penal issues rather than other matters of policy and politics. Furthermore, even if ex-offenders were to base their votes on matters of criminal justice, it does not follow that their positions on these matters necessarily would be more permissive that those of the population as a whole., regardless of how they might vote on issues of crime and the administration of justice, ex-felons are unlikely to constitute more than a tiny percentage of the population, and thus are electorally insignificant. What this means is that supporters of disenfranchisement argue that, having shown a propensity to break the law felons are more likely to violate the particular prohibition against election fraud. Whether or not this characterization holds true, however a blanket exclusion of all ex-offenders and felons in order to protect society from those who would commit electoral offenses is clearly over inclusive. Other, less restrictive means of preventing vote fraud exist. This relates to my value because it states that since felons would not use their votes to alter the validity of the ballot box that they should have the same opportunity as everyone else. This brings me to my second contention Disenfranchisement works against rehabilitation. Disenfranchisement hurts felons because it takes away their right to have a say in their society. It also works against the prison systems attempts to rehabilitate the prisoners. This claim is validated by Harvard Law Review 2 which says Disenfranchisement of offenders simultaneously justifies and is justified by and idea that deviants are the source and embodiment of corruption, pollution, and moral turpitude: that they can and must be isolated, fenced out, and politically sterilized. As they are not we, their impurities are not ours. Self-congratulation of this sort may comfort, but does not heal. Disenfranchisement should be recognized and rejected as an atavistic, self-perpetuating reflex that serves no legitimate purpose. Disenfranchisement indisputably harms the stigmatized offender. Disenfranchisement also shows that people have little faith in the rehabilitation attempts of the prison systems. It shows the prisoners that society thinks that they cannot be trusted to make a decision about the way that they would want to live. There is evidence to support this Harvard Law Review 3 says The very premise of lifelong disenfranchisement, that a former offender must never again participate in the political life of the community, indicates that society has less faith in the rehabilitatative possibilities of the prison that its rhetoric might suggest. Regardless of whether the penal system can attain the goal of rehabilitation, pretending that we are doing something we are not does not advance the debate. Such pretence merely advances an illusion of enlightenment, which serves only to mask the brutal nature of the prison from those who incarcerate others. What this means is that by disenfranchising felons we are degrading them in a society and working against rehabilitation. It also shows that people have little faith in the governmental programs in the prisons as well. This relates to my value because if you begin to work against people then you begin to separate them from the equality of the society which leads me to my third contention Disenfranchisement helps support discrimination. When a felon has their right to vote revoked it leads to other discriminations against that felon. It is also shown that disenfranchisement is driven by racism so it is in fact discriminatory there is evidence to support this Harvard law review 4 says the notion that criminality springs solely from hopelessly different moral defectives blinds us to the social and political components of crime. As long as crime is conceived of as "their" problem rather than ours, amelioration of its causes will remain an impossible task. Legislators in states that disenfranchise offenders should consider carefully the meanings and effects of this exclusionary regulation. As a discriminatory practice based on irrational fears and destructive stereotypes, disenfranchisement has no place in an American community. Disenfranchisement is a symbol, and it is the wrong sort of symbol to legitimate in law. It is a symbol of rejection, not reconciliation; a symbol of difference, rather than commonality; a symbol of domination instead of equality. What this evidence proves is that Disenfranchisement separates felons from the rest of society by sending a symbol of domination over the felons. This relates to my value because when you have dominion in a society it can never fully reach its potential because someone's voice is always going to be left out but when you have equality then no one gets discriminated against and everyone becomes successful it is for all of these reasons that I urge an affirmative ballot thank you.

In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

Rebuttals: Con states that “First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison.” I noted this in round one. There are some cases where voting rights are restored after the sentence is served, but not always. This is also off-point as I am arguing that felons should not have to regain their right, I am asserting they should retain/ never have lost the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. Con states "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... “ We don’t let children vote, it’s true. I disagree that it is due to us not trusting their judgement. Rather it is their inability to reason. This is due to the Pre-frontal cortex of the brain not being fully developed. (1)(2) Non-citizens don’t vote it is true, not because we don’t trust them, but rather because voting is part of the social contract of which non-citizens are not a part of. Con than asks “do criminals belong in that category?” I am assuming the category being children, noncitizens, or mentally incompetent. Clearly felons should not. Felons are not children, are citizens, and if mentally incompetent would have made the insanity plea. Thus Felons do not fit in this category. We see contention one is negated. Contention 2; Congressional Authority over Voting Much of this contention merely states the status quo, not support for it. I have shown in my argument why the status ought to be changed. Merely stating the status quo does not negate or support Con’s Argument. Con argues that “the fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government.” This is in contrast to America’s fundamental principles of Government. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Con has added a multitude of criteria to vote that is un-necessary. The only legitimate government gets its consent from the governed. If felons can’t vote, they can’t give consent. Thus, making the government that takes away the right to vote illegitimate. We ought not have an illegitimate government. Thus Felons should retain the right to vote. Overview: Con has argued against the resolution essentially as follows…. 1: Felons fit into a category with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens and thus should not have voting rights. 2: Felons under the status quo do not have the right to vote and thus should not have the right to vote. 3: To have voting rights you must meet the specific criteria she lists. Number one is entirely untrue and dismissed. Number two is just a statement of the status quo not support for it. Number 3 is arbitrary and thus not strong support to negate. (1) http://www.wisegeek.org... (2) http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

My opponent forfeited the round so I thought I didn't have to attack the round. My opponent didn't disagree that because he forfeited he agreed with all my points so the neg in this debate has clearly won please vote neg.

Alright lol i tried LD once last year so i'll go against you. Put your pro case up.

In a democratic society felons ought to retain teh right to vote.

Overview of my case: We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting Con has claimed voting to not be a right. This misses the mark, as while I do argue that voting is a right my main argument is that the governments function is to protect and ensure rights and that the government can only do so legitimately through the consent of the governed. Voting is how that consent is given. Thus the impact of taking the vote away from felons is 1: Government cannot receive legitimate power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights Con asks what I intended by my Power of the People segment stating “ Are you trying to say that if the government takes away a right, the people will rebel? ” This is not at all what that portion of my argument is stating. Rather, I am stating that our society accepts that the people give power to the government through consent. Without consent people cannot give the government consent. Overview of Con’s case: Con has argued against the resolution essentially as follows…. 1: Felons fit into a category with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens and thus should not have voting rights. 2: Felons under the status quo do not have the right to vote and thus should not have the right to vote. 3: To have voting rights you must meet the specific criteria she lists. Number one is entirely untrue and dismissed. Number two is just a statement of the status quo not support for it. Number 3 is arbitrary and thus not strong support to negate. Conclusion: It becomes clear that If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Thanks for reading, vote Pro!

Legislatures in 16 states have loosened voting restrictions on felons over the last decade, according to a new report, a trend hailed by some rights advocates as a step toward democratic principles and fairness, especially for black Americans. What voting restrictions, if any, should be placed on felons? Because of their high incarceration rate, blacks are most affected by the voting bans that vary widely among the states, with many barring current inmates and parolees from voting until they have fulfilled their sentences, and some barring felons for life. In recent years, Iowa, Nebraska and New Mexico have repealed their lifetime bans on voting by people who have been convicted of felonies, and several other states made it easier for freed prisoners or those on probation to vote, according to the report, issued yesterday by the Sentencing Project, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. The recent changes have restored voting rights to more than 600,000 individuals, the report said. But because the country's prison population has continued to rise, a record number of Americans, 5.3 million, are still denied the vote because of criminal records, it concluded. "It's good news that many people who'd been disqualified from voting are being re-engaged as citizens," said Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a leader of the movement to smooth the re-entry of prisoners to society. "I think people are realizing that the country had gone too far in marginalizing a large group of people who have been convicted of felonies," Mr. Travis said. "This has had profound consequences for our democracy and the participation of minorities." But some conservatives remain philosophically opposed to any wholesale loosening of voting restrictions. "If you're not willing to follow the law, then you shouldn't't claim the right to make the law for someone else," said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative advocacy group in Washington. Mr. Clegg, who was a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said that those convicted of felonies should be given the vote only case by case, when they have proved to be constructive members of society. Some restrictions on voting date to the early years of the country or to the post-Civil-War period, while others were tightened during the "get tough on crime" era of the 1980's. By federal law, voter rules are mainly set by the states. As a result, even in presidential elections, former prisoners can vote in some states but not others. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, have no restrictions, even permitting inmates to vote. At the other extreme, three states, Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, still have lifetime bans on voting by felons. Nine others bar selected groups of offenders for life. New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, like most states, do not allow current inmates or parolees to vote. In a ballot initiative in Rhode Island this November, voters will decide whether to restore voting rights to prisoners on parole or probation, who far outnumber inmates. Early polls show public support for the measure. Advocates of change emphasize broad arguments about democratic process, but the racial disparities give the issue a special resonance and raise questions about the representation of minorities in politics. In 2004, one in eight black men were unable to vote because of a felony conviction, the report said, a rate many times higher than that for other groups. Felony convictions have left one in four black men barred from voting in five states: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Virginia and Wyoming, said Ryan S. King, author of the report and a policy analyst at the Sentencing Project. But Mr. Clog argued that the voting restrictions were applied evenhandedly, and that just because they had a disproportionate impact on one group, that did not make them racially discriminatory. Though data on felon voting patterns are murky, a large majority of former prisoners are believed to lean Democratic. Even with a low turnout rate, their participation could make a difference in close races, experts say. Florida's rules, for example, might have been a factor in the 2000 presidential election. Most black voters in Florida say that the state should overturn the law that prevents a half-million people of all races from casting a ballot because they are convicted felons, a St. Petersburg Times poll shows. The survey says that nine of 10 black voters in Florida think that felons who pay their debt to society should automatically have their voting right restored. Florida is one of nine states that deny the right to vote to all convicted felons who have served their time. Felons can have their rights restored by appealing to the governor and Cabinet, often a lengthy process. Support for a change to the state law is uniformly high among men and women, Republicans and Democrats, and all age groups, according to a survey of 600 African-Americans conducted by Washington-based Schroth and Associates for the St. Petersburg Times. Florida's law has been part of the state's political landscape since the 1800s and has spurred a federal class-action lawsuit against the governor and spawned several legislative efforts to overturn it. The law disproportionately impacts blacks, who tend to vote Democratic. Indeed, some research suggests that ex-felons of all races lean toward the Democratic Party. Some experts contend a change could have a big political effect in a state that was shown during last year's presidential race to be closely divided between Republicans and Democrats. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law estimates that 500,000 felons in Florida are affected by the law. Of those, 139,000 are black people, according to the center. Christopher Uggen, a University of Minnesota sociologist who has studied the political consequences of felon disenfranchisement laws, contends that Gore would have won Florida if felons would have been allowed to vote last year. He also speculates that Florida's retired U.S. Sen. Connie Mack probably would not have won his close 1988 election if felons had been allowed to vote. However, lawyers for Gov. Jeb Bush's office have argued that the number of people who can't vote because of the law is much lower than the 500,000 cited by opponents. State Rep. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, has filed two bills that would give felons their voting rights one year after they satisfy all sentences. Four similar bills are filed in the Senate. All are assigned to several committees -- a sign that they might have tough going in the GOP-controlled Legislature. But Smith said House Speaker Tom Feeney has floated a compromise that would allow ex-felons to apply to a local judge for clemency. Feeney was not available to comment. House Majority Leader Mike Fasano said he was unaware of any compromise offers, adding that he thought the state's present clemency process is adequate. The Republican caucus has not taken a stance on the bills though, Fasano said, and he expected vigorous committee discussion on them. Whether the bills make it to the floor of the Republican-dominated body depends on the committee chairs, he said. Gov. Bush's Select Election Task Force also has identified the issue as critical and referred it to the Legislature for review and possible action.

I too thank you for this debate. It has been a good one with a direction of a good finish. Good luck! Value Clash: My opponent made a claim that the values are the same thus it is a tie here. But this is not true at all. They ARE the same, but only CON achieves it. This is because throughout the process of a person being a citizen, and a person being a citizen with a felony, people are equally treated. All citizens can be felons; however, we only take the right of voting away from those who actually commit a felony. Therefore, the CON side achieves the value of Equality/Fairness. Criterion of Just Deserts: Here, you assume that the court's sentence means that they are off scott free. This is not true. There can be (an is) more than one punishment for being a convicted criminal/felon. Just like a convicted sex offender must register as such, a felon can't vote. Just like a restraining order can be issued against someone who commits a crime against someone, a felon can't cast a vote FOR society when he/she has already gone against it. The criterion serves its purpose as such: If you commit a felony against our society, you lose the right to have your voice (vote) heard on how the society is run. And thus, we are FAIR (equal) in our system. Since the resolution talks about a theoretical situation, I must admit that we are not being fair/equal to the people as of now (states Maine and Vermont vs. Mississippi). However, in each of these states, one another ARE treated equally to each other. Furthermore, I advocate that ALL felons should not get the vote back. Therefore, I urge that the government recognizes everyone as equal by having additional punishments of not being able to vote after committing a penalty. The value still stands on the CON side. Here, you make two interesting points worth addressing. 1) You assume that all of these elections are only federal elections. But the right to vote goes beyond just the national level it also has state and local elections. In one city, the mayor race was won by one vote. In another election, a school board race was tied and decided by a coin flip. What if instead of a coin flip, it was a felon who decided. Has the felon really earned that right? 2) Also, you assume that 2% of the vote and 2% of the population are the same. For example, you say that the closest presidential race was 2% so that means it's 2% of the vote. 2% of the vote very well could be substantially under the 5.3 million people that have committed a felony. --> Besides this, the biggest question you have to be asking yourself is "Have these felons earned the right to vote? The answer is no. Contention 1: To be honest, a crime against society = a person not deserving to be a part of that society. But since that isn't a political option, removing their right to help run society (through their vote) is the best way to say "If you commit a crime against society, you can't decide how society is going to be run." Therefore, they do get what they deserve. Perhaps they do deserve to be exported after committing a felony, but that is non-resolutional. So for now, let's just take away their right to vote. Contention 2: I think you misinterpret the point of my argument. You see, felons wouldn't ALWAYS be the swing vote, however, sometime they will be (whether local, state, or federal election). And when they are, you must ask yourself, do they really have to right to have a say in the same government and society that they go against, the answer is NO. Contention 3: You do not have to qualify in order to vote, but you can't be unqualified. The law states that the ‘right of voting can not be denied because of' (several things). This means that it can be denied for other reasons such as felonies. And as long as this law has been around, no abuse has been created. You can't vote if you're not 18 (excluding some rarities in state laws) and you can't vote if you're a felon (also excluding some rare state laws). These are ways to be able to lose your vote, but you don't have to qualify by passing tests or having money, it is guaranteed unless you're not registered, not 18, or not a felon. I see no abuse in the system and my opponent has not pointed out any abuse so this argument must be flowed to the CON side. HIS CASE: Contention 1: Again, felons wouldn't control all of the elections, but they will be the swing vote in several of them. Once again, they do not deserve this right. Contention 2: Woah woah woah, where is your evidence that says that felons that can vote have a 50% less chance of committing a crime. This claim is abusive and unrealistic. Other than that, my opponent claims that felons have the right to have their voice heard. Even though he doesn't say why they deserve to have their voice heard (I have proved the opposite (crime against society = no voice in society)). Contention 3: This argument is completely abusive. Amendments talk about why rights CAN'T be taken away, not who we guarantee them to. Felons are not one of the reasons to be able to take it away, so legally, CON wins. Even though they're minorities by definition, everyone is capable of being one and no one is born one. Becoming a felony is a CHOICE, and they are assumed to know the consequences of making that choice particularly in the states that outlaw a felony from voting. Analysis: Democracy STILL exists whether pro or con wins. This criterion is thus useless. However, when you vote CON, you gain the criterion of just deserts (by them getting what they deserve) AND both of the values (taking away the right of felonies voting is fair and equal among the states). NO amendment says that felonies MUST be given voting capabilities, so this argument is useless. There is no substantial reason to give felonies a right to vote but I give you plenty of reasons as to why to take away the right to vote (crime against society = no voice for society). Therefore, I urge a CON vote. I eagerly await your speech and good luck!

I'm starting on my side of this debate then moving to the affirmative's side. My value: My opponent for some reason says my value is inferior because "democracy is a means to obtaining human rights for everyone." If this is true, then my value of the Preservation of a Democratic Society is the best because clearly we want to keep our democracy. My criterion: He says my criterion is only doing what the people want... that is not what it is. It is upholding a democracy that best serves the interests of the people. I am not saying that whatever the people vote for should be done... obviously just because the society votes for slavery doesn't mean that we should implement slavery. But the purpose of government in general (including a democracy) is to protect the people, and i have shown/ will show more why I am serving the best interest of the people and my opponent is not. My 1st contention: First off, my opponent agreed that it is important to follow the social contract, so if i can show that disenfranchising felons is consistent with the social contract, I win this contention. My opponent's only response to this is that the punishment felons should get is jail. I agree, felons should be put in jail, and while in that jail they should have their vote taken away. In jail people don't have many important rights like liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. If we don't allow them these basic rights, why should we allow them to vote? Jail is also not the only punishment. After felons are released from jail they cannot carry guns for obvious reasons. My opponent also says "This is in no way proportional to a felony": I agree, taking someone's vote away is not nearly as bad as raping or killing someone. So the main point is, while the felons are in jail they should not get to vote because they have not completed the rehabilitation process or paid there debt to society. And once again, LET THEM VOTE ONCE THEY'RE OUT OF JAIL. Another point, my opponent dropped my Richard L. Lippke card about treason... so I win this round because i proved that a group of felons ought NOT have the right to vote. 2nd contention: My opponents only response to this is that i agreed to his definition of democracy, and best benefiting the people is not in it. I do agree to his definition of a democracy, a democracy is a government in which supreme power is vested in the people. But the people choose this type of government because they believe that they themselves can best make laws to benefit society. Also, in the U.S gov't does determine laws. We elect congressmen who are part of the government, and the CONGRESSMEN vote on laws, not the people directly. UNDERVIEW: my opponent didn't respond to this AT ALL. You can vote negative because we can't decide what ought to be done in a democracy. We cannot establish a normative rule in a democracy because what democracies ought to do is listen to the people. ================================================================ Now the Affirmative's case: Value: I was simply saying that voting is not a human right, it is clearly a political right because you can only vote if you have a government. So my opponent cannot say that we need to protect human rights and have it be relevant to this debate. Criterion: My opponent talks about felons being treated as secondary citizens because they can't vote. Again, let them vote OUT OF PRISON, but while they're in prison don't let them vote. In prison you already are a second class citizen pretty much, so taking away the right to vote will not hurt them anymore. My opponent also says "all citizens need to have an equal voice to protect their basic human rights." This is not true: just because people can't vote doesn't mean they don't have rights. For example children can't vote and they still have basic human rights. Also there are millions of people who choose not to vote, but just because they don't share their voice doesn't mean they don't have rights. Contention 1: "He never says the reason to disenfranchise felons this argument falls"... that is what my whole case is about. To my second response to this contention he says that the purpose of democracy is to protect the felon's rights. I agree that we need to protect felons rights in general, but when they commit such a serious crime we have a reason for restricting their rights. It's the same when we send someone to prison, we try not to restrict rights, but when someone commits a felony they clearly deserve to have some rights taken away. Also, taking away the felons' right to vote while they're in prison is not restricting any of their "human rights". My opponent makes no connection to not letting them vote in prison and not having human rights. Contention 2: My opponent's second contention is all about reintegrating felons into society. I say that taking their vote away ONLY IN PRISON will not hinder the reintegration process at all. My opponent's response to this does not make sense at all, "I defined the democratic society as the US and it is a problem in the US.". If my opponent is trying to say that because this is about the US, then we're talking about permanent disenfranchisement... then i propose we change the law limiting it to only disenfranchisement in prison. So pretty much you can take all of the affirmative impacts of helping reintegrate felons and put it on the negative's side. Contention 3: My opponent's 3rd contention talks about how felons would not be able to get welfare if they couldn't vote. I ran out of letters responding to this, but i meant to say LET THEM VOTE OUT OF PRISON. If we let them vote once they are released from prison then they will be able to get welfare. Conclusion: One of the key points of this debate is about letting felons vote out of prison. Take away their right in prison while they haven't rehabilitated yet, and give them it back once they leave prison. This point is key because it takes away his 2nd and 3rd contention. My opponents first contention is irrelevant because he talks about human rights, but voting clearly isn't a human right, it is a political right. Voting is only a right at all if you live in a democracy, so it cannot be considered a right that can be applied to all humans. I win on my side of the case because i defended all of my contentions, and my opponent never responded to my underview. Good luck.

Felon Disenfranchisement

In this round, I will state my arguments. First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison. For example, in California [1] California – Voting rights are restored after parole is completed and no longer incarcerated. Anyways, I will argue why Felons shouldn't have the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. [2] "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... So the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy." People who are felons have committed crimes and have taken other rights of people. Such as committing murder and taking away an innocent life. As my opponent has stated above "“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” When a felon takes can take a life, and the happiness of that person, and the happiness of that family. What gives that felon to have rights that every American bestows? "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. When someone commits a felon, they should have some rights taken away. Voting privileges should be taken away as well. [3] " Children, non-citizens and the mentally incompetent can't vote because of standards involving trustworthiness and responsibility. The same requirements should apply to felons" Contention 2; [2] Congressional Authority over Voting "Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one..." According to section 2 of the 14th Amendment, it's okay to take away a felons right to vote [4] "Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants states the authority to deny voting rights to anyone with a criminal conviction, and it is up to the states to determine their own restoration process if they choose to enact one." The 1st Amendment doesn't state "Every U.S citizen no matter what the background, has the right to vote." The 1st Amendment doesn't give that right to everybody, instead they give the states the choice. This is to show, Felons don't have the right to vote, it's not a right. By the 14th Amendment, Felons don't have the right to vote depending on the States choice. This Amendment clearly shows, it's not taking away a right. What should happen. [5] " Your July 16 editorial “Disenfranchised Felons” asserts that the only reason not to let felons vote is “to stigmatize them or to continue punishing them.” To the contrary, the fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government. So we don’t let children vote or the mentally incompetent or noncitizens — or those who have committed serious crimes against other people. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully and case by case, to ensure that the person has really turned over a new leaf. To put it another way: If you are not willing to follow the law, you cannot demand the right to elect those who make the law." Felons should be able to vote once they have turned over a new leaf and have shown over a span of time that they are capable to vote in a trustworthy matter. They need to have consequences, if they don't, what have they learned? Sources: [1] https://exoffenders.net... [2] http://felonvoting.procon.org... [3] http://www.newsmax.com... [4] https://www.aclu.org...

Though my opponent's profile says he lives in India, this debate is about felons and the right to vote in a democratic society. I am unfamiliar with Indian laws and societal expectations, as well as their standards for democracy, and under the assumption that most debat.com members are from the US I will address this issue from an American standpoint, unless my opponent can show me a reason to do otherwise. Also, standards for felonies are no longer applied in other common law countries as they have been replaced with "summary offences" and "indictable offences". In modern democracies, a felon is someone convicted of a felony. Felonies under the US Criminal Code are generally offenses that mandate a prison term of one year or more. Anything less is generally a misdemeanor or civil offense. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...) Because of the different gravity of different crimes which may be considered felonies, it is impossible to lay out a blanket ban on voting by convicted felons. Punishment for crimes in the US and other democracies is generally considered "correction" or rehabilitation, and the goal is to re-integrate rehabilitated criminals into society. The deprivation of life, liberty, and/or property is generally considered appropriate punishment for various felonies, and an assigned timeframe is allotted that is generally considered befitting the crime. The basic use of punishment and reward is the basis of all criminal theory. Ordinary crime is not a threat to the social order, and society needs criminal behavior and the legal responses to it to function properly. (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu...) Putting aside the fact that all 50 states allow felons to vote to some degree(http://www.ncsl.org...), I personally believe that to fully integrate a rehabilitated criminal into society he/she must first believe he/she will be allowed that opportunity. Indeed, living in a democratic society, the right to vote is an essential part of full integration into a democratic society. So unless felons are executed or jailed for life, the right to vote should be an incentive of completing rehabilitation when rehabilitation is an option. Now on to my opponent's contentions... My opponent's first contention is based on retribution to prevent chaos and despair. I point to the US where, again, all 50 states and DC allow felons to vote to some degree- some states only through a pardon, and the US has not devolved into chaos and despair. The US has stiff penalties for crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, and other felonies for which a criminal's voting rights may never be restored, and it has lesser penalties for, say, possession of more than one ounce of marijuana which is a felony in most states, and constitutes an average of 1 year in prison(www.norml.org). I assure you this crime is not grievous enough for society to devolve into chaos should it continue, and a person convicted of this crime is not necessarily too "untrustworthy" to be involved in electoral politics. My opponent's second contention, unfortunately, does not make much sense to me. I cannot imagine a democratic society NOT made up of people. In a democratic society of a few or millions of people, it would be up to those people to decide how felons should be treated. The former Assistant State Attorney General for the State Elections Division of Alabama says: "Under the longstanding system, a felon may apply to regain his right to vote after serving his sentence and paying all fines and restitution that may be due. This is a sound practice. It ensures that only those criminals who have met their obligations to their victims and who have enough civic pride to apply for renewed voting rights can play a role in selecting our community, state and national leaders." (http://www.al.com...). I don't contend that felons "should have the right to vote in every circumstance and situation", and it is both unreasonable and unrealistic to take an absolute position on an issue that will have varying degrees of circumstance, ie. a murderer vs. an old lady who assists inmates with legal issues without realizing she was breaking the law (http://www.ahrc.com...). My opponent's third contention only addresses murder. Even with murder there are several degrees. My opponent affirms that one right violation allows another rights violation to exist, but in the same paragraph he states that individuals in a society may not violate others' rights in a society. This is a contradiction, but I will nonetheless address the issue. The deprivation of rights for violation of rights is part of the criminal theory. It is necessary for the proper function of society, but the deprivation of rights should (in most cases) be employed as rehabilitation. Once all faults are corrected, fines paid, and punishment completed it should be recognized as such. The continued disenfranchisement of a convicted felon who has put effort into reintegration is unjust, and goes against the fundamentals of both the correctional system and democracy itself. My opponent's fourth contention is based on semantics, but he wrote the resolution, not me. In recognition of this clever trap, let's define "ought" in the context of the resolution and the debate: ought: —used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence All points can be argued for pro successfully, but please choose one so as not to turn this into a wasted debate about semantics. Should society be "obligated"? No. My personal opinion is that a society attempting to be just will at least to some degree allow felons to vote based on established law, which would imply obligation to do so. Because it is my personal opinion, I would use my vote to "advise" society to allow felons to vote to some degree. It is a "natural expectation" of many criminologists as cited in my previous sources. It is also the "logical consequence" of laws already in place in the US. Thank you.

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

Banning prisoners from voting is one part of a package of measures that exclude prisoners from normal society, the most obvious of which are restrictions on movement, communication and employment. By itself, a ban on voting may have minimal deterrent effect. As part of this package of measures, however, it sends out a strong signal of society’s revulsion at those who commit crime, thereby discouraging lawbreaking.

Denying felons a vote sends a strong message, deters crime

No problem, good debate (as it was). Hope to debate you again in the future.

I don't unerstand what my oppenent did. He reposted his original argument exactly (his 1st and 2nd round posts are identical) Please respond to my objection I put foward in round 1, and please respond to my side of the argument. Thank you

I cite Con for bad conduct in forfeiting the round. Ya gotta keep on top of it. Arguments are continued.

Felons have bad judgement, should not help elect reps

Prisoners right to vote

That really is rather abusive isn't it?? I Urge you to vote on the posted arguments not by a technicality as voting upon arguments is in the true spirit of debate and is what debate is for, who presented better arguments, who refuted better and so on... That is debate, technicalities do not make a good debate. So I think that you, as the judge for our rounds vote upon the presented arguments not upon a technicality. and Of course I urge you to vote Negative

in a democratic society a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

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 Felon - somebody who is guilty of a felony, and serving time for one year or more Retain - To maintain possession of 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 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. My first contention will be Felon's Set the Precedence That They Have Bad Judgment by Committing a Crime. My second contention will be John Locke's Philosophy And Theory of Justice. 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. So with this information in consideration please cast your vote in the con's side.] Now to attack. In your first contention you stated that there is not enough felons to cause election fraud. This is true that they are spead out enough not to cause major damage, but what if there is a close race. There are 2 example of this: In California the deciding for mayore came down to one vote. In Alaska a schoolboard official got voted in on a coin flip. Would you really want someone that went against society to choose a leader of the free world. Your second cotention was about disenfranchisement working against rehabilitation. This is just plain retarded. Disenfranchisement has nothing to do woth rehab. 55%of all felons commit multiple crimes so rehab doesnt work anyway. Now time for you to attack my case Good Luck and lets make this fun.

1. Suppose a missionary and four cannibals are stranded on an island. Does justice demand that the issue of what's for lunch be settled democratically, with a vote granted to each of the five residents of the island? Pro argues that democracy is the preeminent value of justice, that no one can be excluded from the society, and that fencing off any demographic, in this case the cannibal demographic, is clearly wrong. If these arguments are true, then the missionary is not only in the soup, he should be pleased that justice has prevailed. I argue that such is not the case. 2. I accept the definitions offered by Pro. I note, however, that the definition of a "right" does not tell us what is and what is not a right. Moreover, there are inevitable conflicts among rights which must be resolved. The U.S. Constitution grants no right to vote for president. The electors for the President are determined by state legislators "by any means." Clearly, the Constitution does not make voting a preeminent right. The Constitution defines a republic, which subordinates the right to vote upon legislation to voting for legislators. There are clauses granting equal rights based based upon race and religion, and equal voting rights based upon gender, but there is nothing that prevents voting restrictions based upon other criteria. The right to vote is not granted to those under the age of eighteen. That limitation shows that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment. Convicted felons are another class of citizens whose judgment is reasonably called into question. Resident aliens are excluded from voting on the grounds that their interests are not necessarily coincident with the interests of citizens. The interests of convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole, who want to be protected from criminals. That is stronger grounds for excluding convicted felons than the grounds for excluding resident aliens. 3. Pro cites Thurgood Marshall as evidence in supporting the proposition. Justice Marshall is a distinguished jurist who is an expert on interpreting laws. However, being highly qualified to interpret laws does not qualify one as an expert on making laws. The good justice claims that once a prison sentence is served, that felons have "fully paid their debt to society." Whether or not they have fully paid there debt is a matter of law, and ultimately of the values of society as reflected in the lawmaking processes. For example, convicted sex offenders must register with the government and are restricted from certain interactions with children. The "three strikes and you are out" laws identify career criminals and remove them from society. The justification for both sex-offender registration and "three strikes" is that convicted felons are more likely to commit additional crimes than persons without a criminal record. It is arguable what the correct level of continuing debt to society ought to be, but the fact that convicted felons are more likely to commit crimes is unquestionable. The U.S. Bureau of Justice reports that "...over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years" http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.... Note that the two-thirds only reflects released felons who where caught within three years. It does not count those who committed crimes but were not arrested. Overall, only about 45 percent of violent crimes are solved, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics http://www.ncpa.org.... Factoring in the criminals not caught, we may reasonably suppose that the true recidivism rate is in the neighborhood of 85 or 90 percent. The "debt to society" at the heart of this issue is not with respect to serving a sentence for a particular crime, it is in having adopted a criminal lifestyle. The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle. For example, that might be established after ten years without an arrest for a felony. It is not established by release from prison. Only eight states currently prohibit convicted felons from voting for life. Two states permit felons to vote while in prison. Thirty-three states remove the franchise while convicted felons are on parole. Thus even if one accepts Thurgood Marshall's argument that voting rights should be restored after felons have "paid their debt," it is not at the heart of the issue. The issue is mainly about criminals who are in prison or on parole and have not paid their debt. 4. Pro claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, "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." I agree that in close elections the votes of those with an established criminal lifestyle voting for someone they feel to be in their interests could determine the outcome of an election. That is a powerful argument that justice demands that election not be determined by such people. 5. Pro claims "It must be agreed that fencing off a certain voter demographic is a fundamentally unjust principle." I do not agree. It depends upon the reason for fencing off the demographic. People under the age of 18 are fenced off on the just grounds that in general they lack the knowledge and experience to cast an informed vote. Note that this is done despite some sixteen and seventeen year olds being more informed than some citizens who are fifty or sixty years old. The fencing off is justified because the odds are so heavily against it. Similarly, not all convicted felons remains committed to the criminal lifestyle. But with about 85% recidivism, the odds are much against it. Therefore, it is reasonable and just to identify the demographic and exclude them. Convicted felons are, I agree, an identifiable demographic. That makes them an identifiable target for politicians, who can go to prisons to seek votes by making various promises to tilt the justice system in favor of criminals. (Note that the proposal is to for convicted felons to retain the right to vote, with no criteria that they even have been released from prison.) Politicians are clever enough not to make the appeal directly, as that would alienate other voters. They would use surrogates who espouse "improving" the justice system by weakening it. Even if no targeted appeal were made, criminals would figure out for themselves which candidate was most likely to facilitate their lifestyle. Crime victims are also an identifiable demographic. However, victims are less likely to vote based upon the single issue of weakening the justice system. Victims are citizens who worry about the health of the economy because a good economy facilitates their making a living. A criminal lifestyle, however, is only facilitated by weakening the justice system. Therefore, the fact that criminals constitute a single-issue demographic is just grounds for excluding them from voting. 6. Justice is not served by having cannibals voting democratically on the fate of missionaries. The interests of justice are best served by subordinating democracy to human rights. We should not want people whose prime interest is in pursuing a criminal lifestyle determining the outcome of close elections.

The electoral system is based on a society's collective sense of respect for the law, citizenship, and democratic processes. These are precisely the values that felons have flaunted. In this way, offering them a right to vote demeans the entire spirit of the electoral system.

Prisoner voting would demean the entire electoral system.

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.