The topic of prisoner rights has been highly controversial, dating back to the early 1900’s. Between Canada and the United States there are many different aspects of prisoners rights, for example education, fair treatment, and voting rights. Specifically, whether or not prisoners should be allowed to vote has brought many different opinions to light, expressing their discomfort or support for such a highly controversial topic. Those who support disfranchisement usually claim they don’t “trust” convicts or they don’t deserve that privilege. But if many believe that mistrust is a reason for disenfranchising a current or ex felon, how is it we trust them enough to release them back into society where they can do things like reproduce, marry, consume
…show more content…
Canada ruled that the old law of disallowing voting rights whilst in prison was “ancient and obsolete” (Rottinghaus & Baldwin, 2007). By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a provision of the Federal Canadian Election Act that banned federal inmates of voting rights if serving a sentence of more than two years (Rottinghaus & Baldwin, 2007). Although, this decision wasn’t easy; multiple appeals lead the case to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was overturned. The case dated back to 1992 where Sauvé started his journey protesting Section 51 of the Charter followed by Bill C-114 that allowed convicts to vote as long as their sentence was 2 years or less (Wydrzynski, 2004). As Sauvé continued into 1995 he reached his goal of overturning the ban (Manfredi & Rush, Ch. 2). The final trial judge believed that allowing prisoner voting could enhance civic responsibility and heighten respect for the rule of law (Manfredi & Rush, Ch. 2). He believed that in future cases, it would be a good idea to leave the idea of disenfranchising a convict to the discretion of the judge (Manfredi & Rush, Ch. 2). If voting rights were on a case-by-case basis it allows judges to make that decision based on the crime committed, the individual, and other factors that they see fit (Manfredi & Rush, Ch. 2). From that point on in 2004 and 2006 inmates in Canada had the chance to vote for the first time in what could’ve been a very long time (Wydrzynski, 2004). Even though this particular case goes against my thesis of only allowing a felon to vote once they are released from prison, I can understand and accept that judgement. Our judges have more than enough education and experience to make these important decisions for us, and this way only the severe convictions can be accompanied by disenfranchising the convict. By not grouping all prisoner’s together and not taking away everyone’s voting rights we can hope that prisoner’s allocate their votes in an
Canada ruled that the old law of disallowing voting rights whilst in prison was “ancient and obsolete” (Rottinghaus & Baldwin, 2007). By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a provision of the Federal Canadian Election Act that banned federal inmates of voting rights if serving a sentence of more than two years (Rottinghaus & Baldwin, 2007). Although, this decision wasn’t easy; multiple appeals lead the case to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was overturned. The case dated back to 1992 where Sauvé started his journey protesting Section 51 of the Charter followed by Bill C-114 that allowed convicts to vote as long as their sentence was 2 years or less (Wydrzynski, 2004). As Sauvé continued into 1995 he reached his goal of overturning the ban (Manfredi & Rush, Ch. 2). The final trial judge believed that allowing prisoner voting could enhance civic responsibility and heighten respect for the rule of law (Manfredi & Rush, Ch. 2). He believed that in future cases, it would be a good idea to leave the idea of disenfranchising a convict to the discretion of the judge (Manfredi & Rush, Ch. 2). If voting rights were on a case-by-case basis it allows judges to make that decision based on the crime committed, the individual, and other factors that they see fit (Manfredi & Rush, Ch. 2). From that point on in 2004 and 2006 inmates in Canada had the chance to vote for the first time in what could’ve been a very long time (Wydrzynski, 2004). Even though this particular case goes against my thesis of only allowing a felon to vote once they are released from prison, I can understand and accept that judgement. Our judges have more than enough education and experience to make these important decisions for us, and this way only the severe convictions can be accompanied by disenfranchising the convict. By not grouping all prisoner’s together and not taking away everyone’s voting rights we can hope that prisoner’s allocate their votes in an