Pros And Cons Of Felon Disenfranchisement

Felon disenfranchisement has been in practice for centuries, dating back to colonial times (Carter 45). It has been a very controversial topic that is still debated today due to morals and legal understandings. President Jimmy Carter defined disenfranchisement as denying a person the right to vote. Therefore, felon disenfranchisement refers to depriving felons their right to vote, at least temporarily (Carter 45). The United States Constitution and its interpretation has been a key aspect that is considered in determining one’s opinion on felons’ voting rights. Since our nation’s Constitution outlines rights that citizens are entitled to, some argue that voting restrictions imposed on convicted felons deprive them of these Constitutional rights and consider this unequal treatment. Others argue that the status of being a convicted felon legally justifies unequal treatment and the right to vote should only be given to law-abiding citizens. The reinstatement of voting rights should not be automatically granted, rather the felon’s individual rights should be restored only after approval of his application to his state’s …show more content…
However, the solution lays somewhere in between these two extremes. Even after felons have served their time in prison, we cannot assume they are willing to be law abiding citizens. Have learned from their mistakes and acquired good judgement and acceptable morals to allow them to automatically begin voting again. This is not fair to the rest of the public who rely on trustworthy, law-abiding citizens that have proven their worthiness to vote. However, denying all felons the right to vote for the remainder of their life is not reasonable either. The best solution is to have states implement a way for each felon who wishes to vote again apply to have their voting rights restored. In order to determine whether or not they have proven their worthiness to vote