Felon Disenfranchisement (updated)

Felon Disenfranchisement

This 2016 election year was one for the books. Historic moments occurred with the two major political party nominees being far from what the US has had as presidential candidates in the past. Although it would seem this would draw monumental crowds to the polls, it did not. However, while many chose not to exercise their right to vote, there was another group who did not have the luxury of that choice. Over 6 million people were unable to vote in this past election due to felon disenfranchisement. Felon (or criminal) disenfranchisement is the practice of disqualifying those convicted of felonies from participating in elections and remains a prevalent state practice (Zetlin-Jones, 2006). Different states have different measures regarding this practice, but its use has greatly hindered voting rights for citizens, particularly African Americans.

The importance of universal suffrage has been made apparent through multiple

amendments to the US Constitution. Some instant questions that come to mind with the use of felon disenfranchisement might be how did this practice evolve or why is it legal? To have a better understanding of this issue, this paper will discuss the background of this practice, reasons for its use today, and its effect on voters. Upon conclusion, it will be clear that felon

disenfranchisement has been most effective in decreasing the voting population in the African

American community.

The idea of civil exile has been around for centuries. The ancient Greek called this atima, or dishonor – punishing those who committed serious crimes by prohibiting them from

participating meaningfully in public life (Hamilton-Smith & Vogel, 2012). While more extensive than today’s practice, those subjected to atima were prohibited in petitioning their government, voting, holding office, fighting in the army, or receiving any sort of welfare-type public assistance, among other things (Hamilton-Smith & Vogel, 2012). Medieval Germany had a practice similar to Greece and England adopted a comparable method of dealing with those who committed crimes, differing by having multiple levels of punishment. What was called attainder meant those convicted of certain crimes could face forfeiture of property, corruption of blood (which meant he would be prohibited to pass property to heirs through inheritance), or the loss of civil rights (Hamilton-Smith & Vogel, 2012). As a new country, America took after Europe’s model, eventually focusing more on the loss of civil rights, otherwise known as civil death. In the early days of the US, this meant that criminals could permanently lose the right to vote, the right to own property, or the ability to enter into any legal contracts (Sullivan, 2016).

The use of civil death varied among each state. Some states took rights away from felons on a temporary basis and others made the action permanent. However, after the Civil War, disenfranchisement became much more common as a way to keep African Americans from voting. With the passing of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, felon disenfranchisement became the most effective method of suppressing the African American vote (“Why Felons Can't Vote”, 2012). This was possible, because obscure language in the Fourteenth Amendment allows for disenfranchisement of those guilty of “rebellion, or other crime”; while this was intended for serious crimes, it has been left up to the state’s discretion (“Why Felons Can't Vote”, 2012). After 1890, many states began ratifying disenfranchisement statutes and constitutional provisions that listed crimes in which African Americans were most often prosecuted for (such as burglary, theft, perjury, and arson) as disqualifying offenses (Hamilton-Smith & Vogel, 2012). Some have argued that the Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed the voting rights of black men, implicitly repealed the disenfranchisement provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, but in  1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment contained an “affirmative sanction” on criminal disenfranchisement, thus allowing the practice to continue (Watson, 2016).

Today, the US remains one of the world’s strictest countries when it comes to denying

citizens the right to vote if they have been convicted of a crime. Only two states, Maine and

Vermont, do not restrict voting rights, allowing people to vote from prison. Thirty states deny

voting rights to those on felony probation, thirty-four deny those on parole, and in the most

extreme cases, twelve states deny voting rights to all or some of the individuals who have

successfully fulfilled their prison, parole, or probation sentences (Uggen, Larson, & Shannon,

2016). In cases like Florida, felon disenfranchisement laws have systematically excluded

communities from voting, thus having an effect on elections. More than 10 percent of the voting aged population and 23 percent of African Americans cannot vote in Florida, which is nearly the majority of Black males living in the state (Phillips & Deckard, 2016; Sullivan, 2016).

One of the major concerns of strict voter disenfranchisement laws is the issue of

inequality that appears in the legal and justice system. The chances of being convicted of a crime or felony are not evenly distributed across the US due torace, gender, and class being a large predictor of the chances of arrest, the type of conviction, and the amount of jail time (Phillips & Deckard, 2016). This leaves some of the most vulnerable individuals or communities, particularly of lower-class and those of color, more likely to lose their right to vote, as well as their representation in our democratic system. In a 2002 study, it was determined that the result of seven Senate races across the US in 2000, would have different outcomes if those with felony convictions had been allowed to vote; so to would the Presidential Election between George Bush and Al Gore had Floridian former felons been eligible (Khalek, 2012).

Despite inequality in the legal and justice systems, other arguments against

disenfranchisement are that strict laws further isolate and segregate ex-felons from re-entering society by denying them the ability to participate in the political process, they are

counterproductive to rehabilitation ideals, and that many who are not able to vote are still

deemed capable of working and paying taxes, yet they are not entitled to the same representation as non-felon citizens (Hamilton-Smith & Vogel, 2012; Sullivan 2016). More than 70 percent of those not able to vote are no longer in prison and 51 percent, or just over three million people, have completed all their sentencing requirements, to include probation or parole (Uggen, Larson, & Shannon, 2016)It is difficult to see why felon disenfranchisement practices are still in place, if not to systematically hinder voter turn-out, particularly for a group that is likely to vote for the Democratic Party.

Those in favor of the ancient practices of civil death cite arguments that seem

contradictory to the rehabilitation process, which jails are expected to perpetuate. In an article by Jerry Shaw (2016), he lists six reasons why felons should not be able to vote: 1) Ex-felons have demonstrated dishonesty and irresponsibility, 2) They should have consequences for violating the rights of others, 3) Standards involving trustworthiness exempt others from voting (children, mentally unstable), 4) The 14th Amendment allows for it, 5) Ex-felons should have to prove they are able to abide by laws, and 6) Crimes committed include actions against the entire society. Many of these arguments are retaliatory in nature and overlook much of the research describing the benefits of allowing ex-felons to participate in civil society. The article does discuss some of the known benefits, stating “…Although restoration of voting rights helps offenders return to the society, it should be done carefully,” (Shaw, 2016). However, it is difficult to prove that those who have not been convicted of a crime have any moral superiority or are more honest and trustworthy because those who are White or wealthy are less likely to be convicted of the same crimes as those who are not.

To conclude, the practice of civil death or felon disenfranchisement is outdated. It was

established in ancient Greece and was largely used in the US to keep former African American slaves from being able to vote. Despite hundreds of years and constitutional changes, this practice has still been effective in keeping African Americans from voting; 1 in 13 African Americans have permanently lost their voting rights (The Sentencing Project, 2016). In four southern states -Florida (21 percent), Kentucky (26 percent), Tennessee (21 percent), and Virginia (22 percent) – more than one in five African Americans is disenfranchised (Uggen, Larson, & Shannon, 2016). This amount is unacceptable and has damaging effects to many lower-class, or Black communities, who have less of a voice in the democratic process. “If someone is deemed capable of working, paying taxes and generally participating in civil society, he or she deserves the right to decide how he or she should be governed,” (Sullivan, 2016). Without discernable evidence that ending felon disenfranchisement would be harmful to states, its time the practice is adapted or abolished.

References

Hamilton-Smith, G. P., & Vogel, M. (2012). The violence of voicelessness: the impact of

felony disenfranchisement on recidivism. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 22407-431.

Khalek, R. (2012). Who can’t vote this November?. Nation, 295(13), 5

Phillips, A., & Deckard, N. (2016). Felon Disenfranchisement Laws and the Feedback Loop of

Political Exclusion: the Case of Florida. Journal Of African American Studies, 20(1), 1-

18. doi:10.1007/s12111-015-9314-0

The Sentencing Project. (2016). Retrieved from

http://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/felony-disenfranchisement/

Shaw, J. (2015, April 15). Voting Rights: 6 Reasons Ex-Felons Shouldn't Vote. Retrieved

From

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/felons-voting-rights/2015/04/15/id/638743/

Sullivan, R. D. (2016). Ending Civil Death. America, 215(11), 18.

Uggen, C., Larson, R., & Shannon, S. (2016). 6 Million Lost Voters: State-Level Estimates of Felony Disenfranchisement. Retrieved from

http://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/felony-disenfranchisement/

Watson, J. E. (2016). Scholars: Participation Key after Restoration of Ex-felons' Voting

Rights.Diverse: Issues In Higher Education, 33(11), 9.

Why Felons Can't Vote. (2012). Wilson Quarterly, 36(3), 61-62.

Zetlin-Jones, D. (2006). Right to remain silent?: What the voting rights act can and should

say about felony disenfranchisement. Boston College Law Review, 47(2), 411-454.

The Poor Among Us

I read a book before that gave extensive examples of how policy around poverty has changed over time; it was called The Poor Among Us: A History of Family Poverty and Homelessness in New York City (DaCosta & Sribnick, 2013). The book was based in New York City from the 1620s to present (2013). New York City was chosen because of its long history of family homelessness and because it has been a place where a lot of experimental studies were done in an effort to decrease poverty and homelessness across the US. Essentially, the book describes how economic forces, intellectual forces, and institutional forces were responsible for changes in policy in regards of these issues. 

Many of the economic issues occurred with the influx of immigration during the 1620s and early 1700s and the lack of space and jobs for the thousands of new families pouring in. The book also describes the changes in the US economy and the effects it had on those in New York City, including the Great Depression and the wars the US went through, including the end of the Civil War, with the increase of many black former slaves moving to the city. 

The intellectual forces were those in leadership positions who tried to understand the causes of poverty in general. For much of the 18th century, people believed poverty stemmed from some flaw in the poor themselves. Throughout this time, many believe religion or more so, lack of religion, resulted in people being punished by living poor lives. Some believe that the problems were habitual and people were just lazy or indolent. Many people agreed that there were some who deserved help and some who didn't. While it was often seen as OK to help children or women, most people did not think able-working men should be entitled to any social service. It wasn't until after the Great Depression, when everyone suffered through poverty, that the Progressive Era began. Intellectual forces began to look at economic downturns and changes that more likely affected those who were vulnerable. They also studied the environments of people in who lived and worked in poverty and saw that these people often perpetuated poverty while increases their chances of illness and injuries. This led to greater projects around cleaner and safer housing units for families  and had a focus on giving children a better childhood, or letting them be children instead of having to work in order to help their family.

The institutional forces were also described to help make clear who took on the responsibility, or was in charge of dealing with poverty and homelessness from the 1620s to now. At first, many religious organizations took to helping those in need. This was seen as the duty of the church. So, it is not hard to see why some of the early intellectual forces would see that a lack of religion, sins, or bad habits could result in some type of punishment from a higher power. Later, more private organizations took on these roles because of the high amount of poor and the need to deal with the situation. It wasn't until the Progressive Era that many state and public institutions took on the issue of poverty and homelessness.

When reading this book, it was disturbing to see such slow progress in the amount of changes taking place since the 1620s. Many of the beliefs about the poor from the 18th century are still things I hear about the poor today, like they are just lazy, they don't want to work, or they want someone else to take care of them. I think it shows the power that intellectual forces and institutions play in educating those around us about the actual facts of poverty. What I don't understand is how poverty has remained the way it has and is even increasing today. I feel this could easily be eradicated, however, people don't make it a priority. The money we spent on going to war and the last 20 years could have easily ended poverty in this country. If people were really sick of dealing with this issue, they need to take on the real structures that cause poverty and stop trying to put a bandaid on small areas of the problem.

References

DaCosta, N. R., & Sribnick, E. G. (2013). The poor among us: A history of family poverty and homelessness in New York City.

Effective Disenfranchisement in 2016 America

This post is based on a discussion question from my American Politics class. I think it brings up important aspects of disenfranchisement and systemic discrimination. Please feel free to comment or share your opinion. Also, I encourage everyone to watch the TED talk that the post is referring to.

1. In most cases, convicted felons’ rights are restored to them after completion of their sentences, except for the right to vote.  In view of the large number of people incarcerated in the United States, do you think it’s time we changed this policy?  Explain.

I feel that once felons have made restitution for their criminal actions, their right to vote should be restored, like all of their other rights. This becomes especially true when we look at the disproportion amount of poor people and minorities that end up in prison and their treatment in the justice system. Taking away one of their only voices in the political system only increases the prejudice and discrimination of this group. I was just listening to a TED Talk today that stated:

“The United States now has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. We have seven million people on probation and parole. And mass incarceration, in my judgment, has fundamentally changed our world. In poor communities, in communities of color there is this despair, there is this hopelessness that is being shaped by these outcomes. One out of three black men between the ages of 18 and 30 is in jail, in prison, on probation or parole. In urban communities across this country -- Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington -- 50 to 60 percent of all young men of color are in jail or prison or on probation or parole…

…Our system isn't just being shaped in these ways that seem to be distorting around race, they're also distorted by poverty. We have a system of justice in this country that treats you much better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent…

… It's interesting to me. We're looking at some very interesting developments in our work. My state of Alabama, like a number of states, actually permanently disenfranchises you if you have a criminal conviction. Right now in Alabama 34 percent of the black male population has permanently lost the right to vote. We're actually projecting in another 10 years the level of disenfranchisement will be as high as it's been since prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act. And there is this stunning silence.” –Bryan Stevenson

Image source: http://witnessla.com/supreme-court/2012/taylorwalker/new-felon-disenfranchisement-report-sd-drops-reentry-program-that-cuts-recidivism-and-states-to-execute-mentally-disabled/

In Alabama 34% of black men can’t vote?! Who will represent this group in the polls? This is part of the systemic racism that has gone unnoticed or not talked about by a majority of this country that drives people who are trying to make changes go crazy. How is this justice?

Of course, the argument sometimes shift to "well, those people broke the law" or "they are criminals", but then you'd have to look at the whole system of racial profiling, policing practices, and the justice system as a whole. And if you wanted to go even further, what systems in our society are still in place to keep people down and to perpetuate negative attitudes against certain groups of people. 

TED Talk: We Need to Talk about an Injustice, featuring Bryan Stevenson

https://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice/transcript?language=en

-Disenfranchisement is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.

It'll Cost You: High Priced Phone Calls for Prisoners

They say don’t kick them when their down. The prison system has certainly taken the opposite stance to that idiom in their treatment of inmates. Currently, there is an order through the Federal Communication Commission being passed to actually help deter some cost to prisoners and their families in a measure that would put a cap on prison phone call rates, but not without a fight.

While it is not often expected to consider the rights of prisoners, monopolizing phone usage goes beyond punishing those in prison, it punishes those who know someone in prison as well. Inmates spend up to $1.25 per minute to reach out to friends and loved ones. Costs can grow even higher if the prison offers some sort of prepaid phone service which tends to be riddled with transactions and/or “convenience” fees. Services are typically granted through payment companies like Western Union (who also charge a fee for their hard work). Collectively, this scheme has grown into a $1.2 billion industry.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to make money when you’re stuck…in jail. Even if prisoners are able to get work in prison, the most they can expect to make is whopping $2 an hour. Can you imagine working 1 hour just to have a 1-2 minute phone conversation? For many, telephone calls are their only option due to the high rate of illiteracy in the inmate population.

Since inmates can barely earn money, yet still are actual human beings who would like to be in touch with their family and friends, most of the costs for phone calls are put on those same families and friends. Now, who’s being punished? This price gouging doesn’t stop at phone calls. Prisoners regularly have to cover other expenses at the commissary, co-pays for substandard medical care, video visitations and even for email. With over 22 million people in detention, roll out the business opportunities!

Not only are free, non-detained people in the community helping to pay these crazy, inflated charges for phone companies, there’s a kicker: almost 25% of phone charges go back to the prison as a fee to the phone company. That doesn’t include all the “kickbacks” prisons receive to begin with, since phone companies have to win a bid to become the sole source of communication for prisoners. So, instead of looking for the best costs for inmates, prisons tend to seek companies that can provide them with the most kickbacks. It's genius! Arrest lots of people who are likely poor and uneducated to begin with, have them pay tons of money to try to escape their hellish lives for even 10 minutes through a phone call, get kickbacks and extra promises through phone companies, and receive very little pressure from the community because who cares about people who broke the law?

Despite the soaring costs for inmates who have already lost basically everything once they entered the detention facility, studies show that prisoners who have frequent communication with those back home are less likely to go back to jail in the future. You heard that right; more contact on the outside can help discourage recidivism. That means less people returning to jail, less families being torn apart, and fewer burdens on tax-payers. So why is this an issue? Give out free calls! Oops, my extremism is showing.

Some penitentiaries claim the high price for phone calls is due to the extra security needed to monitor the phone lines; therefore, the profiteering is justified. However, these claims can quickly be shot down thanks to New York. New York banned kickbacks and requires prisons accept bids from the phone companies that offer the lowest possible bid FOR THE USER. Inmates in New York are only charged $.05 a minute for local and long distance calls and magically, monitoring and security measures are all intact.

While prison phone call prices seem like a tiny issue on the scales of social justice, it actually affects a huge chunk of our population in one way or another. Research suggests telephone privileges help to maintain community and family ties, increases inmates’ personal development, and decreases the likelihood of inmates’ negative behavior while in jail. So who does gouging communication costs benefit? Prisons, phone companies? It would seem that if the actual goal was decreasing recidivism and increasing rehabilitation, inmates would be able to make regular calls to home without having to take out a personal loan. For all the problems with the justice system, this one seems like an easy one to fix.

Cheats

There are many times people ask “why do people cheat?” Many scandals in politics or detailed antics with sports stars or actors leave many of us to wonder why people in affluent positions, with gorgeous spouses and in the public eye still go out of their way to carry on a one-night stand, or a more long term relationship with anyone else. If the person they have an affair with is less attractive than the spouse they have, that increases our astonishment. There have been different types of research done to try to get a better understanding of why people cheat. Women are said to more likely be in need of emotional attention- men, physical. Biology has been a reason, “men want to spread their seed”. There have been different approaches to try to find the answer, such as evolutionary approaches or new directions our society may be taking, but still it’s difficult to determine the real answer.

Something I found interesting was in the past more men have been prone to cheating than women, but now, it’s about the same, close to 25% admitting to it. Attributes to this have been the greater likelihood of women to admit they have cheated now, than in the past, where criticism would have been much harsher. Other ideas include the gaining of different freedoms. Women have gained more power and independence. Now, many women work outside the home, therefore are in contact with more men. As we gain equal status, and similar numbers of us are cheating, what does that actually say? Women want to cheat just as much as men, but weren’t able to before? What causes us to want to stray from relationships? Does it have to do with our partners or ourselves?

However, another question to ask may be what keeps people together? With infidelity becoming more normal and divorce rates remaining steady about about 50%, what makes people either not cheat, or stay together after the fact? For many, many years people have come together in marriage. In some cases it was to earn families more power, or for financial gains. When did it become about love? Why after this much time has passed do we believe there is only one person for us? It seems silly. We grow and develop over time and it's crazy to imagine we will find someone that will grow at the same rate, pace, and direction of ourselves. Perhaps if we stopped trying to live up to the idea that one person can fulfill us, we wouldn't have to worry about people cheating at all.

How do we change gender?

It’s difficult to predict how the system of gender will change in the future. “Doing gender” isn’t the same now as it has been in the past. While the process seems slow, it continues to move forward. It seems as if the only way to drastically change the gender system is to get rid of it, although that would be impossible. I suppose if there was a way to send new born babies to some island with some mechanism for helping them survive without associating any types of gender, then we would adequately see what the situation would become.

I find it interesting that in many science fiction movies, people are all wearing the same things and everyone looks androgynous. Perhaps there will be a time when humans get so advanced, that historic social structures will seem silly?

In the meantime, it seems that our best hope is to try to change the idea of gender and its roles. We have come so far to disassociate gender with sex and I think that is a great step forward. However, people have theorized about the difference for decades now, and word doesn’t seem to bet getting out there. The first time I heard about gender being a social construction was in my junior level classes in college. It seems that the best way to change a society is to start with the youth. Teach them the differences between sex and gender before they are too obstructed by the rules of society. I think many young people are open to the idea of homosexual relationships becoming more normal. More open-mindedness and acceptance should lead to more ideas and less distractions from the archaic social constructions that have been holding people back for centuries. 

Why Are We Doing Gender?

Like many other aspects of our lives, gender is taught almost as soon as we are born. Babies are usually covered in pink or blue, depending on their sex, and small children typically stick to their assigned favorite colors for many years to follow. We get gender specific clothes, toys, chores. It seems simple to think the way our parents or significant others taught us to behave is how we are likely to behave as we mature. While our experiences and changes in society may let us expand on our ideas as we go through adolescence and adulthood, there are basic rules that were established before we even knew why.

Quite frankly, I still don’t understand why these rules are in place. Would society be to chaotic if certain male/female expectations were no longer in place? The text states that these gender rules are very good in maintaining social control, because people police themselves in the ways they behave as a result of what has been deemed “good” and “bad”.

Without sounding too conspiracy theory-ish, maintaining control over people seems to be the most useful reason for gender. If the rules were so important, why are they changing so much? People demand change, and there is change. In high-risk situations, I doubt lines could be crossed and erased so easily. Why is gender different based on race-ethnicity, religion, or class?Who keeps power with gender roles in place?  All the nuances seem to point out that gender is obviously a social construction, but who's? And why does society keep perpetuating it?