Is felon disenfranchisement a reasonable step in the process of rehabilitating felons and re-integrating them back into society after prison?
PRO (yes)
CON (no)
Bill McCollum, JD, the Florida Attorney General, stated in an Apr. 1, 2007 article in the Orlando Sentinel titled "McCollum: Be Responsible About Felons' Rights":
"The proposal to automatically restore civil rights when leaving prison would restore rights without providing a reasonable period of time to determine if felons are truly rehabilitated or still leading a life of crime."
Christy Abraham, JD, Legal Counsel to Nebraska State Senator Ray Aguilar (D-35th), stated in the Mar. 12, 2004 meeting of the 2004 Vote Nebraska Initiative:
"The distinction between violent versus non-violent felons has been used by other states to determine the right to vote and the length of time required to be ready to vote.
For example, more violent felons may need a longer period of time to rehabilitate and integrate themselves back into society."
Jacob Calvin, a former Expert on Libertarians for AllExperts.com, stated on June 26, 2004 in response to the question "Why don't felons have the right to vote?":
"Felons don't have the right to vote for a few reasons. Even though lawmakers realize that many ex-convicts have been rehabilitated and contribute to society, usually most felons do not."
John C. A. Bambenek, opinion columnist and blogger, stated in his May 13, 2005 blog article "Stop the ACLU: Count Every Felon's Vote (for Democrats)":
"It [felon voting] really comes down to rehabilitation, and being given parole is not a true gauge to measure this by.
I would have no problem giving ex-prisoner felons back their full citizen privileges after a specified period of time in which they commit no other felonies, and prove their good citizenship."
Pamela S. Karlan, JD, the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law at Stanford University, stated in her 2004 Stanford Law Review article "Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate over Felon Disenfranchisement":
"[I]f felon disenenfranchisement is to be justified, it must be justified as a permissible form of punishment. [...] Neither rehabilitation nor deterrence plays any plausible role at all in justifying the disenfranchisement of former offenders.
It is impossible to see how lifetime or extended post-incarceration disenfranchisement rehabilitates anyone; indeed, the very message of such exclusion is to suggest that ex-offenders are beyond redemption."
Charlie Crist, JD, Governor of Florida, stated in an Apr. 3, 2007 article on Tallahassee.com titled "Wednesday My View: Florida Must Begin Automatic Restoration of Ex-Offender Rights":
"[L]ike any debt, once the citizen has fully repaid, he or she should be afforded the opportunity, except where the most heinous of crimes have been committed, to re-enter society with the same rights the citizen had before breaking the law. [...]
Giving a person a meaningful way to re-enter society, make a living and participate in our democracy will incentivize good behavior."
Alec C. Ewald, PhD, Visiting Assistant Professor at Union College, stated in a Sep. 2003 report for Demos titled "Punishing At The Polls: The Case Against Disenfranchising Citizens With Felony Convictions" (PDF 426KB):
"Disenfranchisement fails as a form of punishment. It does not help achieve any of the four goals penal policies pursue: incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. [...]
Rehabilitative principles shine a particularly bright light on criminal disenfranchisement policies. If one emphasized rehabilitative goals, indefinite disenfranchisement would clearly be counterproductive, since denying ex-offenders the vote impedes their reintegration into society by stigmatizing them as second-class citizens."
