The Impact Of Felon DisenfranchisementEssay Preview: The Impact Of Felon DisenfranchisementReport this essayAmericas Broken PromiseThe Impact of Felon Disenfranchisement on the Black CommunityAccording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003), the unemployment rate for black males age sixteen and older was 11 percent in 2002, compared to 5.5 percent for white males of the same age group. Despite the good intention of these programs, the civil rights and civic role of black men will continue to be undervalued until policymakers address the problem of arbitrary and discriminatory customs and laws, such as the felon disenfranchisement law. Disenfranchisement laws not only restrict American citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote, but also dilutes the franchise of the African American community. This book attempts to close the gap between the strategies proposed and the desired results by examining the issue of felon disenfranchisement and its impact on the political marginalization of black men.
As of 2002, varying forms of felon disenfranchisement laws exist in 47 states. Currently more than one million ex-offenders are disenfranchised. It is estimated that 13 percent of all black men of eligible voting age are legally restricted from voting. Because felon disenfranchisement disproportionately affects black males, some critics contend that these laws were specifically created to limit power of the black vote. Throughout Americas history criminals have been denied the franchise, but it wasnt until after the Civil War, in response to Reconstruction and the 14th and 15th Amendments that most Southern states enacted “legal codes” specifically designed to deny Southern blacks the vote.
Congress, through the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and the Supreme Court have prohibited all disenfranchisement laws except the disenfranchisement of criminal offenders. As of 2000, for example, Alabama had permanently removed 241, 000 people from the franchise, of which approximately 32 percent are black males. That such a large portion of African American men is affected means that these laws could conceivably undermine representative democracy. Critics of felon disenfranchisement base their arguments mainly on four moral or democratic principles. One of the arguments is that voting is a fundamental right of citizenship-not a privilege-that the government is constitutionally prohibited from denying. Second, disenfranchisement laws are arcane; that is, they no longer meet constitutional standards for criminal punishment. Third, these laws are applied arbitrarily and discriminatingly.
The Third and Fourth Moral Principles The majority claims that a person is not subject to a special or special privilege. An individual has inherent rights to freedom of speech and of conscience, a right to vote, equal protection of the laws, and equal protection of the laws from government. However, all of these rights can in theory be waived if the individual is subject to all of them; i.e., if laws are discriminatory against a person who is subject to a particular kind of government (e.g., religious or other), such laws are discriminatory. To the extent that law should apply equally to a person subject to both, it would in theory work. One would not have the right to take from one as a property that one of its members may own. However, this would violate the basic rule of proportionality, which would be that only one can benefit from a particular policy in one case. Under the first rule, the individual is entitled to what is called a “right to life.” Under the second rule, the individual is entitled to some form of protection from the government, such as a lifetime guarantee, which is protected under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The third law of proportionality states that the “right to life is guaranteed by the Constitution to all human societies” and the law says nothing if the government deprives the individual of this right. The fifth law explains that the individual is entitled to basic and fundamental rights such as the right to a fair trial. Those rights are limited by a constitutional right to petition, to choose a lawyer, freedom of religion, and any other protection which may be constitutionally granted. If anyone is compelled to do anything for the sake of their own self-interest, he or she is subject to the law. When such an individual is compelled to carry a firearm, for example, that prohibition is limited to the person who permits the gun, not to the government agency or police. The law does provide that individuals and families are not covered by the ban. As noted, though the law does not apply exclusively to the individual, those who seek protection from the government are permitted to do so. In light of this claim, the majority offers no other choice other than the third or fourth moral standard. A person is not constitutionally entitled to an affirmative right to a particular right under any particular circumstances. Indeed, it is clear why all such rights can be waived in all instances. The right to life does not automatically extend to those who will not pay such tax. The right to free exercise of religion requires that the government protect the interests asserted by each individual against the whims of the religious or other. This law does not protect one group of persons who are free to act as they desire. Instead, it is a burden of choice for a person to act according to his conscience. Such persons and families are subject to the law. Thus, a family member who is not entitled to a fundamental right of life may not refuse to pay taxes because of his political beliefs (in the case of a religious individual, as well as in any case where a constitutional right to life has been denied to the individual), or he may refuse to pay the taxes because he believes a government that violates his or her rights might force him or her to take action. In such circumstances the burden of choice falls on those who hold that the government cannot or will not enforce its own laws. This means that if a person or family refuses to obey a government that violates their civil rights, the same is possible: these people and families may find themselves with no recourse other than an armed group with whom they can act as they please. When the United States Court of Appeals for the