Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The Right to Vote
Before she lost her job as an administrative assistant, Leola
The Right to Vote
Before she lost her job as an administrative assistant, Leola Strickland postdated and mailed a handful of checks for amounts ranging from $90 to $500. By the time she was able to find a new job, the checks had bounced, and she was convicted of fraud under Mississippi law. Strickland pleaded guilty to a felony charge and repaid her debts; in return, she was spared from serving prison time.
Strickland appeared in court in 2001. More than ten years later, she is still feeling the sting of her sentencing. Why? Because Mississippi is one of twelve states in the United States that bans convicted felons from voting (ProCon 2011).
To Strickland, who said she had always voted, the news came as a great shock. She isn’t alone. Some 5.3 million people in the United States are currently barred from voting because of felony convictions (ProCon 2009). These individuals include inmates, parolees, probationers, and even people who have never been jailed, such as Leola Strickland.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, states are allowed to deny voting privileges to individuals who have participated in “rebellion or other crime” (Krajick 2004). Although there are no federally mandated laws on the matter, most states practice at least one form of felony disenfranchisement.
Is it fair to prevent citizens from participating in such an important process? Proponents of disfranchisement laws argue that felons have a debt to pay to society. Being stripped of their right to vote is part of the punishment for criminal deeds. Such proponents point out that voting isn’t the only instance in which ex-felons are denied rights; state laws also ban released criminals from holding public office, obtaining professional licenses, and sometimes even inheriting property (Lott and Jones 2008).
7.2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance and Crime 183
184 7 • Deviance, Crime, and Social Control
Opponents of felony disfranchisement in the United States argue that voting is a basic human right and should be available to all citizens regardless of past deeds. Many point out that felony disfranchisement has its roots in the 1800s, when it was used primarily to block Black citizens from voting. These laws disproportionately target poor minority members, denying them a chance to participate in a system that, as a social conflict theorist would point out, is already constructed to their disadvantage (Holding 2006). Those who cite labeling theory worry that denying deviants the right to vote will only further encourage deviant behavior. If ex-criminals are disenfranchised from voting, are they being disenfranchised from society?
Module 4 Discussion – Social Policy and Debate: The Right to Vote
No unread replies.No replies.
Read the case study about Leola Strickland found on page 148 in your textbook under the heading MAKING CONNECTIONS – SOCAL POLICY AND DEBATE: THE RIGHT TO VOTE and also look at the following state by state map of criminal disenfranchisement laws (https://www.aclu.org/maps/map-state-criminal-disfranchisement-lawsLinks to an external site.).
(If using the digital pdf, you can simply search for Strickland’s name in the search bar).
After reading the case, briefly mention what is the criminal disenfranchisement policy in the State of Florida, discuss on the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the debate on felony disenfranchisement, and include your own opinion.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.