Felon voting rights and criminal disfranchisement in America

Inmates and God Time/Right to Vote/Mandatory Release

Not all inmates are banned from voting if the state laws are not regulated accordingly. However, in the U.S. merely two states allow felons to vote from prison. Furthermore, in certain extreme cases, depending on the crime committed and other variables, the right to vote can remain rescinded even after felons have been released from prison and are paying debts. In most situations, revoking the right to vote is regarded as a consequence of criminals having assaulted on another individual's human rights. Thus, vote deprivation is regarded as part of the punishment and for a considerable amount of individuals, this is a lifetime condemnation.

Criminal disfranchisement of African-Americans has indeed been used in the past to suppress their right to vote. Following the racial discrimination of past centuries, and later on, the facade enfranchisement of African-Americans, particularly Southern states looked towards disempowering the former by taking away their right to vote on basis of criminal charges. With 1.4 million convicted people being African-Americans, the American Civil Liberties Union considers that the laws which were in effect over 100 years ago remain valid today (ACLU, n.d.). However, the totality of convicted felons whose voting right has been taking away number more than five millions which goes to show that indeed race is relatively, if not remotely associated.

When addressing inmates' right to vote, it is important to relate to prison being either rehabilitative or punitive. In this respect, rehabilitation is preferred. However, we must consider situations when life sentence without parole is involved. Thus, the sentence is interrelated to the crime committed and, as such, the right for inmates to vote should be assessed in accordance to its severity. Indeed, we agree that ?prison voting bans should be proportional, with disfranchisement limited to certain serious offenses only. (ACLU, 2006, p. 26) Moreover, following the release from prison, convicts are expected to reintegrate into society which is why allowing their fundamental right of voting to be exercised would not only facilitate the process, but indeed be overall productive. The individual in cause may be more so encouraged to take on positive responsibilities when being restored to his initial societal position.

Convicted individuals may sometimes serve less time if they have acquired what is known as ?good time credits? For good behavior. This is to say that, due to good behavior in prison, an amount of time can be taken off the inmate's initial sentence, resulting in the latter's earlier release. On the opposite pole, mandatory release occurs once the felon has reached his / hers calendar time serving. Thus, mandatory release is subject to serving full sentence. Good time credits are awarded once an inmate's file has been carefully reviewed and assessed. Most importantly, these credits are mainly given to non-violent prisoners. Good behavior in prison implies conforming to prevailing norms and avoiding any misconduct. Also, inmates may require extra prison work which would further contribute to their credits. Overall, any implication which would result in positive outcomes is likely to present itself as good time behavior. However, there are no strict regulations to determine who and what an inmate has to do in order to be given good time credits.