Taylor Fodrie
Fall 2011
Graduation Project
Who should get to keep their rights?
Should felons get to keep rights in prison? Should felons get to keep rights or
after finishing the entire sentence including probation and parole? The answers to these
questions could be looked at by how severe the crime was and how much the crime
impacted society. Before lawmakers can make rules to punish or laws that restrict
felons and their rights, it is vital to know a few specific legal terms and their definitions.
Webster’s dictionary of law defines a felony as “a federal crime for which the
punishment may be death or imprisonment for more than a year”[Websters 2011 pg. 1].
Crimes under the felony category include such acts as murder, rape, arson, treason,
assault, battery, and driving under the influence. In the world of law, a felony is a bid
deal. This begs the question, should the severity of the crime be considered such as murder,
rape, molestation, armed robbery and other crimes involving harm occurring to other citizens
when deciding if felons should get rights, or when they should be restored.
Each state has set guidelines for punishment for each felony. Since the
punishment for a felony is usually decided by how severe the crime was should the
severity of the crime also be considered when deciding on whether or not felons should
get the same rights as law abiding American citizens? Depending on which state the
felon is located.
“The authorized punishments for conviction of a felony are: For Class 1
felonies, death, or imprisonment for life and a fine of up to $100,000, for Class 2
felonies, imprisonment for life or a minimum of 20 years and a fine of up to $100,000,
for Class 3 felonies, imprisonment for five to 20 years and a fine of up to $100,000, for
Class 4 felonies, imprisonment for two to 10 years and a fine of up to $100,000, for
Class 5 felonies, the jury or court may choose imprisonment for one to 10 years or jail
for up to 12 months and a fine of up to $2,500, either or both, for Class 6 felonies, the
jury or court may choose imprisonment for one to five years or jail for up to 12 months
and a fine of up to $2,500, either or both.” [Virginia.gov 2011 pg. 1].
This is an example of the policy guidelines for sentencing felony convictions in
Virginia. With set guidelines for how harsh a sentence can be it wouldn’t be hard to
include rights in the sentencing process.
The problem with felon rights is that every state for the most part has different
views on whether or not a felon should get rights. The Constitution is a factor when
considering felony rights. What does the Constitution state about felony rights? Some
people might not see felony rights as a problem but those who see themselves as active
citizens will fight back and express their views. Why should those people affected by
felons have to deal with it for the rest of their lives? While the felon most of the time will
be released from prison and continue their lives as if nothing ever happened and more
often repeat offenders end back up in jail while keeping their rights. Perhaps withholding
coting rights for repeat offenders is a possible solution to discourage recidivism. For
some crimes a short amount of jail time and a large fine should be plenty to keep most
offenders from committing the crime again. According to Geek Politics “56% of violent
felons are repeat offenders and 61% of all felons are repeat offenders” meaning more
than half of all felons commit another crime. [Geek Politics 2008 p 1.] American prisons
and jail systems obviously are not giving felons a full punishment.
A survey was given to randomly selected individuals around Craven Early College
High School and Craven Community College during the spring semester of 2011 to
about 30 random individuals. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said that felons should
not have the right to vote in prison. Fifty-eight percent said that when felons chose to
commit a more serious crime then they have revoked their rights as US citizens and
should no longer get the “American” treatment. Almost all respondents agreed the
severity of the crime had to be considered when deciding on this subject. This means
that felons who commit crimes such as blue collar crimes like vandalism should lose the
rights to vote but someone that has murdered someone should completely lose their
rights.
Disenfranchisement, the term that describes the removal of voting rights in the
United States, is one of the biggest arguments used when discussing felon rights.
[Websters Law 2011 pg 1.] Some voting citizens in the United States have different
viewpoints on felon rights. Most people believe when a felon chooses to commit a
crime; the felon has chosen to not follow the rules, which revokes their rights as
citizens. However, the problem with this argument is for the felons that are actually
rehabilitated during their sentence and do make a change in life for the better after
serving their time. Generally, most people would not have a problem with felons having
at least some of felon’s rights restored, until that felon commits another crime.
Otherwise known as repeat offenders, these felons serve a sentence and committed
another crime after being released. This is where many people draw the line and vote to
take away all of a felons rights. Efforts to restore the rights of millions of felons seem
wasted when the felons chose to commit another crime.
Millions of Americans follow the rules everyday and receive the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. Including the right to free speech, and expression. The
Constitution also guarantees all American citizens the right to vote. However, America
also has felons that have made the wrong choices and made society worse for others,
which brings up the argument should a felon get rights. The severity of the crime should
be considered when deciding if felons should get rights, or when the rights should the
be restored.’ Because of what the federal government has defined a felony, people who
committ mass murder a felony are being compared to people stealing a car when at the
age of sixteen which is also a felony. This is where the argument comes in. Should
someone who committed a crime at the age of 16 or 17 lose their rights for the rest of
their lives? This is why the severity of the crime needs to be looked at if the United
States is going to deprive individuals of their rights as citizens of the United States.
The fourteenth amendment states: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law” [14thamdement.us 2011 P 1]. This basically means no person who is a legal citizen
of the United States can have any of their rights taken away as long as they remain
citizens. However, when someone commits a very serious crime are they waiving their
citizen rights? This is an ongoing debate. No matter the argument, no person should be
treated unfairly according to the laws of the Constitution.
Murderers, rapists, and armed robbers did something to make society unsafe.
The fifteenth amendment states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.” [Cornell.edu 2011 p 1]. This amendment may
not have been written for felons originally that doesn’t mean that it isn’t up for
interpretation. If society can change the rules and take away rights whenever they want,
what will be next? The 26th amendment sets the voting age at 18. This, just like and
other amendment, is important and should not be easily taken away. The government
has set guidelines for the punishment of convicted felons with a minimum requirement
and a maximum punishment that can be given, this means the judicial system can only
punish a person to a certain point. As of right now, what kind of crime a person commits
and how serious the crime is decides how harsh that person’s punishment is.
During and after a person has committed a felony, the crime they committed
continues to affect U.S. citizens. After committing the crime, the government uses tax
money to house, feed, and take care of any needs of the felons. The problem is that the
government is using American citizens’ money to pay for these needs. This means lawabiding citizens constantly have to pay for the actions of a felon starting with the
decision to break the law in the first place. As soon as felons make the decision to break
the rules that are laid down in front of them, American citizens begin to pay for it. With a
large concern of how much money is the United States spending on a(n) incarcerated
individual compared to how much is being spent on public schools across the United
States. In figure 1 several states are compared on how much money is spent on
education compared to corrections.
Amount of Money spent
Figure 1.
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Per inmate
Per Student
California
$47,000
$9,000
New York
$56,000
$16,000
Michigan
$34,000
$11,000
Obviously state budgets factor in a lot more money for corrections than education
[Fox News 2011, P. 3]
In some cases, convicted felons have more rights afforded to them than ethnic
minorities. For example in the Supreme Court case Korematsu vs. The United States, a
Japanese man who was imprisoned with almost no rights because he remained in a
military zone where people of the Japanese race were no longer permitted to reside
because the US was currently at war with the Empire of Japan. The case ruling,
decided in (1944) was that the US government has every right to suspend someone
else’s rights based on race during wartime to protect the United States borders from
attack. Korematsu, The Japanese man in question simply had the misfortune of living in
the United States when World War II was ongoing. Felons who commit murder and rape
are ones affecting society in a negative way and yet the laws give more rights to them
than other people based on race. It doesn’t seem fair: some people have the rights
revoked for being an ethnic minority and yet people who commit crimes still get the right
to vote while incarcerated.
In conclusion, should felons get to keep rights or get them restored after
their sentence? The answer is the severity must be looked at much like the sentencing
policy in place currently. Depending on how much the crime affected society decideds
how harsh the sentence is why not include rights. That way there is a set difference
between a 16 year old stealing a car and a grown man committing mass murder. Felon
rights are a highly disputed subject and this argument will continue. Because people's
opinions are constantly changing, rules and laws will always be changing. Felons may
be people too, but why should they get the same rights as those who follow all of the
rules that everyone else gets? Should the severity of the crime be considered? Yes and
the punishment should vary based on how much it affects the world around us.