The Legal Concept of a Civil Death, Essay Example

Ex-Convicts Deserve to Have Voting Rights Restored

This paper explores the current sociopolitical stance on restoring convicted felon’s voting rights once all requirements are met for release. Explaining the concept of disenfranchisement and practice theory, a literature review produced findings by Shove, Watson, Hand, & Ingram  (2007) describing how social changes are based on sociopolitical practice theory. Further literature research was completed to support the position that ex-felons should have their civil right to vote restored. Citing a Supreme Court Ruling in a restoration case, the Justice ruled in favor of the Voting Rights Act and this research informs the sound position that these rights should be restored in order to rehabilitate and make the offender a healthy part of society.

Keywords: disenfranchisement, sociopolitical practice theory, civil death

The legal concept of a civil death-also known as felonious disenfranchisement-has its roots in Roman and Greek history. While different in each state, an ex-felon loses the right to vote for a period of time, with ten (10) states keeping permanent disenfranchisement on the books (Keyssar, 2000) and many states permanently deny restoration of voting rights to treasonous offenders (Lopez-Guerra, 2014). These social contracts often stem-and change-based on sociocultural practice theory; the concept that society shapes current acceptable actions and behaviors (Shove, Watson, Hand, & Ingram, 2007).

Hotly debated, proponents for the restoration of voting rights for convicted felons, argue that once the crime is ‘paid in full’-i.e., time served, parole, probation, restitution-the ex-convict should no longer be punished legally or socially. In the Hayden v. Pataki disenfranchisement case, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor ruled that the Voting Rights Act “…applies to all voting qualification[s].” She further explained that exceptions or dismissing the plain language of such laws should be handled, understanding that Congress “…intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny…” (Hayden v. Pataki, 2006).

Once all obligations to the state and victim(s)-if any-are met, ex-convicts should have their right to vote restored because

1. the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive punishment and that criminal punishment should be proportionate to the crime and graduated; removing all civil rights violates this Amendment
2. restoration of a past offender encourages social responsibility, participation, and becoming a law-abiding citizen
3. Committing a crime constitutes a contract between the State or Federal Government; once the contract is fulfilled, it is no longer an obligation between the offender and offended.

As a society, we must demand punishment and restitution for crimes committed against people and property. It is not, however, society’s job to suspend ethical behavior to keep the ex-felon a prisoner, even when paroled.

References

Keyssar, A. (2009). The right to vote: The contested history of democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books.

Lopez-Guerra, C. (2014). Disenfranchisement on the Basis of Felony Convictions. Democracy and Disenfranchisement,109-132. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198705789.003.0005

Shove, E., Watson, M., Hand, M., & Ingram, J. (2007). The design of everyday life. New York: Berg.

Supreme Court Justice and former Circuit Judge of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Dissent in Hayden v. Pataki, Supreme Court. (2006) (testimony of Hayden v Pataki).