Breanna Ellison English 150 11 February 2014 Should Felons Permanently Forfeit Their Right to Vote? Our country was founded on democracy; it is what sets us apart as a nation. How can we consider ourselves a true democracy when we don’t let certain members of our society have the right to vote and participate in that democracy? The answer is that we simply cannot. I believe that convicted felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison because they exercise good judgment: in addition, withholding their rights to vote would be a violation of the United States Voting Rights act of 1965 and the eighth amendment of the Constitution.
(Feser.592) Feser cites John Locke, the English philosopher, who believes didn’t view the franchise in that circumstance. Locke’s perception is that all human beings had certain rights by nature; life, liberty, and property. As long as it protects the basic rights of citizens and retain their loyalty, it remained legitimate, whether it allowed citizens to vote. (Feser.592) Felons should be restored the right to vote. Once a person has served the sentence for his or her crime they should be allowed to become productive members of society.
It is important in a democracy that every person have equal protection of the law because a democracy is composed by the citizens of that government, if not all people are included - regardless of age, race, sex, ethnicity, or nationality, then it is not a true democracy. A selective democracy does not and cannot exist. Every citizen should be subjected to the same laws and rights and any other citizen. A democracy flourishes when all citizens are involved and all citizens enjoy all the rights as any other citizen. Punishing a person harsher or inhumanly simply because he or she is of a different race for instance in unconstitutional.
The Unjust of Just law Ethics 110 22 Jun 2010 In a democratic state it is in never within our rights to break the law. Breaking the law leads to lawlessness and disobedience from the democracy that we have worked, or have been born into. If the law is unjust, then it might be fair to break that law as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences of punishment set aside for that particular unjust law. Failure to adhere to the punishment is unjust as well, for failure to adhere to the punishment of the law is a statement that you do not respect the laws of your society. Martin Luther King Jr. states “Oppressed People cannot remain oppressed forever.” (Cahn, 2009 p. 387) As we have seen throughout history, this is a true statement.
Next I will also be talking about felonies that I think should be waived, and should not prevent a felon from voting. Thereafter I will go on to talk about the disenfranchisement of voting in 49 States and mention that Florida, Delaware, and Washington are the only states that give felons a second chance to vote by petition, for restoration of his or her voting rights. Finally I will talk about the 24th Amendment which guarantees that no person can be denied the right to vote due to the inability to pay a tax prior to voting. I’m quite sure that all citizens are not aware of this Amendment, but let’s say that the majority are aware of the 24th Amendment, who is to say that everybody is going to be financially fit to pay this tax before voting. Reformed prisoners are still having a tough time adapting to society already which includes, making a living trying to take care of themselves as well as families too.
It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.
Jury Nullification Paper The jury’s repudiation to sentence a person even through the presence of a resilient proof which supports guilt is called jury nullification. With regards to handling cases, the jury shouldn’t develop sympathy for it will result to jury nullification. During the trial, sentencing or verdict should always be based on the facts and shouldn’t even concern an individual’s race at all. At an instance wherein the jury couldn’t come up with a conviction due to the fact that race is involved, it is called as race-based nullification which is evidently not good for a murderer can be set free as this occurs. Thus, as this happens, it would be right for punishment as this is believed to wrong.
Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion. Discuss. This is a hard determinist statement which I do not agree with, hard determinism states that all your choices including ethical and moral choices, are predetermined and you have absolutely no free will to choose to do anything other. Therefore a person would have no responsibility for their actions. In my own opinion this causes many issues which can lead people to do immoral things and commit bad crimes, and be able to justify their actions by stating it was already determined for them to do it.
Katie Porter March 18, 2013 Justice Rooted in Society, Society Rooted in Justice “It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered.” Although circumstances can justify mercy, they cannot control justice because no one, regardless of gender, is above the law. In his statement, Aristotle states that without justice, society could not function because citizens would not obey the laws, and it would be impossible for the government to enforce the laws. In societies such as those presented in the film, Adam’s Rib, written by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin, citizens use sexist stereotypes as a defense in their effort to avoid justice. Countless societal expectations and stereotypes concerning gender are present in the film, Adam’s Rib; however these minute differences between men and women cannot be applied to the interpretation of the law. It apparent through conversations between Amanda, a defense attorney, and Grace, her assistant, that gender inequities are overwhelmingly present, not only within the courts, but throughout society in general.
Superson’s goal is to defeat the skeptic and does not believe self-interest is sufficient enough to do so. I understand the approach Superson is making about self-interest but I don’t think she is looking at all aspects of the topic. I think people will always act in self-interested ways regardless of the circumstances; people act according to their dispositions, not by force, unless they are being coerced of course. It is human nature to instinctively maximize our personal utility. We act in ways that we see fit, whether or not an act is considered moral is completely dependent upon the individual.