Pros And Cons Of Disenfranchisement

Each state has the right to determine its own disenfranchisement laws. However, not if they conflict with the constitutional voting rights. Felon disenfranchisement is the stripping of voting rights from those individuals who have been convicted of a felony. These rights can be taken in multiple ways, however there are five prominent categories: permanent loss of voting rights (twelve states), right restored after parole and probation (nineteen states), restored after parole (four states), restored after term of incarceration is served (thirteen states and Washington, D.C.), and unrestricted voting while incarcerated and thereafter (two states). This paper discusses ten major court decisions as well as the main political arguments for and against felon disenfranchisement. First, a brief discussion of the history of disenfranchisement will be given. Then, the constitutionality arguments and court cases will be presented. The legality of felon disenfranchisement is continuously in question, mostly in the Democratic Party. The majority of arguments revolve around the equal protection clause and Voting Rights act of 1965. These arguments have been brought before hundreds of courts, though there are ten benchmark cases that highlight the debate.
Disenfranchisement can be traced back to Greek and Roman times where
Social workers, ethically, should fight for reinfranchisement. According to Section 6.04 of the Code of Ethics, they must fight for the best possibilities for the people they represent, I.e. felons (Siegel). This may seem like the best side to support as a counselor to these individuals. This is because some researchers believe that disenfranchisement leads to feelings of alienation and humiliation, therefore impeding the process of rehabilitation (Siegel, 2011). Siegel also