Should felons vote
Final Paper
Should Felons Vote
3/5/14
In forty-eight states the felons are not aloud to vote, some even don’t allow people on parole to vote. The article was published in 2005, from the City Journal. This article then goes into saying that the democrats are taking a stand to allow ex-cons the right to vote. There are different views on this through out the whole United States but this author, Edward Feser, seems like he is taking the stand to allow them to vote by stating in the end that he would like to see the Democrats get better arguments to help them with trying to get the criminals the right to vote. The article goes on to say is that people might blame this on racism because for the shear fact that over half of the prisons in the US are mostly black. He goes on to say that these laws are actually racist from the origin in which they came to be, from the poll taxes and the literacy tests. But these policies can be traced all the way back from the old Greece and Roman times. Feser seems to write for the whole US instead of just one specific state. He writes to a larger audience because it is not just one state that does not allow felons or ex-cons to vote it are forty-eight of them. So for Feser to write just to one state would not make much sense. Feser the states, “The claim that disenfranchising felons is wrong because the right to vote is basic and inalienable…” (Feser p.592)
The whole point of writing this is to open people’s eyes about how the felons are being punished twice for the same crime that he/ she have committed. He then goes into detail about how the New York Times goes to say that, “It is not the voting that makes someone responsible but that the responsible person will be likelier to vote.” The argument that gets put out against that statement is an ex-con that is only thinking about his next rape or kill will not change his ways just so he can vote.(Feser p.593)
His thesis is, “The claim that disenfranchising felons is wrong because
Should Felons Vote
3/5/14
In forty-eight states the felons are not aloud to vote, some even don’t allow people on parole to vote. The article was published in 2005, from the City Journal. This article then goes into saying that the democrats are taking a stand to allow ex-cons the right to vote. There are different views on this through out the whole United States but this author, Edward Feser, seems like he is taking the stand to allow them to vote by stating in the end that he would like to see the Democrats get better arguments to help them with trying to get the criminals the right to vote. The article goes on to say is that people might blame this on racism because for the shear fact that over half of the prisons in the US are mostly black. He goes on to say that these laws are actually racist from the origin in which they came to be, from the poll taxes and the literacy tests. But these policies can be traced all the way back from the old Greece and Roman times. Feser seems to write for the whole US instead of just one specific state. He writes to a larger audience because it is not just one state that does not allow felons or ex-cons to vote it are forty-eight of them. So for Feser to write just to one state would not make much sense. Feser the states, “The claim that disenfranchising felons is wrong because the right to vote is basic and inalienable…” (Feser p.592)
The whole point of writing this is to open people’s eyes about how the felons are being punished twice for the same crime that he/ she have committed. He then goes into detail about how the New York Times goes to say that, “It is not the voting that makes someone responsible but that the responsible person will be likelier to vote.” The argument that gets put out against that statement is an ex-con that is only thinking about his next rape or kill will not change his ways just so he can vote.(Feser p.593)
His thesis is, “The claim that disenfranchising felons is wrong because