Aside from our unquestionable human rights as American citizens we were graced with one of the most important rights known to democracy, the right to vote. As American citizens we have the constitutional right to actively participate in the political process of this country by exercising our right to vote. However, for 2.5 million people in this democratic society their right to vote is somehow suspended. In fact, it is suspended far above the U.S. Constitution. Statistics on incarcerated citizens in this country echoes staggering numbers of 2.5 million and counting. These alarming statistics do not reflect ex-offenders. Thirty-five states deny suffrage to non-incarcerated offenders, such as those on probation or parole; fourteen states disfranchise offenders for life unless pardoned (which is extremely rare). As a result, the right to vote is denied to at least 5 million Americans, a disproportionately large share of whom are African American and Latino.These are men and women who have paid their debt to society by time served, and in many cases rendering financial retribution to crime victims, and to their respective state and local government. It is criminal for one to commit a crime, however it is equally criminal for legislators to snatch away a constitutional and civil right from one who has already paid a balance of a past crime bill. This is double jeopardy. This is an unjustifiable process of re-sentencing millions under the guise of "tough-on-crime punishment." The tradition of banishing criminals from the body politic is an old one, passed down from Roman and medieval regimes in which felons who were fortunate enough to escape torture or death would find themselves cast out into the woods (isolated from society). One history of English law portrays the convict as a "wolf."
The dehumanizing origins of disfranchisement are an acute reminder of how inconsistent the practice is with modern theories of criminal justice. Taking the right to vote away from a lawbreaker has nothing to do with public safety or crime deterrence; if it is a form of retribution, it is unacceptably arbitrary, and many legal scholars believe that the stigma of disfranchisement hinders an ex-offender's rehabilitation and contributes to recidivism. It is both amazing and interesting that of all the rights to be taken from felons, why have legislators chosen to take away the right to vote? Was this accidental, coincidental, or by strategic political design?
If this was engineered for strategic political design then the sole purpose is to eliminate the voice and vote of millions who have the power to elect of reject. There are only two states in America that not only allow ex-felons to vote, but also current inmates serving time. Maine and Vermont have courageously decided not to participate in the damaging and dehumanizing practice of stripping away voting rights of felons. Although there is a significantly lower African American and Latino population in these two states versus North Carolina or Texas, it is inexcusable for all other states to not do as Maine and Vermont have valiantly done.
Many lawmakers inflame public fear, phobia, and prejudice against ex-felons in a malignant attempt to justify the violation of human rights. It is interesting that felons can not vote, yet felons are expected to pay taxes. Taxes that pay the salaries of legislators that are against the voting rights of felons. Ex-offenders are a nation within this nation. Many are law-abiding, productive, and compassionate men and women whose voices have become muffled by the clamor of prejudicial profiles, racial regulations, and media propaganda. If America is truly the template of world democracy then it is time to become what we profess by practicing what we do no possess, true democratic integrity, equity, and forgiveness.
Find me @ www.zionspeakz.com
www.facebook.com/zionspeakzradio
www.twitter.com/zionspeakz
www.blogtalkradio.com/mandate
No comments:
Post a Comment