Describe Proposition of Policy Research Assignment Paper (Essay Sample)

Proposition of Policy
Name
Institution
Proposition of Policy
Looking at the current data within America, it is estimated that around 6.1 million of Americans who are of voting age have been convicted of various crimes are restricted from participating in voting. It is estimated that this is number represents about 2.5% of the total number of registered voters in America. Felony disenfranchisement restricts eligible voters from voting and always applicable to very serious of crimes. It is argued that such restrictions conflicts with the various principles outlined as universal suffrage (Burch, 2010). Such restriction affects civic as well as communal participation of the convicts. This is considered as one of the collateral consequences of conviction and a loss of right.
There are concerns that both incarcerated and ex-felons should be given a fair chance to exercise their democratic right of voting as that would affect the election outcomes as well as affecting their rights after their release. However, the opponents of this opportunity are of the opinion that once convicted; a person should not be allowed to exercise such democratic rights so as to maintain the meaning of incarcerated (Allard & Mauer, 1999). Both considerations would be tenable, to a certain degree beyond which they become invalid. At these ends, the arguments would require considerable grounds within which any argument would be sustained either for the idea or against any set of thought presented.
Both Incarcerated and ex-Felons Should be Allowed to Vote in Local and National Elections
Various scholarly studies have demonstrated that the US is one of the most punitive nations all over the world when it comes to issues of the rights and privileges offered to convicts of felony offenses. Looking at the US constitution, it is explicitly indicted that the state is fully permitted to adopt various rules that are set specifically for disenfranchisement (Burch, 2010). However, the states are not restricted or formally bound to interpret these to mean stiff restrictions to felonies, even though this is what is mostly witnessed in many occasions. In reference to the historical records of the past years, felons have always been allowed to exercise their democratic rights of voting in most states, like it was witnessed between 1996 and 2008 when about 28 states revised their legal standing in regard to the voting rights of the convicts, with a basic aim of restoring their rights or just simplify the entire process of restoration (Manza & Uggen, 2004). From this period until now, there have been major shifts in the state laws in regard to whether the voting rights of the felons and the incarcerated should be restored or simply be curtailed for some short period of time within a given state. The legal grounds have experienced such a shaky trend as a result of the consideration of both the effects on the election outcomes as well as the legal backing of the practice.
Taking a case of 2008 election in the US, about 5.3 million eligible voters were denied a chance to cast their ballot due to felony disenfranchisement. This population represents a significant percentage of the American voters that can cause a significant change in the outcome of the elections. Even under custody, this significant percentage of eligible voters should be given a chance to participate in the national elections. This argument would be supported by the idea that the outcome of the presidential elections are quite important and have a far reaching impact (Dhami, 2005). In this regard, it would be imperative that all eligible voters are given a chance to participate in the choice of who they would wish to lead the nation (Maruna, 2011). Still on the significance of the national elections as well as the diverse facets that are affected by the outcome, the felons are equally and significantly affected by such outcomes. In this manner, they should be given a chance to have a say on that which would influence their environment. Just like other free citizens, both incarcerated and ex-felons are equally affected by the national leadership and for that matter, their say need to be considered and effectively addressed by giving them a chance to vote.
The other argument is based on the demographic constructions of the American population and its impacts on the outcome of the elections. Taking a critical look at the American demography, according to Morris, (2013), on the journal, “Helping ex-offenders with reentry,” approximately 13% of the population represents the African American. It is also important to note that about 38% of the total population of the American prisoners is made up of the African Americans. Over 15% of the American population is made up of the Hispanic, while about 20% of the entire prison population is made up of the Hispanic (Simson, 2002). It is also notable that felony disenfranchisement laws would always disproportionately affect the communities of color since it can be clearly shown that these groups are always disproportionately convicted and ultimately denied the chance of voting. This is supported by various researches that points to the fact that about 10% of the population of various minority communities are always unable to vote due to issues of felony disenfranchisement. Study that was conducted in 2003 by Manza & Uggen showed that states having significantly high prison population made up of non-white had a higher likelihood of passing laws of felon disenfranchisement (Manza & Uggen, 2004). This trend supports the hypothesis of racial threats (Behan & O'Donnell, 2008). Over the years, the felon disenfranchisements have continually affected the outcome of the presidential elections and the trend was not any different in the 2016 presidential election. For instance, even with candidate Clinton obtaining most votes, Mr. Trump was elected partly due to swing states such as Florida and Nevada. This is a significant impact since the inclusion of the votes of the ex-felons would have caused a considerable difference in the outcome of the results.
Also in 2016, two of the swing states, Florida and Nevada, were of significant impact on the election of our newest republican president Donald Trump. However, it is important to note that around 10 percent of citizens in the state of Florida are disenfranchised for being ex-felons (Clegg, 2001). A similar story happens in Nevada, were around 4.2 percent of citizens could not participate
There is a need to consider the issues that are raised by the prisoners need keen attention and in-depth understanding of their plight (Yoshinaka & Grose, 2005). In this regard, the prisoners can be given a chance to push their agenda to the leadership and ensure that their issues are articulated. Recurrent problems such as mass incarceration and prison violence are a widely discussed topic in the U.S.A. that may worsen as felons are deprived from voting. In case ex-felons are not allowed to vote, the most salient issues relating to the rights of current and former prisoners may not be considered when electing political leaders. The elected leaders are meant to handle all issues pertaining to the l] welfare of all citizens including that of the prisoners (Uggen & Manza, 2002). Any presidential aspirant need to clearly outline how they will handle the issues affecting prisoners in various prisons and for that matter, the prisoners are considered to be key stakeholders in any general election.
However, the opponents of the voting rights to the prisoners and the ex-felons would base their argument on the rights that are allowable to prisoners while serving jail sentences. Even though, the prisoners make significant percentage of the total population registered as eligible voters, it is important to understand the reason behind jail sentence. It can be argued that once a person is convicted of felony and is sentenced, it is important to consider that by that very act therefore, the individual is denied various rights and privileges (Hull, 2009). It is important to maintain the legal provisions that guide the fundamental rights and the participatory boundaries allowable to the convicts and the extent to which they can take part in the public affairs.
The other argument would be presented that the fight for the rights of the prisoners as well as their well being would not be their own sole responsibilities such that their voting rights are based on such grounds. It follows that the inmates would not even be considered as the best voice for the prison systems as well as the well being of the people within such settings.
As much as the colored being the majority of the prisoners in the US, it would not be argued that their numbers in prison and their inability to participate in the electoral process would be a sure reason enough to draw the conclusion that their most preferred candidate may lose in the electoral process (Morris, 2013). It can also be that the inclusion of the votes cast by the ex-felons work for either of the contesting parties. Since the colored are not the only group in the prisons neither are all colored serving jail terms, the results would not be significantly affected in some instances whereby even the convicts are not convinced of the policies being propagated by their preferred candidate.
Conclusion
Considering the dangers involved in allowing the ex-felons to participate in the electoral process and weighing them against the advantages that such a chance id provided, the ground have been shifting in various states as to whether voting restrictions ought to be instilled or not. The effects of the involvement of the incarcerated and ex-felons in the electoral process ought to be weighed on the balances of pros and cons of such ...