Felony Disenfranchisement

In the UK inmates are not allowed to vote, in the USA those convicted of a previous felon are not allowed to vote even when released. Countries that do afford the right to vote to inmates are in the minority. If one is to have any faith in democracy, and holds similar ideas to me as to the mechanics of society, the concept of felony disenfranchisement is wholly counter productive.

The main premise upon which I base this criticism is that the people are moulded by society. When there is poverty and injustice you will also find higher crime rates. I have spoken before about the most effective way to reduce crime in my essay “Crime and Punishment” and it had little to do with law and enforcement. If approached using game theory it is clear that people on the whole are not going to commit crimes when it is not in their best interests. Making the punishments more severe may curtail a small amount of crime but it is only tackling a tiny fraction of the picture. If society raises the conditions of the poorest people in that society with education, welfare, minimum wages, health services, good employment opportunities and so forth you also change the equation in a more productive fashion than by increasing punishments. The risks of committing crime increase when you have more to lose. If you always measure society as an average of all its people then you will never know if things are improving for a specific group of people. Society may appear to be getting wealthier however it could be the case that the poorest were becoming poorer, just at a lesser rate than the rich were getting richer. Reducing crime is a case of improving society at the bottom rather than at the top, or as an average of all spheres. It is mostly those near the bottom of society for which the risks of crime are worth taking. This is the relevant mechanism of society which I have assumed in my statement that felony disenfranchisement is counter productive.

I am not suggesting criminals are not to blame for their actions however I do also hold society accountable. By removing the vote from those who are incarcerated or have criminal records you are stacking the deck against things improving. For the most part those with criminal records are those who could be said to have been let down by society. By removing their chance to vote you eliminate the voice of those for who society is not working. This smacks horribly of the practices of the Communist Party in a large chunk of the twentieth century who would silence those who spoke against them. To look at it in another way it is like being put somewhere to live against your will and then only being allowed to move should you actually like where you were first placed.

The argument in favour of felony disenfranchisement speaks to the social contract and that criminals have chosen to brake it and therefore should not have a further say in matters. This would be a reasonable argument if at some point we had each entered into this contract consensually however we do not, we are simply born into society and expected to accept the contract by which it is operated. With no way to avoid the social contract those who dislike it are almost forced into breaking it due to their being no other exist strategy. Social change is slow, democratically or otherwise, you need the input of those with experience of what is wrong to help avoid those situations for future generations. Giving votes to criminals will not really benefit them as they have already shown the system is not suited to them by resorting to crime, it is all too late and too slow to do much for those society has already let down just by giving them a vote. It will however help future generations of people who share things they dislike about the social contract and social conditions with today's criminals.

Society is already very top down in terms of how it is shaped, capitalism ensures that those with most financial power have much more impact on things. The votes we have when we spend are presently more relevant and effective than the democratic votes we make come elections. Society ideally wants to have an equal momentum of change from all spheres so that it is not distorted out of shape. Capitalism generally increases the wealth gap and this is because it is not an even mechanism of evolution, it is weighted heavily at the top. Democracy is intended to be even and allow for consistent growth however felony disenfranchisement takes much momentum away from the essential shaping of society from the bottom up. Top down evolution is great in terms of scientific progress, innovation and the creation of infrastructure however it neglects things such as crime rates, unemployment rates and, even to a certain extent, life expectancy.

We do not even need to enter into a moral argument as to whether criminals should or shouldn't have a vote as it is so vital to the proper workings of democracy. Sadly very few democracies, if any, exist that work properly regardless of any felony disenfranchisement. Until such time that democracies do work well it is a far less pressing issue ensuring that criminals may vote. I sympathise with British leaders going against the EU and not instating ways for inmates to vote. In theory it is essential but in practice it is going to cost a lot and have very little impact. Even if it were enacted in a sufficiently functional democracy the effects would take years to be noticeable. This however does not mean we can just sit pretty and ignore the problem, it should be a sign that democratic systems have more serious problems at their core that need fixing first. I have detailed the key failings of those systems that are used today in my essay “Utopian Democracy”.

I am strongly against felony disenfranchisement in theory however in practice it is of minor social concern and our efforts should be focused on creating a functional and sustainable economic system and a democratic system that is more than just symbolic. Once we have these core social systems in place we can start to reap the benefits of simple yet obvious improvements such as voting for criminals. Although I am critical of present democracies I do have faith in the concept as the best theoretical method of governance. This is why felony disenfranchisement is still an issue which I care about despite deeming it to be presently fairly irrelevant.