Felons who have not committed egregious crimes should be able to vote
If a person has not grievously violated someone else's rights, they should retain their right to vote. Disenfranchising people for minor felonies is excessive.
< (1 of 1) Next argument >
We should restore the voting rights of felons who have not committed egregious crimes. If a person has not seriously violated the rights of someone else, it is unnecessary to take away one of their basic rights. A person's punishment should fit their crime, so disenfranchising prisoners who have committed only minor felonies is excessive and harsh. Also, there is evidence that restoring felon voting rights could lead to less risk of re-imprisonment. According to the Sentencing Project, "among individuals who had been arrested previously, 27 percent of non-voters were rearrested, compared with 12 percent of voters." If this is true, restoring felons' voting rights could alleviate the strain on public prisons and defense programs. This could also help felons re-adjust to society. By participating in our democracy, former prisoners will feel more accepted by their communities. They will have incentive to better themselves for society's sake, knowing that becoming more informed and contributing to the common good will help them to use their voting rights responsibly.
Felons have proven that they do not deserve to vote. Even if they have not committed horrific crimes, felons have shown that they do not value the community's wellbeing. Since only people who value the common good should vote and felons have proven that they do not, they should be disenfranchised.