Most Ex-Felons Should Not Vote
(Image from newsimg.bbc.co.uk)
By ex-felon Gerry Charlotte Phelps (7 1/2 years in prison)
Most ex-felons are still criminals. They are career criminals, and have not changed. Most became habitual criminals in their youth, entered the justice system as juvenile delinquents, have been imprisoned more than once, and are likely to go to prison again. Most had an average of 15 arrests before their most recent imprisonment, and another 3 arrests within 3 years of their release. They also typically committed many more crimes than the ones for which they were actually arrested.
Since most do not stop being criminals, they can be expecteed to vote as criminals. Since around 75% of recidivists (repeaters) are thieves of various kinds, they are likely to vote in ways that professional thieves would vote.
What problems would arise from giving more than 3,000,000 ex-felons the vote? A minor effect is that since most would vote Democrat, the actual balance of power in the United States could be affected. The more important effect is that they would vote to support those candidates more likely to weaken law enforcement. This could be expected to cause crime rates to rise. The continual decrease in crime rates in recent years is due to the fact that more criminals are locked up than before. If this changes, crime naturally would increase again. Ex-falons who are still criminals would like to see that happen. That is how they would vote.
Some argue that it is wrong to put limits on voting by ex-felons, that many have abendoned criminality and have become upstanding citizens, so they should not be denied the vote. But that needs to be documented. Before restoring voting rights, first there should be some years of a verifiable track record of no crime, of employment and of being a productive, law-abiding citizen. Such a verifiable track record is a must. Since most ex-felons are among the best con artists in the world, we should not rely on their own self-reporting. We also should not rely much more on references from individuals, since most people can be persuaded into giving a good referral.
Only police and parole or probation records, together with such things as employment and credit records, should be considered.
Until such a verifiable track record of good citizenship has been maintained for years, voting rights should not be restored. There is too much risk that the ex-felon is still a criminal, and would vote contrary to the interests of law-abiding citizens.
Some argue that the ex-felon has earned the vote, once the imprisonment or parole or probation is over and the "debt to society has been paid." But there is no such "debt to society." What the ex-felon has "earned" by serving the time, in prison or in completing parole or probation, is no longer having to be in prison or on parole or probation! It is regaining freedom of movement and freedom from supervision. The restoration of civil rights lost, such as the right to vote or bear arms, should depend on proof that the ex-felon has permanently abandoned being a criminal.
Some also argue that if the vote is not restored, it gets in the way of rehabilitating ex-felons. But that argument is so weak as to be silly. There is zero evidence that voting has ever rehabilitated any criminals whatsoever.
Rehabilitation is a great thing. But the rehabilitation of felons is one of the most difficult and resistant of all tasks. They are the "hard core of the hard core."
Many would-be prison reformers have listened all too well to what felons themselves say. Felons typically claim that they are criminals because they never had a chance to be anything else. That lack of education, or racial discrimination, or high unemployment rates, etc., made it impossible for them to earn a living except by crime.
Because of such assumptions, most rehabilitation in prisons is based on education. Clearly education should happen in every prison. But studies have shown that education in prison has had no detectable effect on recidivism rates, which are the best measure of any reform or lack of it. Sadly, despite the many benefits of prison education programs, most prisoners they educate simply become, well, better educated criminals.
So is there no hope for reform programs? There is, but only when they can be shown to have results. What does it take to turn an habitual criminal away from crime? There is only one answer. That is that nothing will work except for the criminal to make a decision never to commit crime again. That means completely turning his or her life around.
Some criminals make that decision, then relapse. But not one criminal ever reforms without making a life-changing "U-turn" decision.
In 7 1/2 years in prison, I observed that a few fellow prisoners were cured of criminalilty just by going to prison, then resolving never to risk that again. But most who were rehabilitated, however, went through a religious committment first. Yet even some of those relapsed.
The best results for reform of criminals that I saw came from a life-changing religious experience that does not go away. That kind of reform program is not well-suited to efforts by governments. But when they let religious groups come in to have such programs in prisons, theirs are almost the only programs showing much in the way of lasting rehabilitation.
Even then, a religious conversion, in prison or not, is no guarantee of the reformation of any given criminal. Sometimes it brings no reform at all. Or there can be a reform, then a relapse. Or sometimes a felon fakes a conversion, to help beat the case against him or her, or to help make parole. Many felons do fake it. Other prisoners decide who is faking it by watching the "convert" for a long time. They know to watch for actions, not just words.
That kind of guarded attitude is also the best guarantee for society. The ex-felon should be watched for actions, not just words. Society should watch a long time, looking for concrete, verified, long-term proof that the ex-felon is no longer a criminal. Only then is it safe for society to restore the right to vote.
_________________
Sources:
"Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994," U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, at ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm .
OCE/CEA Three State Recidivism Study, Sept. 30, 2001, Steurer, Smith and Tracy, at ceanational.org/documents/3StateFinal.pdf..
“FBI: Violent Crime Fell 3 Percent in 2003,” Associated Press, www.foxnews.com, Oct. 25, 2004.
“The Inner Change Freedom Initiative,” Johnson and Larson, Manhattan Institute and Univ. of Pennsylvania, manhattaninstitute.org/innerchange.pdf.
Research suggests that ex-felons of all races lean toward the Democratic Party http://www.sptimes.com/News/021901/State/Blacks__Allow_ex_felo.shtml
