Deactivating The Mouse Trap Analysis

Those that are against such a disenfranchisement, however, have arguments of their own. The first such argument observes that not all felons are evil or immoral to the same degree; in many cases, those that are arrested are average citizens and do not deserve such harsh treatment. According to statistics of the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) of the Federal Bureau of Investigations of 2007 approximately 14,380,370 arrests were made nationwide, or 4,832.5 of every 100,000 people. Arrests and convictions are not made solely on murderers, molesters, and rapists; common nonviolent crimes, such as shoplifting or drug possession, are included in these statistics as well. Sanford McLaughlin, a Mississippi resident, was disenfranchised for life because he was found guilty of passing a bad check for $150 (“Losing” 5). The law automatically assumes that McLaughlin is a criminal; in reality, he could be an upstanding citizen that made one poor decision that affected his entire life. Unfortunately, disenfranchisement laws do not look at crime itself, just at the occurrence of such an incident. There is no regard for felon’s criminal history, or lack thereof, or the type of crime he committed. Another factor regarding the lack of wisdom is the age of

It is a status that will follow and affect every ex-offender even after they have served their time in jail. In this case, our criminal-justice system is constantly discriminating against African Americans in order to identify them as felons and take away their rights. Currently, more than two million African Americans are under the control of the criminal-justice system--in prison or jail, on probation or parole. Felon-disenfranchisement laws bar thirteen percent of African American men from casting a vote, thus making mass incarceration an effective tool of voter suppression--one reminiscent of the poll taxes and literacy of the Jim Crow era. Employers routinely discriminate against an applicant based on criminal history, as do landlords. In some major urban areas, more than half of working-age African American men have criminal record and are subject to legalized discrimination for the rest of their lives. These men are permanently locked into an inferior, second-class status, or caste, bylaw and custom. As Alexander argues, we have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.

About 6.1 million Americans convicted of a felony have been barred from voting by the law in most states (Chung 1). The condition regarded to as felon disenfranchisement is controlled by laws provided for by the individual states within the US. Unlike the states of Maine and Vermont which allow felons the right to vote while in incarceration, most other states have withdrawn the right from convicts. Ten states in the country have permanently restricted specific felons from participating in elections. With the argument that the country’s legacy in safeguarding democracy through felon disenfranchisement, opponents of the idea assert that by completing their sentences, felons have paid the debt owed to the society and should have their privileges and rights fully restored. They further assert that part of the efforts to uphold democracy is to get rid of unfair provisions such as laws advocating for felon disenfranchisement. On the other hand, proponents note that felons and ex-felons should be allowed to vote due to the expression of their poor judgment. While the debate continues to elucidate divergent views, numerous factors illustrate that felon disenfranchisement is inconsequential and does not contribute to the betterment of the country.

“The United States has among the world's most restrictive felon disenfranchisement laws” (Green). The areas in the United States that do not allow ex-felons the right to

The first problem that can be solved with giving felons their rights back is giving them a way back out of trouble ,and away to be a modeled citizen. For example, in this article Vikki Hankins a convicted felonies tells of her quest to get her rights back. She has tried multiple times with no positive outcome. Her dream is to become a lawyer but because of her record she can’t take the bar exam (Penaloza 1). This here leads to some individuals going back to life they know better such as crime. Since they can no longer progress at a scholarly level into a professional level people tend to settle for less or even reform to crime(Penaloza 1).

One of the primary problems in Kentucky is the unemployment rate of people with criminal backgrounds that caused the use of 'ban the box’ by employers in all but one city in Kentucky and among many other states. Former inmates often face restrictions in different situations that may include housing, voting and employment (Hoskins, 2014). The problem does not affect only those people in Kentucky, but also other states in the United States and even in other countries. The majority of the employers show reluctance to absorb people who have criminal records. Some of the studies show that more than half of the employers will discriminate an individual due to their incarceration records (NIJ, 2013). Even in a situation that they find employment,

One of the main barriers that inmates face when they are released from prison is limited cognitive skills, limited education and work experience, and substance abuse or other mental health problems. Substance abuse and other mental health problems limit employability because it limits the job readiness that is required for employment (Holzer, Raphael & Stoll, 2003). Another issue that is faced when inmates are released into society is that any skills that they did have prior to conviction has diminished greatly and they face lower pay due to their diminished or lack of skills, and the attitudes that have been developed during their time in prison deeply affects their attitude during their search for employment. Offenders also face another barrier when searching for employment. Many businesses can be held legally liable for any criminal action that their employees may cause (Holzer, Raphael & Stoll, 2003). These barriers that offenders face upon release is why solid solutions and planning must be implemented when considering the integration of ex-felons into society and preparation for reentry must begin well before the scheduled release date in order to successfully reintegrate an inmate into society and reduce the rate of recidivism.

The criminal justice system accepts responsibility for making our neighborhoods and cities safe for all. The repercussions of removing people from their families and communities and then depositing them back later, without any assistance or substantial rehabilitation, are grave.9 Men and women who have served extensive prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are not only left with little or no social support but also clearly marked by the criminal justice system as potentially threatening repeat offenders. Although mass incarceration policies have recently received a great deal of attention (due to incarceration becoming prohibitively costly), failure to address the legacy of racism passed down by our forefathers and its ties to economic oppression will only result in the continued reinvention of Jim

Felon disenfranchisement is the loss of the right to vote for people who have committed felonies. When researching deeper into felon disenfranchisement, there is an underlying racial factor that consistently comes up. Some say disenfranchisement of felons is racially oppressive and a threat to democracy, while some argue that it’s functional and that race has no relevance. To start this paper I will give a brief background on felon disenfranchisement in relation to race. I will examine and analyze those who believe that “yes,” disenfranchisement of felons is heavily rooted in racial persecution. I will then examine and analyze those who say “no”, felon disenfranchisement is necessary and has no racial impact. After copious amounts of research, I have come to agree with the “yes” side, because their facts are more persuasive and their use of history is in depth, and as a whole this side delivered a well rounded argument.

The criminal justice system in America is a system designed to work in three distinct steps. The first being to fairly identify those breaking the law, second, create a process through which to both punish and rehabilitate criminals, and lastly integrate them back into society. The current system typically goes unquestioned, as those in the system seem to be deserving of what ever happens while they are in it, even once they have served their prison sentence. It is only upon deeper inspection that we begin to realize the discrimination and unfair tactics used to introduce certain groups of society into the criminal justice system and proceed to trap them there. This is the issue addressed in Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, and it is through arrests, sentencing and further upon release from jail that this oppressive system is created and maintained.

This poses dilemmas as for employment breaks. Another disadvantage that comes to play is the initiative filling out the form of employment (The application). On that application for employment; reads a box that states criminal history, arrests previous to applying, also asks

(2017) Although some employers implement affirmative action practices, the unconscious bias and prejudice remains. This, along with the lack of oversight in the hiring process, leads to discrimination against African Americans. However, while this kind of discrimination is illegal, Alexander discusses a different kind of discrimination, one which is legal and affects millions of black men. When a criminal is released from prison, “he has scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a freed slave or a black person living ‘free’ in Mississippi at the height of Jim Crow.” (Alexander 2012) The federal law that protects people from discrimination does not apply to ex-convicted felons. When filling out a form or application, we often come across the question asking about our criminal record. Though it is illegal to discriminate based on race, color, gender, religion, age, disability or national origin, it is not illegal to discriminate against criminals. Because of this, ex-convicts can be denied employment, housing, education, and public benefits. Given that many of these ex-convicts come from low-income

Recent sociological studies have focused on pressing social issues such as urban crime and mass incarceration, and examining the invisible link between urban crime, poverty and race. Research indicates that mass incarceration has always worked to the detriment of African Americans, especially the low-income earners (Western, 2006). The aftermath of this trend is that the employment prospects of former felons are significantly diminished (Pager, 2007). Felon disfranchisement in turn distorts the local and national politics of the county (Uggen, 2006). This paper focuses on addressing the contemporary trends and ramifications of mass incarceration of African Americans, and elucidating on the criminal justice policy and the factors contributing to the intangible but real racial divide.

More studied than the effect of felon disenfranchisement on individuals is the effect on the wider community. These laws diminish the voice of the Black community in multiple ways. First, they generally dilute the power of the Black vote, particularly because the disenfranchised population of a city tends to be concentrated in relatively few neighborhoods. For example, a 1992 study “showed that 72% of all of New York State's prisoners came from only 7 of New York City's 55 community board districts,” and a 2003 study showed that “53% of Illinois prisoners released in 2001 returned to Chicago, and 34% of those releases were concentrated in 6 of 77 Chicago communities.” This is problematic because, as law professor Debra Parkes summarizes: “When the views of one group are systematically cut out of the political process, the public debate will be skewed.” When the disenfranchised are concentrated in few neighborhoods, the political power of those neighborhoods is reduced.

Immemorial, governments and individual citizens have had to walk a thin tightrope between the two ideals. This controversy was the catalyst that sparked the first ten amendments of the Constitution that we know as the Bill of Rights and, how in addition to these rights secured by America's forefathers, a number of institutions have arisen to ensure the protection of individual rights in an increasingly complex world. In order to add balance to this equation, the criminal