Ramdom joy

Shawn Macomber suggests re-enfranchisement for felons in an article today, and I find myself disagreeing. Maybe. I started considering it during this last election cycle, and I still haven't found what I consider to be a solid answer.

He then goes on to note that one of the reasons people on the right oppose re-enfranchisement of felons is that they will form a large, new block of Democrats. That's a reasonable assumption, although the assumption that they will actually vote in numbers large enough to make a difference is arguable. Either way, opposition on those grounds is unreasonable. I object for an entirely different reason: not every class of citizen in the United States has the same rights (even with regards to voting) as every other class of voter.

Minors, for example, have an abbreviated set of rights, and curbs are placed on the political activity of active military personnel. Former sex offenders often have restrictions placed on them that aren't placed on other criminals. Shawn acknowledges this, to some extent, when noting that felons are restricted from gun ownership (which, I agree, has dubious value and cause in the case of non-violent offenders).

There is a reason for each set of curbs: minors aren't trusted with more than an abbreviated set of rights because they haven't yet reached that somewhat arbitrary age where we believe that they should have the education, maturity, and social knowledge to make their votes reasonable and well-considered. Even at the age of majority, though, they can't drinking alcohol or run for some public offices. Though they have done nothing wrong, these non-minor citizens are excluded from certain practices that are open to older citizens.

The question is what is it that we achieve by pushing felons out of that most basic, active level of participation? From my point of view, felons (in a broad and sweeping sense) have exhibited that extraordinary level of bad judgment that leaves in question their ability to be constructive voters. They may have paid their debt, but they have also set themselves apart by their actions.

Put it this way: while it isn't stated explicitly at sentencing, I consider the curbs on rights to be a part of the punishment of felons. It's part of the package of committing a crime bad enough to be labeled a felony: you go to jail, you complete parole, you get to be free and have a job and take part in life again, but you don't get to vote.

I don't, unlike Shawn, believe that this is dehumanizing the entire class of citizens. I think it's just due diligence. That is, when trust is broken it isn't repaired with a prison sentence. If a check forger completes his sentence, would it be wise to give him employment in a bank? The crime continues to matter beyond the prison sentence. This isn't an attempt to make monsters of every felon, but simply saying that there is a reasonable skepticism that has to be factored into the argument.

If I could leave it at that, then I would probably be comfortable. The problem comes when you start considering what constitutes a felony.

And here's where I think he might be right. I don't know that it's supportable to think that "the real monsters are largely either still in jail or under onerous probation requirement," but it's reasonable to argue that we've criminalized things like drug offenses to the point that what constitutes a felony today is a far cry from what constituted a felony at the birth of our nation.

Our booming prison population is something that leaves me uncomfortable even outside the boundaries of this conversation; in the context of re-enfranchisement, it takes on an even more important role. Examining voting rights in relation to the changes we've made to our judicial system is not only reasonable, it's necessary.

I don't remain entirely convinced that re-enfranchisement is the right answer, but I am moved to address the issue again. Is any one-size fits all solution right or is their room for consideration of individual cases or new guidelines (as I think there should be in relation to gun ownership)?