Running head: PERCEPTION AND DISEFRANCHISEMENT 1 PERCEPTION AND DISEFRANCHISEMENT 5 Perception of Permanent Disenfranchisement in the State of Kentucky Vanessa Woodard Professor Mario de Carril Ph120 Critical Thinking January 12, 2018 Disenfranchisement laws have prevented many people from taking part in the nation’s democratic processes. Many people across the entire nation are affected this draconian. In the strongest possible terms, the introduction of limitations to felony convicts to vote must be discouraged because they are doing injustice to the very people who are supposed to have a say in the democratic affairs of the nation. The perceptions being promoted by these laws are wide off the mark. There are forty eight states that do not allow inmates to take part in voting. Thirty six states prevent convicted felons from voting during the time they are on parole. Thirty one states also exclude ex-felony probationers from voting even after they are through with serving their prison terms. Nine other states bar people convicted of particular crimes from voting, or they allow for voting rights to be restored after a particular period of time. The big question is does the crimes that these people commit stop them from being human beings? The perceptions that are being created in the minds of these people are very dangerous since they tend to alienate them further from the society rather than rehabilitating them. It is high time we as a nation reconsidered this position in order to save our future. We do not want to create enemies from our own people and then feel threatened when they turn against us due to their inhuman and dangerous mindsets that we so actively took part in creating (Kalan, 2015). Clearly, the policy of disenfranchisement together with the civil rights restoration of the application is doing more harm than good in our nation. It is estimated that 2.5% (53 million) of the whole population have lost their voting rights as a result of felony convictions. 3 Cons. of disenfranchisement The most enduring consequence of disenfranchisement is the loss of voting rights. Depending on the jurisdiction, others may as well be disqualified from many types of employment thus adding onto their frustrations. They may be denied access to quality and affordable housing apart from having parental rights terminated. The common perception is that these harsh penalties are based on a misplaced premise of improving public safety. There are punitive measures requiring sex offenders to maintain their information on a public registry. Convicted felony offenders with a history of drug crimes are prevented from applying for income-based housing, educational loans and other public welfare benefits. This revelation of the dire repercussions of disfranchisement is an enough reason to oppose it especially with the new facts. What’s most interesting about this view is that these people are treated as enemies of the land and not ...

1. Running head: PERCEPTION AND DISEFRANCHISEMENT 1
PERCEPTION AND DISEFRANCHISEMENT 5
Perception of Permanent Disenfranchisement in the State of
Kentucky
Vanessa Woodard
Professor Mario de Carril
Ph120 Critical Thinking
January 12, 2018
Disenfranchisement laws have prevented many people from
taking part in the nation’s democratic processes. Many people
across the entire nation are affected this draconian. In the

2. strongest possible terms, the introduction of limitations to
felony convicts to vote must be discouraged because they are
doing injustice to the very people who are supposed to have a
say in the democratic affairs of the nation. The perceptions
being promoted by these laws are wide off the mark. There are
forty eight states that do not allow inmates to take part in
voting.
Thirty six states prevent convicted felons from voting during
the time they are on parole. Thirty one states also exclude ex-
felony probationers from voting even after they are through
with serving their prison terms. Nine other states bar people
convicted of particular crimes from voting, or they allow for
voting rights to be restored after a particular period of time. The
big question is does the crimes that these people commit stop
them from being human beings? The perceptions that are being
created in the minds of these people are very dangerous since
they tend to alienate them further from the society rather than
rehabilitating them.
It is high time we as a nation reconsidered this position in order
to save our future. We do not want to create enemies from our
own people and then feel threatened when they turn against us
due to their inhuman and dangerous mindsets that we so actively
took part in creating (Kalan, 2015). Clearly, the policy of
disenfranchisement together with the civil rights restoration of
the application is doing more harm than good in our nation. It is
estimated that 2.5% (53 million) of the whole population have
lost their voting rights as a result of felony convictions.
3 Cons. of disenfranchisement
The most enduring consequence of disenfranchisement is the
loss of voting rights. Depending on the jurisdiction, others may
as well be disqualified from many types of employment thus
adding onto their frustrations. They may be denied access to
quality and affordable housing apart from having parental rights
terminated. The common perception is that these harsh penalties
are based on a misplaced premise of improving public safety.
There are punitive measures requiring sex offenders to maintain

3. their information on a public registry. Convicted felony
offenders with a history of drug crimes are prevented from
applying for income-based housing, educational loans and other
public welfare benefits. This revelation of the dire
repercussions of disfranchisement is an enough reason to oppose
it especially with the new facts. What’s most interesting about
this view is that these people are treated as enemies of the land
and not nationals of the country who ought to be corrected in
love. Perhaps, the only thing that I would have believed from
this scenario is the fact that this people had violated the law.
However, that does not mean that a wrong can be corrected by
treating the offender in an inhuman manner.
Another reason that I am strongly opposed to the so called legal
actions is because it denies a very large portion of people from
taking part in their democratic rights like voting. Over 57.5% of
the convicts reported having voted again before being punished
for felony. Two thirds of the people who had not voted before
their conviction reported an increased desire to take part in the
voting process now that they were grownups with families and
an immense appreciation for the value of voting.
A third factor is that over 90% of the offenders did not know
the due process for the restoration of the voting rights. A
further 10% said that they did not know of the existence of an
application process. These individuals always feel demeaned by
the reality of having to apply for their voting rights. All
convicts felt that the disenfranchisement was unfair and that
they did not deserve it. Eighty-three percent of the convicts do
not have the resources and skills required for them to
successfully apply for the restoration of their voting rights, with
35% not having even a high school diploma or GED. Three
quarters of the convicts reported that they had no knowledge of
a person that could have aided them to complete the registration
process.
Kentucky is a good example of a place where such like cases are
rampant. One thing is true however; that crimes are committed
and people are punished for their mistakes. Imprisonment and

4. fines are already enough punitive measures that can teach the
offenders a lifetime lesson. Going an extra mile of denying
them their basic human right of voting is simply demoralizing.
We are creating baggage that at one point in time is going to be
very big for the society to deal with and sustain. Let there be
avenues that can be used in dealing with highly sensitive cases
other than making people feel guilty indefinitely over
something that they are already paying for. This is the time to
do away with all the wrong perceptions about these individuals
make them feel loved and wanted.
References
P. S. Kalan. March 20, 2006. “Convictions and Doubts:
Retribution, Representation, and the Debate over Felon
Disenfranchisement” from Stanford Public Law and Legal
Theory Working Paper Series, as accessed from
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/karlan-stanford-fvr.