Extending Prison Terms Beyond Prison Walls
Most of the people reading this blog entry have never been a felon, and hopefully they never will. For many citizens, it is easy to ignore the rights of felons and ex-felons, drawing the conclusion that any obstacles that felons face are the just, natural consequences of their actions. In fact, in addition to societal prejudice against ex-convicts who have served their time, there are plenty of legal restrictions preventing such people from voting or holding a variety of professional jobs. David Stokes has already pointed out how such laws needlessly deplete our work force by making it illegal for many employers to choose to hire ex-felons, even those who have served the full punishment for their crimes as dictated by law.
Not only is barring felons from professions such as hairdressing or real estate bad economic policy, it is also unjust in that it extends a criminal’s punishment beyond the confines of prison, to the rest of his or her life. When a person is found guilty of a crime, a judge decides on a sentence, which is sometimes modified by a parole board. This sentence is intended to make up for the crime. However, according to Human Rights Watch:
Offenders may lose the right to vote, to serve on a jury, or to hold public office, among other “civil disabilities” that may continue long after a criminal sentence has been served.
Some would go so far as to label continuing disenfranchisement of ex-felons, such as being barred from voting or working in certain professions, as a form of double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.
According to Associate Circuit Judge Christine Carpenter in this article in the Columbia Daily Tribune, inability to find a job is the biggest obstacle for prisoners attempting to rejoin society. Carpenter, who presides over attempts to reintegrate prisoners into the community, praised a program that uses federal subsidies to employ newly released prisoners in part-time community service jobs. Such programs could make a huge difference to ex-cons who are barred from so many professional licenses. If such barriers were dissolved, on the other hand, then the government wouldn’t need to waste money on subsidies that pay people to hire ex-cons.
115.133. 2. No person who is adjudged incapacitated shall be entitled to register or vote. No person shall be entitled to vote:
(1) While confined under a sentence of imprisonment;
(2) While on probation or parole after conviction of a felony, until finally discharged from such probation or parole; or
(3) After conviction of a felony or misdemeanor connected with the right of suffrage.
3. Except as provided in federal law or federal elections and in section 115.277, no person shall be entitled to vote if the person has not registered to vote in the jurisdiction of his or her residence prior to the deadline to register to vote.
— In other words, Mary: In Missouri, if you’ve completed your probation and parole requirements, and as long as your felony wasn’t a voting violation, you can vote as an ex-felon. You ought to do a little research before you go quoting people who AREN’T Missourians. “Show-Me,” you know.
Comment by ray — September 25, 2010 @ 8:46 p.m.
This entry never suggests that it applies strictly to Missouri policy.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — September 26, 2010 @ 2:50 a.m.
Must be why it’s published on showmedaily.org
Comment by ray — September 27, 2010 @ 10:38 a.m.
Show-Me Daily entries often consider policy in other states, and relate it to Missouri. Analogues are never perfect, but that doesn’t mean they’re not useful.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — September 27, 2010 @ 12:42 p.m.