Written by: Subigya Raj Kharel - 29065, Grade VII
Posted on: 27 February, 2024
The debate on whether felons should be able to voice out their opinions for the betterment of the country is a controversial one. On one side, there is the debate that if we don’t let criminals or ex-criminals vote after they’ve done their punishment, that shows restriction and goes against the ideas of a “second chance”. But on the other side, there are people believing that the felons should have a timeout from the voting booth, either as a consequence for breaking the law or that they’ll get corruption in the mix and rig the politics show. So, let’s review both of these sides to conclude on which one seems more right, both morally and legally.
Letting them vote is like opening a new door for them, letting them become a responsible citizen and function normally in the society again. Also, slamming the door shut by restricting them to vote is like saying, “Hey! You’re still not one of us.”, creating a discriminatory boundary. However, there are still some people arguing that we should not forget the rules and be lenient, which can show that we’re not that serious about our law. And again, there’s some people that think that the right to vote should vary upon their offence, like if it's something really big such as murder or kidnapping, then they will be banned from voting for a while however if it’s something smaller like trespassing or petty theft, then we just consider it a mistake and move on.
Consider Eugène François Vidocq as an example, he was a criminal, and a real good one. He was a master at forging documents, theft, duelling and escaping prison. However, with a sudden change of mind, he decided to be a police informant that worked with many agencies to catch criminals. With this decision, he didn’t only significantly contribute to the police world, but he inspired many others by being a normal functioning member of society or even more. He makes the people who say “No one can change” second guess their opinions.
Should we let those who've done their time have a say in shaping the future? Advocates say, "Absolutely, it's a step toward rebuilding lives." Opponents counter with, "Hold on, we need to respect the rules we've set." Personally, I find myself leaning toward giving ex-convicts the chance to cast their votes, but it's not a one-size-fits-all decision. It hinges on the specifics of their past actions and whether they're earnestly working to redeem themselves. It all comes down to fairness, understanding, and believing in the power of people to grow and change for the better.
