This thesis provides an ethical analysis of imprisonment as a mode of punishment. Consisting in an introduction and four papers the thesis addresses several important questions concerning imprisonment from a number of different perspectives and theoretical starting points. One overall conclusion of this thesis is that imprisonment, as a mode of punishment, deserves more attention from moral and legal philosophers. It is also concluded that a more complete ethical assessment of prison conditions and prison management requires a broader focus. It must include an explicit discussion of both how imprisonment directly affects prison inmates and its negative side-effects on third parties. Another conclusion is that ethical discussions on prison conditions should not be too easily reduced to a question about how harsh or lenient is should be. Paper 1 argues that prisoners have a right to privacy. It is argued that respect for inmates’ privacy is related to respect for them as moral agents. Consequently, respect for inmates’ privacy is called for by different established philosophical theories about the justification of legal punishment. Practical implications of this argument are discussed and it is argued that invasion of privacy should be minimized to the greatest extent possible, without compromising other important values or the rights to safety and security. It is also proposed that respect for privacy should be part of the objective of creating and upholding a secure environment. Paper 2 discusses whether the collateral harm of imprisonment to the children and other close family members of prison inmates may give rise to special moral obligations towards them. Several collateral harms, including decreased psychological wellbeing, financial costs, loss of economic opportunities, and intrusion and control over their private lives, are identified. Two perspectives in moral philosophy, consequentialism and deontology, are then applied in order to assess whether these harms are permissible. It is argued that from either perspective it is hard to defend the claim that allowing for these harms are morally permissible. Consequently, imprisonment should be used only as a last resort. Where it is deemed necessary, it gives rise to special moral obligations. Using the notion of residual obligation, these obligations are then categorized and clarified.                 Paper 3 focuses on an argument that has figured in the philosophical debate on felon disenfranchisement. This argument states that as a matter of democratic self-determination, a legitimate democratic collective has the collective right to decide whether to disenfranchise felons as a way of defining their political identity. Yet, such a collective’s right to self-determination is limited, since the choice to disenfranchise anyone must be connected to normative considerations of political significance. This paper defends this argument against three charges that has been raised to it. In doing so it also explores under what circumstances felon disenfranchisement can be permissible. Paper 4 explores the question of whether prison inmates suffering from ADHD should be administered psychopharmacological intervention (methylphenidate) for their condition. The theoretical starting point for the discussion is the communicative theory of punishment, which understands criminal punishment   as a form of secular penance. Viewed through the lens of the communicative theory it is argued that the provision of pharmacological treatment to offenders with ADHD need not necessarily be conceived of as an alternative to punishment, but as an aid to achieving the penological ends of secular penance. Thus, in this view offenders diagnosed with ADHD should have the option to undergo pharmacological treatment. / <p>QC 20170110</p>

This is a collection of four papers about the All-Affected Principle (AAP): the view that every person whose morally weighty interests are affected by a democratic decision has the right to participate in that decision. The first paper ('Narrow Possibilism about Democratic Enfranchisement') examines how we should distribute democratic participation rights: a plausible version of AAP must avoid treating unlike cases alike, which would be procedurally unfair. The solution is to distribute participation rights proportionately to the risk that a person's interests will be affected. AAP thus implies an account of political equality that requires adherence to the 'one person-one vote' model only if interests are indeed equally affected. The second paper ('Economic Participation Rights and the AAP') argues that AAP supporters have paid insufficient attention to economic participation rights. The exercise of such rights raises unique worries about democratic accountability, which is why their exercise is constrained by a number of duties. The third paper ('What AAP Is, and How (Not) to Fight It') explores how AAP fares in light of possible objections from desirability and feasibility. Unlike crude versions of AAP, a plausibly restricted version of AAP cannot be dismissed as easily as many AAP sceptics may have thought. My reflections here are useful for AAP supporters and sceptics alike: this paper helps clarify what kind of objection can cast serious doubt on AAP. The fourth paper ('Criminal Disenfranchisement, Political Wrongdoing, and Affected Interests') asks: is AAP compatible with criminal disenfranchisement? AAP, when endorsed in combination with a plausible theory of punishment, is compatible with disenfranchising a narrow set of criminal wrongdoers only: those guilty of 'political wrongdoing', which is wrong primarily because it undermines democratic procedures and institutions for private gain. The upshot is that current blanket policies of criminal disenfranchisement are incompatible with AAP.

The research in this paper seeks to articulate how interest groups can effectively enfranchise the barred felon votes within their state through legislation. After following the history of felony voting laws in the United States, I first address and utilize Florida as a successful case study of felony enfranchisement. The state’s recent legislative victory in 2018 has returned tens of thousands of Floridians to the ballot, and is therefore, a superlative example to emulate in other state battles for felon rights. The paper also looks at the progress of felon voting rights made in Iowa. While Iowa still employs permanent felon disenfranchisement, the state is an integral example to study given that the electorate actually enjoyed felon enfranchisement from 2005-2011, before reverting back to disenfranchisement under executive orders. Iowa’s inability to secure felon voting rights would prove to be very informative on how implementing lasting legislation for felon rights is to be accomplished. The paper also considers the strategic implementation of legislation for felon voting rights through the lens of the venue shopping theory, which “refers to the activities of advocacy groups and policymakers who seek out a decision setting where they can air grievances with current policy and present alternative policy proposals.

Bien que le caractère fondamental du droit de vote ne soit plus contesté dans les pays démocratiques, il semble néanmoins subsister un fort a priori quant aux qualités morales requises pour pouvoir disposer de la capacité électorale. En effet, dans de nombreux États, on considère que les détenus doivent systématiquement être privés de leur droit de vote, car indignes de participer à la vie démocratique. Néanmoins, tant la Cour constitutionnelle d’Afrique du Sud que la Cour suprême du Canada et la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme ont invalidé des dispositions législatives qui allaient en ce sens. L’analyse comparative de ces décisions, doublée d’une étude de l’évolution historique du droit de vote, révèle que ce droit, autrefois conçu comme un droit fonctionnel – soit un droit de vote ayant d’abord pour objectif la protection de la démocratie en tant qu’institution – est aujourd’hui perçu essentiellement comme un droit individuel - soit un droit de vote avant tout défini comme un droit fondamental attaché à l’individu et à sa dignité. Or, outre le fait que cette sacralisation de l’aspect individuel du droit de vote laisse désormais peu de place aux limitations étatiques, elle a aussi pour effet d’occulter les valeurs collectives qui sont, autant que la participation individuelle au suffrage, au cœur de la démocratie. Cette thèse propose ainsi certaines pistes de solutions qui visent à rétablir un équilibre entre les deux pôles du droit de vote, en cherchant à la fois à préserver la dignité individuelle attachée à l’acte électoral et à valoriser la dignité de la fonction électorale comme élément essentiel de l’intégrité du processus démocratique / While the fundamental and universal nature of a citizen’s right to participate in the electoral process through voting is no longer disputed in democracies, the degree of morality required for electoral capacity is still up for debate. Indeed, in many countries, felons are thought unworthy of participation in the democratic process and are thus systematically disenfranchised. However, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the Supreme Court of Canada and the European Court of Human Rights have all, in recent years, invalidated legislation that provided for general and automatic disqualification of convicted felons. A comparative analysis of these rulings, paired with a study of historical evolution of the right to vote, reveals that what was once designed as a functional right, one primarily aimed at protecting democracy as an institution, is now perceived strictly as an individual right attached to one’s personal dignity. The shift from a right focused on its “subject” rather than its “object” has had unexpected consequences. The sanctification of the individual’s right has not only encroached on the government’s ability to limit the franchise, it has also undermined the collective values that are, as much as is the individual right to participate in the election, at the heart of democracy. This thesis proposes a number of solutions to the current imbalance between the two aspects of the right to vote, all aimed at preserving the individual dignity tied to the right to cast a ballot but also at promoting the electoral function, crucial to the integrity of the democratic process

This empirical study analyzes the political implications for presidential election outcomes that stem from varying felon disenfranchisement laws within the United States. In the past decade incarceration rates have drastically increased, consequently augmenting the disenfranchised population. This paper focuses on presidential election outcomes and state political party majorities in the election years 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. I use demographic characteristics to calibrate assumptions for voter turnout and political party choice among the disenfranchised populations within each state. I then apply these voting populations to historical election outcomes and find that three state political party outcomes change, as well as the potential for a reversal in the 2000 presidential election. I also apply the estimated voting populations by state to an entirely Republican turnout and then to an entirely Democratic turnout to analyze the scope of the disenfranchised population and find that under these assumptions several states’ political party majorities and several election outcomes are reversed.

No description available.

No description available.