State laws disenfranchising felons and ex-felons have existed in many American states since before the Civil War. However, in the aftermath of the Civil War, new, more severe restrictions were passed as part of the Jim Crowe Era laws aimed at preventing black citizens from exercising their new rights. While many of these laws were eventually stricken down by Supreme Court decisions, felon disenfranchisement provisions survived scrutiny. This opened the door for white backlash against the gains made by the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and ‘70s to manifest itself via the development of the massive prison industrial system over the last 40 years. This paper’s inquiry is focused on the political consequences of the huge racial discrepancies in criminal justice outcomes in the United States, specifically on whether the disenfranchisement of felons and ex-felons depresses turnout among eligible black voters. I use an analysis of black voter turnout and its relationship to the severity of state disenfranchisement laws from 1980 through 2016 to explore three hypotheses related to these effects. The results suggest that, when all or most ex-felons are disenfranchised, the resulting dilution of the political efficacy and power of the communities into which they re-enter depresses turnout among eligible black voters in those communities. Additionally, I find evidence of significant depression in eligible black turnout in Southern states, suggesting the need for further investigation into the perpetuation of racial inequalities in specific geographic loci in the United States.

The disenfranchisement of felons follows a long American tradition of selectively granting the most coveted democratic tradition - voting. As a collateral "civil" consequence to criminal conviction that is legally deemed as non-penal, felon voting prohibitions have been used as an exclusionary tool for certain otherwise eligible voting populations. Current research finds that African-Americans individually and collectively may experience diminished voting power due to felon voting laws (Uggen & Manza, 2002; Manza & Uggen, 2004; King & Mauer, 2004). The purpose of this research is to examine opinions toward felon voting prohibitions in a state that has one of the most restrictive laws in this area. Kentucky is the only state that absolutely restricts all convicted felons from voting and maintains the same voting rights restoration process regardless of offense type, whereas other similarly restrictive states have legally, though not practically, streamlined this process for some offenders. The sample consists of predominantly African-American college students that live and learn as students in Kentucky. It utilizes a modified version of the national survey instrument created by Manza, Brooks & Uggen (2004) - which measured attitudes toward felon enfranchisement based on variations of the correctional status of a convicted criminal and the crime committed by an individual. The data collection instrument was modified to include questions to examine respondent demographic characteristics and moderator variables that may impact opinions toward felon voting prohibitions. The analyses examine the interactions between socio-demographic characteristics, level of knowledge, attitudes towards rehabilitation, and opinions towards the restoration and retention of voting rights. The findings suggest that the majority of respondents favor restoration and retention, though subgroup differences among respondents and subcategory differences among the dependent variables, such as offense type and offender correctional status, determine the level and strength of support for felon voting rights. The implications of the findings are contextualized by examining the importance of voting in a democracy; the significance of examining the attitudes of young African-Americans; the impact of socialization on political opinions; and the effect of legal status and offense type on opinions towards felon voting rights.

Individuals with a criminal background face several barriers to securing employment, one of which is the reluctance of hiring managers to extend employment offers to them. African American ex-offenders are disproportionately affected by these barriers. The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes of hiring managers in a metropolitan area in the Southern United States and to identify the factors that influence the hiring decisions of ex-offenders. A descriptive study design was used to explore whether type of criminal offense, length of crime, or race of offender affect a hiring manager'€™s decision to hire an ex-felon. The disparate impact of discrimination theory served as the theoretical framework. Data were collected from a nonrandom, purposive sample of 376 current and former hiring managers and HR professionals who make hiring decisions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Study findings revealed 53% of respondents said they would not hire a person with a felony conviction, which supports the claim that a person'€™s criminal background does play a role in whether an employer extends an employment offer. The findings of this study may provide guidance to legislators in developing or amending hiring laws to better facilitate the reintegration of people with felony criminal backgrounds. Such action may engender positive social change through the reduction of criminal activity in urban areas, gains in the economy, improved public safety, more stable neighborhoods, and a decrease in the cost of housing offenders. Moreover, positive social change may occur when offenders do not recidivate because the state will not have to spend funds on incarceration.

This paper seeks to understand the persistence of disenfranchisement policies and the disproportionate impact these policies have on marginalized groups of the American electorate, specifically black Americans. Felon disenfranchisement, or the restriction of voting rights for criminals convicted of felonies, has been a long-standing policy throughout the United States. Using public opinion data from the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS), this paper analyzes how certain characteristics, such as race, age, and political party identification, can influence opinions about democratic rights and whether criminals should lose theirs once convicted. The results of this analysis could help explain why disenfranchisement policies have persisted throughout U.S. history, especially if these policies have consistently high levels of support from the general public.

This study examines how criminals are portrayed in Martin Widmark’s series of children’s detective stories, JerryMaya’s Detective Agency. The aim of the study is to find out what patterns and norms are communicated through this popular series for children aged seven to nine. Fourteen books in the JerryMaya series were selected and analysed to see how the criminal is portrayed, what motives are presented and what are the consequences of the criminal act. The study shows that several of the crimes in the JerryMaya series concern morality and legislation, and that there is often a moral criminal alongside a criminal who breaks the law. In eight of the fourteen books the crimes are some form of theft, and in five of them the consequence is an arrest. Only three books contain crimes that are not theft, and in these cases the books are about subjects such as revenge, attempted escape and cheating. For example, a person who steals money is punished according to law while a person who takes revenge for being bullied as a child is given the task of lecturing about anti-bullying. The consequences of the crimes thus often depend on the situation and the criminal’s motives.

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>

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