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.

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 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>