Niki Johnson, 35 years of age, is attending St. Petersburg College. She is working to obtain her bachelor’s degree in Public Policy Administration and seeks to help those in underserved communities.
Desmond Meade is 49 years of age and a recent graduate from Florida International University of Law. He one day hopes to practice law and serve those in stressful circumstances.
Adam McCracken, 46 years of age, went through rigorous coursework and received his Ph.D. and now practices psychology in Florida. McCracken is married and has two beautiful children.
While these individuals are of very different backgrounds and experiences, they all have something in common: they were affected by Florida’s disenfranchisement policies dealing with ex-felons.…show more content… Fesser believes that “felon advocates” are going against the very foundations that built our society just to advantage themselves politically. To Fesser, voting restrictions on felons is a just cause and anyone that disagrees with this notion is somehow morally defunct. As he states:
Disenfranchisement seems a particularly appropriate punishment for felons. The murderer, rapist, or thief has expressed contempt for his fellow citizens and broken the rules of society in the most unmistakable way. It’s fitting that society should deprive him of his role in determining the content of those rules or electing the magistrate who enforces them. (Fesser)
From Fesser’s statements, it is reasonable to conclude that he has not taken the time to learn about the positions of Stevenson and his fellow “felon advocates.” Fesser sets his argument as if those who are in favor of re-enfranchisement want all penalties regarding ex-felons to evaporate. However, Stevenson never makes the argument that felony disenfranchisement should be completely disbanded. Being a lawyer, unlike Fesser, Stevenson has studied the law extensively and has the utmost respect for the rule of law. However, he does recognize the difference between “just and unjust laws.” Stevenson believes that the the current system is biased and needs to be reevaluated in order to bring about more impactful…show more content… If the main goal of Fesser and Bondi is to rehabilitate felons and protect citizens, their support of disenfranchisement policies is contradictory. According to a study, Prisoner Disenfranchisement Policy: A Threat to Democracy?, conducted by Mandeep K. Dhami, psychology professor at the University of Cambridge, discovered that “allowing prisoners to vote, by contrast, may strengthen their social ties and commitment to the common good, thus promoting legally responsible participation in civil society.” Here, Dhami makes the case that allowing felons to engage in their right to vote could encourage them to be more productive members of society, a direct contrast to Bondi’s stance. Dhami has realized that the more we seek to punish people for their crimes, the harder we are making the possibility of them being fully reinstated back into the
