By Michael Myllek

Prisoners. Do these men and women deserve the right to vote during and after their incarceration? All 50 states should adopt the policy of Vermont and Maine, which allows convicts of any nature to vote both during and after prison time. As of right now, Maine and Vermont are the only two states with no voting restrictions during or after incarceration. In addition, 14 states, as well as the District of Columbia, restore the right to vote for felons following their release while Maryland is the newest state to follow their lead. Four states restore the rights after incarceration and parole end, and 19 additional states require any length of probation to expire before voting rights are restored. Eight states restore voting right depending on the nature of the crime and only three states require individual petitions for restoration of voting rights after incarceration.
One reason I believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote is that here, in America, our system of government is a representative democracy. The idea behind this system is to select a few highly-educated people to represent a larger body of people rather than 350 million people all screaming their opinion. One caveat of this system is that all people must be represented or it becomes a selective government that protects some people and forgets others. This way, the thoughts and opinions of all people of every race, gender, belief system and point of view is represented in some fashion or another. By excluding the vote of convicts, we are forgetting the roots of our country and our moral and political philosophy.
I also feel that the viewpoints of prisoners must be included. Since their viewpoints as individuals who have experienced the judicial system intimately are unique and are ones that none of us could ever truly understand, their opinions should be heard. In addition, prisoners are human beings, meaning they still must be protected by the rules of our nation as well. To put their lack of input in perspective, I did not find one publication that gave the viewpoint of a convict. How can convicts be expected to participate in society if they aren’t even participating in the very articles that advocate for them. As criminologist Christopher Uggen points out, “These are folks we’ve deemed safe to live and work among us.” Uggen, employed at the University of Minnesota, goes on to explain, “they pay taxes, they participate in their communities and logistically, it’s far simpler to have a system where, if you’re in, you’re in, and if you’re out, you’re out.” Uggen believes that not allowing prisoners to vote is not only unwise, but seemingly arbitrary. He also seems to think that these regulations complicate things, as having some people that went to prison vote and others not based on the opinions of people seems overly complex and unnecessary. Rather, it should be far clearer cut in who can and cannot. How we make it clearer cut should be the topic of discussion, not how we can enforce outdated restrictions.
The prison system itself has many issues as well. Prison has become a place where individuality goes to die and hardened criminals are born. This makes it difficult for convicts to be re-socialized and see themselves as accepted members of society after they are released. They often experience feelings of exclusion as a result and continue to commit crimes thereafter. Prison is the outcome of failure, whether it be the failure of parents, school systems, our law enforcement, government or ourselves. Prison cannot be the equivalent of punishing an animal that has misbehaved; it should be a place where we find what has gone wrong, show them why it was wrong and give them the necessary tools to prevent a similar instance from happening again. It must be a place for rehabilitation and reflection, not a place for installment into the prison system. I would even go so far as to say that prisoners should be forced to vote while in prison and under probation, as it is a civic duty that should be followed as well as an important part of democracy.
This is not an example of me being soft on crime, but rather wanting to help people improve themselves. The fact of the matter is that most of these criminals did something wrong and should pay proportionately to their offense. I would argue, however, that their punishment is being locked up for years on end away from everyone they know and love. They live every day having people know that they couldn’t follow the law and they’re surrounded by people that also messed up, rather than successful people that one would want to surround themselves with. This is their punishment, and after it’s over, they must be able to do something in the world they’re released back into. If convicts feel like society has turned its back on them, they’re going to turn their backs on society, and that means continued crime and an endless cycle in which nothing improves. As Alex Padilla, Secretary of State of California explained, “If we are serious about slowing the revolving door at our jails and prisons… we need to engage, not shun.” In a perfect world, we would take away all rights from prisoners, they would do their time and learn their lesson, ultimately becoming upstanding citizens. This isn’t a perfect world though, and this isn’t how people respond to punishment when they’ve received it their whole life. Rather they need understanding and patience.
The goal of the prison system should be to make convicts stop whatever they did to get them into prison in the first place. To accomplish this, we must show them that this is a country of second chances and that we don’t forget about those who have made mistakes. What we do is we administer a proper punishment, we teach them a lesson on how to be better and we allow them to apply the lesson into society. This is how parenting and coaching works, and this is how rehabilitation should work if one wants to see results. As I said, this is a nation of second chances. I know I wouldn’t be where I am if it were not, and it’s time for us to realize that none of us are perfect. I look to a story done in August of 2016 by E:60 entitled “King Pin.” It is the story of two high schoolers, Kevin Pedersen and Alex DeCubas, who were both top flight wrestlers. It chronicles how the lives of the two boys diverged, leading to Kevin becoming a decorated DEA agent and high school wrestling coach and Alex becoming a leading smuggler under Fidel Castro during the height of the war on drugs of the 80s and 90s. It is resolved when Kevin administers the operation that catches Alex. When Alex is released upon his shortened sentence, Kevin takes him in and they both coach the same high school wrestling team. The point of this story is that criminals, even the most notorious criminals, were once innocent kids with a future. To fix the problem of repeat offenders in this nation we must remember that and try to tap into that person, that person who went to school every day ready to learn, the kid that wanted to be an astronaut or president when they grew up. Will they become an astronaut or president? No, they’ve lost that privilege, but they can still contribute to society.
Convicts also must be able to vote within prisons because, as lawmakers pass prison reform, the people in these prisons must have some say in who is making the laws for their prisons. Not allowing them to vote would be like us not allowing NYCHA (New York City Housing Authority) residents to vote for representatives that dictate public housing laws. Not only will this reduce repeat offenders in America, it will undoubtedly increase the economy. More people in the workforce and fewer in prison equals more production and more money made, and fewer tax dollars required for funding prisons and more towards education, defense or even back in the pockets of American citizens.
In summary, I believe convicts should be allowed to, and even required to vote both during and after their time in prison to stay consistent with American ideals and to do the right thing in helping our fellow Americans reintegrate themselves into society. If we can try to make the lives of Americans better, the question isn’t how can we, the question is how can we not?

Michael Myllek, FCRH ’19, is a political science major from Whiteplains, New York.