The exercise of one's civil rights is a crucial factor in determining how nationalist a citizen will be in the process of creating the federal government. The criminal justice system has made an effort to start a procedure that will allow it to reduce the likelihood of convicts returning to crime after completing their sentence. The method was created with the intention of reducing the number of offense reported cases and ensuring that there are no persistent criminal activities in society.
Ex-felons lose their civil right to engage in the democratic process after serving their sentence and "paying their debts to society." Universal suffrage is the most fundamental civil right that entitles a citizen with the right to take part in the establishment of a democratic government. The right to vote serves as an important cornerstone towards individuals having the right to participate and make decisions that deliver transformation to their democratic nation (Itzkowitz, and Oldak, 721). Democratic societies like the United States of America where the justice system has deprived ex-felons the right to vote to deny their fundamental right to decide and have influence as citizens on the type of government will serve the nation better. The disenfranchisement of ex-felons has initiated a greater consequence in tilting the outcome of the United States Senate and presidential elections outcome based on the statistics from the criminal justice system of the individuals that are deprived of the fundamental right.
The criminal justice system in their preventive mechanism of the crime has failed to achieve their objective primarily because of the actions make the ex-convicts resort to crime immediately they secure freedom. The frustration that comes with the thought of having your most fundamental civil rights deprived motivates one to develop an attitude against the reason as to why they are denied the most important right as a citizen. Ex-felons exhibit the likelihood of recidivism because they regard their fundamental civil rights as non-existent, thereby developing signs of hatred for the system (Uggen, and Manza, 801). Ex-felons consider the system as being only concerned about offering a retributive solution rather than restorative that will reconstruct their thoughts towards changing their behavior for the better good of society. The political impact that the criminal justice system establishes among people in society is worrying especially on a critical analysis that creates evidence of more Democrats suffering the denial of the right to vote due to the minority and poor constituency of the United States (Itzkowitz, and Oldak, 721). The poverty levels have at times been the fueling factor for criminal conduct and perhaps most Democrats that hail from such areas has been adversely affected by the universal suffrage disenfranchisement. Republicans have won elections on an unfair assessment since most affected Democrats are denied the right to exercise their democratic rights.
Denial of the right to vote for the ex-felonies is an outright unfair punishment that fails to serve the purpose of initiating such an action on the people that might be willing to reform for the better. The right to vote is an epitome of nationalism and defines the right to liberty and freedom to make a choice of the systems of governance that will initiate change to the country. Some people are engaged in crime partly because of an inadequate economic system that has resulted in the loss of jobs, lack of proper education, and provision of essential services. The government is responsible for facilitating an enduring environment for business to thrive thereby ensuring equitable distribution of resources that will provide a robust economic system. The people accused of criminal activities require being granted the opportunity to make a democratic choice of the leaders that will be responsible for the development of a system that allows the achievement of a system that will provide solutions towards ending poverty. Crime rates are never reduced through increased number of incarceration and denying people a fundamental civil right but through an elaborate criminal justice system that understands the causes of crime and working towards eliminating it.
I believe that it is about time the ex-felonies are given back their primary right to determine the leadership that understands the challenges they are facing and maybe take part in a rehabilitation exercise that will weigh in tremendous benefit to the society. It is only through engaging an appropriate criminal justice system rather than practice an ineffective methodology of limiting a fundamental civil right. The frustration and level of stigma that comes with the discrimination of not having a basic right inspire the desire to perform an act that makes the ex-felonies revenge by resorting to crime as it cures their frustration. Understanding the reason behind criminal behavior will go a long way towards establishing an elaborate system that will reduce the level of the offense at significant levels.
Response to Question 5
Incarceration in the United States of America is one of the key failures of the criminal justice system. Incarceration and punishment involve the sentencing of convicted criminals to prison where they serve their term based on the penal code specifications. The criminal justice system has applied the model as a tool for administering punishment expected to establish deterrence to engaging in illegal activities. The model has not achieved the objectives of having the rate of crime reduce considerably but has fueled the ex-convicts to exhibit some likelihood of recidivism especially when it comes to their life after incarceration with reported cases of ex-convicts participating in crime shortly after the lapse of their sentence. The determination to end criminal activity through the current criminal justice system that establishes a sharp focus on preventing crime through a harsh prison environment and limiting the freedom of offenders forgetting that the potential danger of such an engagement is imminent. The crime rates in the United States keep increasing exponentially despite the ability of the criminal justice system to put a lot of people behind bars for the involvement several criminal activities. The reason behind the increased cases of crime despite the application of incarceration and punishment in the criminal justice system defines the ineffectiveness of the model in reducing criminal behavior.
Imprisonment and punishment are effective regarding taking criminal elements from the society hence in cases where an individual was a murderer and threatened the peace and security of others they are expected be put under the watch of authorities. Incarceration helps in preventing certain hardcore criminals from the continuous participation in activities that lead to losing of life and pose a danger to the peace and security of the society (Lamberti, Weisman, and Faden, 1290). Such elements are adequately monitored and tamed by the walls of prisons since they will not have the freedom to continuously prevent other people from experiencing the peace and security around the community. However, incarceration and punishment have tremendously failed to address the role of deterrence of crime making it ineffective towards providing the proposed solution to the challenging nature of the criminal conduct in society. The increasing rate of crime in the United States in spite of the world record for having a lot of criminals behind the confines of prison establishes the ineffective ability of the criminal justice system to reduce crime. Incarceration and punishment are equally a very expensive affair to the governments especially with the rising numbers of criminals overcrowding prisons (Lamberti, Weisman, and Faden, 1287). The cost of administering the prison facility does not make economic sense now that the levels of crime are significantly rising over time.
On the other hand, there is a system of treatment and rehabilitation that confers a different approach that will guide the implementation of a system that enhances the resolution to deter criminal activity rates. Treatment and rehabilitation take a more diplomatic model that involves the engagement of the different people by taking cognizance of the reason behind the engagement in crime by individuals. Treatment looks at the symptoms of the criminal behavior especially in cases of drugs and substance abuse that contributes immensely towards the overcrowding of American prisons (Pager, 942). Treatment provides a well-structured monitoring program that establishes a more robust approach to changing the behavior of an individual towards the initiation of a model that allows criminals to recover from the factors that inspire them towards engaging in criminal activity.
Treatment and rehabilitation are effective when it comes to the establishment of a model that understands the cause of involvement in the crime. The method ensures that it takes on the damaging effects that accompany the increased instances of drug and substance abuse hence offer a treatment and rehabilitative reprieve to a convict thereby changing their behavior over time. The system is also less expensive especially with the ability to have a system that will better the lives of ex-convicts through rehabilitation to have an easy time integrating back to the society for the better good (Morewitz, 102). The prisons will be empty in such a model as the system will evaluate ways of having a system that addresses causes of crime to reduce the crime rates in society. A disadvantage of the scheme is that it might not be able to work in cases where an individual is significantly dangerous to public order and decorum. The administrators of treatment might be exposed to danger dealing with such hardcore criminals that might have developed resistance to change in any fashion.
I support the decision to give a trial to the treatment and rehabilitation model that will offer some significant benefit to the criminal justice system towards reducing the levels of crime. Criminal conduct has challenged several sections of the society and requires a more robust approach towards helping ease the burden that the society has to experience on a daily occurrence. The ability to save on resources for other national building endeavors forms the basis towards employing treatment and rehabilitation to have the criminal elements change for the better good of society.
Response to Question 3
The model of the justice system is an essential ingredient towards the establishment of a model that will allow for the prosperous society that enhances the thought of change and reconciliation. Justice brings peace and serenity to the social and a system which improves an elaborate system of dispensing justice will lead to a society that will recognize the need for a system that addresses the underlying challenges in their midst.
There are two relevant models of justice, the restorative and the punitive that exhibit fundamental differences in their implementation and effect to the judicial system together with the conduct of the people. Punitive or retributive justice a theory that refers to the taking on a system that the only solution to criminal activity is the application of a proportionate punishment without an option of social or rehabilitative option to a criminal (Ellis, and Savage, 82). Restorative theory of justice on the other end refers to the system of justice that gives room for rehabilitation of offenders through establishing an environment for reconciliation with the victims of the offense and the community. The two systems of justice are distinct and exhibit different impact in the resolution of crime among criminal elements in society. One key difference is that restorative justice is diplomatic and looks at the reasons behind the criminal conduct where it presents an opportunity for the criminal to change for the better. Retributive justice denies the offender a chance to diplomatically understand their mistakes and provide a commitment to change for the better good of society.
Restorative justice is less costly in the implementation compared to retributive that is expensive to implement the sentence and punishment established by the criminal justice system. The retributive judicial system is less efficient when it comes to the implementation of a system that will reduce the levels of crime while with the restorative justice effectively initiates the change process from within the offender hence yielding tremendous benefit towards achieving the best type of justice to all. Retributive justice brings up the development of a system that manages to eliminate the hardcore criminal conduct among the society through preventing them from mixing with law abiding citizens (Ellis, and Savage, 87). Restorative justice is based on reconciliation and understanding through an arbitration process that the offender will consent to have committed a crime, and after that, they will be given a chance to change their ways for the better. In a retributive justice system, criminal justice controls crime while restorative has the community monitor the levels of crime.
An advantage of moving from a punitive model to a restorative model is that the crime rates will substantially reduce since crimes exist within the community, it will be effectively be controlled through reconciliatory mechanisms (Wenzel et al., 378). The cost of a restorative model is cheap and efficient towards the establishing a more profound method of reducing the levels of the crime other than a retributive model that is expensive. On the other front, the disadvantage of moving from a punitive model to a restorative model include the inability to tame hardcore criminals that pose a resinous threat to the peace and serenity of the community. The other disadvantage is that the model might be an incentive to crime since people will not be worried of a punitive action whenever they are involved in a criminal offense.
I would vouch for a restorative model especially because of the ability to ensure that the principal role of reducing crime will be through the initiation of a design that will have benefit to the society at an affordable cost. Contemporary crime requires the involvement of all parties within the community to reduce crime collectively.
Works Cited
Ellis, Tom, and Steve Savage. "Restorative justice or retribution?." (2012): 78-115.
Itzkowitz, Howard, and Lauren Oldak. "Restoring the ex-offender's right to vote: background and developments." Am. Crim. L. Rev. 11 (1972): 721.
Lamberti, J. Steven, Robert Weisman, and Dara I. Faden. "Forensic assertive community treatment: preventing incarceration of adults with severe mental illness." Psychiatric Services 55.11 (2004): 1285-1293.
Morewitz, Stephen J. "Treatment and Incarceration." Stalking and Violence: New Patterns of Trauma and Obsession (2003): 97-108.
Pager, Devah. "The mark of a criminal record 1." American journal of sociology 108.5 (2003): 937-975.
Uggen, Christopher, and Jeff Manza. "Democratic contraction? Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States." American Sociological Review (2002): 777-803.
Wenzel, Michael, et al. "Retributive and restorative justice." Law and human behavior 32.5 (2008): 375-389.
