There are nearly two million people incarcerated in the U.S. It may seem a small number compared to the nearly 350 million people who inhabit the territory, but when we add two million to any presidential vote suddenly it is no longer such an irrelevant number.
Right now, depending on the state, many convicted people serving their sentence in prison or on probation aren’t eligible to vote, but should they be allowed to?
Letting felons vote would be a mistake, not so much because of questions or arguments about citizens’ rights, but for a much more earthly problem, more material, but infinitely more expensive.
First, let us imagine a judicial system with no failures, without innocent people being convicted. Assuming the two million who are behind bars are guilty, we could say by having committed a crime they lose the right to freedom of movement and consequently the ability to vote.
It makes sense that if someone breaks the law, they shouldn’t get to decide how to change those laws in the future. If they broke the rules before, they are likely to want to change them to harm others or legalize acts that would previously be outside the law.
Of course, law changes may not affect all crimes, but if a candidate proposed to lower prison sentences, it is sure they would have a lot of votes among the prison population.
However, not all crimes are of equal weight. It would be unfair to impose the same punishment for those who committed murder and tax fraud. Perhaps among that population of two million there are some who do not deserve to lose the right to vote.
In an ideal world, it may be so. Unfortunately, as with so many other moral dilemmas, it is not so much the dilemma itself that is problematic, but the logistics of implementing change.
It would be necessary to redefine 50 criminal codes of each state plus the federal penal code, Title 18 of the United States Code, to define which crimes (clarifying aggravating factors and reasons) could remove the right to vote and which would retain it.
After that, it would be necessary to review how the voting process would be conducted in prisons, whether a polling station should be set up within each prison or whether the selected prisoners should be sent to an ordinary polling place.
There would also be added security measures required so there are no intruders within the selection or attempted escapes from incarcerated voters.
This whole arrangement would naturally have to be discussed in Congress, probably every term and especially when power changes between Republicans and Democrats. So, we would see a similar debate every four years about modifications to the system.
It is therefore far more practical to restrict the right to vote to all sentenced prisoners. It should be noted that under Illinois law, persons convicted of a felony can regain their right to vote once they have served their sentence.
The generalization in this case means that justice can be done much more practically, since convicted persons regain their rights once they have completed their sentence.
This problem should be seen from a practical view, rather than a philosophical or moral one. The limiting factor to the desired solution is not a question of values or what is right and fair.
In this case the implementation of the solution like the selection and election of determined prisoners to vote can make the situation worse.
