Even those with felony criminal records deserve to live in dignity
I am saddened by the way we dehumanize people with criminal histories.
Using terms like “felon” so ferociously, connecting it with terms like rapists and murderers, has engendered the idea that all people with felony records are violent and unredeemable. Let’s be honest for a moment: Even the most faithfully lawabiding citizen has likely committed many felonies in their lifetime, whether on purpose or without the intent to do so.
Many of us have the fortune of not getting caught. However, there are more than 65 million people in our country who have criminal histories. I don’t have a preference for any specific language to use for people with criminal histories, provided we identify them as people first. Maybe if we start thinking of them as people, we will treat them with dignity and they will have an easier time reintegrating into society after having served their time. This will make us all feel safer.
There is little question that people struggle after getting out of prison — but to presume that someone who has committed a violent act will eventually return to prison defies the facts. Many people come out of prison fully rehabilitated, often through their own efforts. Sadly, people with criminal backgrounds face lifetime discrimination in regards to housing and employment.
Popular stances like the one Hans von Spakovsky took in his column last week regarding restoration of voting rights to those with felony records are exactly why barriers to community reintegration exist. By and large, many of the people that he is so quick to slap a label on and discard would much prefer the opportunity to work and be self-sufficient, but are offered very little in the way of opportunities to do so. I know many who toil endlessly to prove themselves, as von Spakovsky suggests, but what have we — the “civil society” — proven to them?
The Statesman recently did an amazing story about veterans who were deported because of their criminal histories, even after they paid for their “crimes” by time spent in prison. They were taken from the country they fought for — just discarded. Should our veterans who put their lives on the line for us, battle depression and PTSD, and self-medicate because they aren’t receiving adequate treatment, also wait five years and prove themselves prior to voting?
There are 21 countries and two states that recognize voting rights for their citizens even while they are in prison. There was a time in my life when I thought that it was OK that people on parole and probation couldn’t vote, a belief I held in large part due to the stigma that I myself carried in regards to my criminal history. I now think that those 21 countries and two states are on target. People do not cease to become part of our community when they make a bad choice, nor should they not be counted.
When a person returns to the “civil society” and is expected to pay taxes, they should have the right to vote for policies and politicians that hear their voice. The retributive justice mentality demands repayment rather than redemption, and wants rehabilitation only if you can manage to do it while being warehoused in deplorable conditions. It requires a member of our community to prove himself or herself prior to having access to rights to vote and have a voice in matters that will affect them — and yet provides no real meaningful means to do so. If this is “civil society,” no wonder people struggle upon release from prison.
In my 91 years, I have missed one scheduled political vote. Now, with age-related macular degeneration, I cannot see to drive and my license has expired. While applying for a Texas ID, I was told the charge was $6.
If there was a $6 charge to enter the polling place, would that be constitutional? Never!
The amount may be small, but the evil is enormous. “Pay to play” should not apply to voting.
Re: May 25 commentary, “Tinker: Science is a place for challenging, not bullying.”
In many ways I applaud geologist Scott Tinker’s opinion piece on science. I also applaud the proposed TexNet seismic study to better understand the recent rise in earthquakes in the area.
What I was disturbed by was the red herring argument stating that people with concerns about climate change are calling things “settled science.” My understanding of what Tinker is saying is that we should avoid using the currently available information to take action on that information. Instead: Let’s do “one more study.”
There are consequences to action; there can also be serious consequences to inaction. There is a lot of information on earthquake causes, as well as climate change. Let’s quit hiding behind “one more study” and begin to formulate policies that will help reduce the dangers of earthquakes and climate change.