It’s a burning debate across the World – destroy the sin or the sinner? The issue of voting rights for criminals is a key aspect of that debate. The IIPM Think Tank looks at how various countries approach the issue, and why the prisoner-bashing attitude might not be so wise
On the very face of it, you may not even entertain the idea of allowing criminals to decide the political leaders of India. Yet, a common joke about our great nation remains that while lowly criminals get into prison, the really smart ones get into politics! Subsequently, allowing inmates to vote (currently India prohibits voting by inmates) may not affect the composition of our Parliament too much, considering its existing abysmal state. But their exclusion does bring human rights issues to the fore. We analyse how some major countries look at this issue.
First, the Barack country. There is no federal policy with regards to this issue in US. Different states have different laws on the voting rights of their felons. While Maine and Vermont are the only two states that have no restrictions over voting rights of felons, fourteen states including Alabama, Arizona, Florida or Iowa have disenfranchised the voting rights of inmates. The other 34 states follow a somewhat middle path. Interestingly, around 4.7 million inmates, who comprised 2.3% of the total voting age population, didn’t participate in the 2000 Presidential elections due to voting right restrictions.
A particular research on the 2000 Presidential elections by the noted American Political Science Association has revealed some interesting observations. Irrespective of their disenfranchisement, if felons had been allowed to vote, 35% would have voted in the Presidential elections, and out of those, 70% would have voted for the Democrats. Looking at past elections, evidently, this allowance would have altered the results of three close Senate results – Virginia in 1978 (John Warner [R] would have lost over Andrew Miller [D]), Kentucky in 1984 (Mitch McConnell [R] over Walter Huddleston [D]), and Kentucky again in 1998 (Jim Bunning [R] over Scotty Baesler [D]). There was hope for Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election as well, had Florida allowed its 614,000 ex-felons to vote.
Moving on to other countries, the 17 European partners, and countries like Bosnia, Canada, South Africa and Israel allow their felons to vote without any restrictions. But courts can withdraw voting rights for up to five years if need be in Germany. Neighbouring France has similar laws, though it rarely uses them. In contrast, countries like Armenia, Brazil, Chile, India, Portugal, Russia and UK have complete restriction over voting rights of inmates.
First, the Barack country. There is no federal policy with regards to this issue in US. Different states have different laws on the voting rights of their felons. While Maine and Vermont are the only two states that have no restrictions over voting rights of felons, fourteen states including Alabama, Arizona, Florida or Iowa have disenfranchised the voting rights of inmates. The other 34 states follow a somewhat middle path. Interestingly, around 4.7 million inmates, who comprised 2.3% of the total voting age population, didn’t participate in the 2000 Presidential elections due to voting right restrictions.
A particular research on the 2000 Presidential elections by the noted American Political Science Association has revealed some interesting observations. Irrespective of their disenfranchisement, if felons had been allowed to vote, 35% would have voted in the Presidential elections, and out of those, 70% would have voted for the Democrats. Looking at past elections, evidently, this allowance would have altered the results of three close Senate results – Virginia in 1978 (John Warner [R] would have lost over Andrew Miller [D]), Kentucky in 1984 (Mitch McConnell [R] over Walter Huddleston [D]), and Kentucky again in 1998 (Jim Bunning [R] over Scotty Baesler [D]). There was hope for Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election as well, had Florida allowed its 614,000 ex-felons to vote.
Moving on to other countries, the 17 European partners, and countries like Bosnia, Canada, South Africa and Israel allow their felons to vote without any restrictions. But courts can withdraw voting rights for up to five years if need be in Germany. Neighbouring France has similar laws, though it rarely uses them. In contrast, countries like Armenia, Brazil, Chile, India, Portugal, Russia and UK have complete restriction over voting rights of inmates.
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Zee Business Best B-School Survey 2012
Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri's Session at IMA Indore
IIPM IN FINANCIAL TIMES, UK. FEATURE OF THE WEEK
IIPM strong hold on Placement : 10000 Students Placed in last 5 year
IIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM B-School Facebook Page
IIPM Global Exposure
IIPM Best B School India
IIPM B-School Detail
IIPM Links
IIPM : The B-School with a Human FaceProf. Arindam Chaudhuri's Session at IMA Indore
IIPM IN FINANCIAL TIMES, UK. FEATURE OF THE WEEK
IIPM strong hold on Placement : 10000 Students Placed in last 5 year
IIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM B-School Facebook Page
IIPM Global Exposure
IIPM Best B School India
IIPM B-School Detail
IIPM Links
