Dangerous Dan

Coretta Scott King is advocating for the abolition of laws that bar convicted felons from voting. She seems to have two arguments for this.

The first is that such laws tend to predominantly hurt minorities since minorities make up a larger percentage of felons than do whites. This doesn't really hit at why the laws should be repealed, though. Even if they're minorities, it doesn't change the fact that they're felons. You can possibly argue that there's discrimination at who is convicted of felonies, e.g. that blacks are more likely to be convicted than whites (and King does argue this), but that's a separate issue from voting. If the conviction issue is resolved, then the voting issue will naturally resolve with it. In other words, if more minorities are being disenfranchised because they're more likely to convicted of felonies than are whites, that's cause to resolve the conviction disparity, not to use it as an excuse to let all felons vote.

With the conviction problem, one note on that is that a quantitative analysis isn't useful. For example, if I were to conduct a study that found 65% of blacks were convicted for burglary while only 48% of whites were convicted for the same crime, that is not in itself proof of systemic racism. Racism is a possible reason for the disparity, yes, and it could be a contributing factor. There's no proof, though, that it is the primary and/or only reason for the disparity. There could be further, more dominant causes for the difference in conviction rates. To determine what those causes are, you need to do a qualitative analysis, not just quantitative. Brute statistics of the latter kind can be used to support perceptions of society that are not correct.

King's second argument for repealing the laws is, I think, much more persuasive: "Something is very wrong with laws that prevent any citizen from experiencing his or her democratic right, even when they have paid their debt to society." It certainly seems "right" that a person who has completed their punishment for a particular crime should not continue to be punished for it in other ways, e.g. loss of voting rights. If we look at this as a form of continued discrimination against the felon, however, then there are many other areas which should be similarly fixed. There are many jobs, occupations, and licenses, for example, that felons are barred from holding by virtue of being felons. Presumably, the laws should be adjusted so this isn't so, but it clearly wouldn't be in the public's best interest. Just because a felon has served his time, it doesn't mean he ceases to have a felon-personality. Some felons reform, it's true, but many more do not. Some would like to blame the lack of reformation on the laws that continue to persecute them, but this is specious. If some can reform and these are held up as models, then the unreformed have little excuse for themselves. Protecting businesses, individuals, and society from potential recidivist felons is also a greater priority than freeing up restrictions on those felons. After all, they didn't become felons by accident.

Another practical problem is that if felons are allowed to vote, then they become a viable part of a politician's constituency. That is, a politician will seek to cater to the felon voting-bloc in order to earn their votes. Clearly, policies that the average felon would support would not be those that are best for the surrounding communities. As a group seeking its own self-interest, the felons would want policies that either loosen the further restrictions on them, as noted above, or that serve them as felons, i.e. that would make criminal laws laxer and criminal punishments easier. This wouldn't be good for the society that puts up with them.

This issue reminds me of Les Miserables, an amazing novel and the best I've read. It discusses the injustice and discrimination forced upon the released felon, the lengths one such felon, Jean Valjean, must go to escape them, and the inability of the detective Javert to believe in the rehabilitation and reformation of the criminal. It's a touching story and makes many salient points. The entire time I read it though, I couldn't help thinking that for every Valjean who reforms, there are 20 more who don't. And while Javert's refusal to recognize or accept human transformation and redemption was wrong, the odds were still certainly in his favor for holding that attitude.