A Stitch in Haste

The New York Times has a brief editorial calling for the elimination of laws permanently rescinding the right of convicted felons to vote:

Some five million Americans are barred from the polls by a bewildering patchwork of state laws that strip convicted felons of the right to vote, often temporarily, but sometimes for life. These laws serve no correctional purpose — and may actually contribute to recidivism by keeping ex-offenders and their families disengaged from the civic mainstream. This notion is clearly supported by data showing that former offenders who vote are less likely to return to jail. This lesson has long since been absorbed by democracies abroad, some valuing the franchise so much that they take ballot boxes right to the prisons.

I was unpersuaded before, and I remain so. Some hasty stitches:

--What's so "bewildering" about a federalist approach to this issue? A convicted felon need not be conversant in the felon-franchise laws of all fifty states, just the one he was convicted in.

--Last time I checked, punishment was most certainly a "correctional purpose." News flash: the criminal law can still sometimes be about plain old punishment, as well as rehabilitation and protection of society.

--I dare the Times or anyone else to produce a single reformed felon who actually attributes his rehabilitation, even marginally, to having his vote restored to him ("Yeah there sure was a lot of money to be had at that liquor store, but I just couldn't risk not being able to vote again!"). The "data" the Times mentions are meaningless; correlation does not prove causation (and notice the sleight-of-hand: "offenders" versus "felons").

--There is nothing per se cruel or unusual (or illogical) about lifetime punishment, in any context. As I blogged previously, the (supposedly ethically-challenged) financial sector imposes lifetime bans all the time (e.g., this guy).

--Let's not pretend that there aren't Red-Blue implications to this issue. I'll admit that they shouldn't drive policy if the Times will too.

Whether felons should be permitted to vote is one of those rare issues where naked, unbridled federalism makes sense — leave it to the states to decide the proper punishment/rehabilitation mix in their respective criminal justice systems.

And I as blogged before: The best way to empower felons is by not being one of them.