I’m trying to learn for my History class and I’m stuck. Can you help?
I need 250 words for this topic “Should Texas allow incarcerated felons to vote?”
and 100 words a replay to one of my classmates.
this is the topic that I need a replay for:
This is a very tough question that I’ve never thought of before. Many incarcerated felons have been wrongfully convicted so those specific individuals I think should be allowed to vote, but of course, there’s no right way to do that. Felonies at common law were defined to only cover these 9 crimes: homicide, arson, robbery, rape, maiming, wounding, burglary, larceny, mayhem, prison escape, and sodomy. These are mostly violent crimes that are also all malum in these crimes. So it makes sense that these crimes carry a harsh penalty and that people who can’t be expected to follow the moral mandates of living in a society shouldn’t have a say in defining the laws. And traditionally, these crimes carried a mandatory penalty of death. But with the rise of crimes that aren’t inherently morally wrong, but just made illegal for policy/regulatory reasons, and the idea that someone convicted of a felony could someday reenter society, it no longer makes as much policy sense. So, you could say I’m torn. However, when someone is incarcerated, they are incredibly easy to manipulate, which gives wardens inappropriate political power which creates serious issues of corruption and abuse. Removing the right of incarcerated people to vote makes sense, but keeping it removed after incarceration has ended is wrong. But, a person that has already demonstrated incredibly poor judgement, I believe is deemed unfit to choose what is best for other people. Thus, if I had to decide, I would go with not allowing them to vote.
Here is Participation Topic #2: Should Texas allow incarcerated felons to vote?
Two states (Maine and Vermont) allow incarcerated felons to vote while in prison. Should Texas join them?
Take care to answer all elements of the question.
You must post at least two (2) times for full credit. You must post: 1) a substantial (250-word minimum) original answer to the question; and, 2) a substantial (100-word minimum) reply to a colleague.
Take care to formulate reasoned arguments, not simple declarative statements. An argument is a well-developed, clearly stated line of reasoning aimed at convincing others of the truth or fallacy of a statement.
“Reasoned” means you’ve thought about the question and present your ideas in a coherent fashion. It does not mean that I or your classmates agree with you.
You will encounter a variety of viewpoints on volatile topics over the course of the semester. You may disagree, perhaps strongly, with opinions expressed by your classmates (and almost certainly, me).
As long as we treat each other with respect, these differences enhance class discussion and create an atmosphere where we learn from each other. Rest assured that your grades will not be influenced by beliefs or ideas expressed on the discussion boards.
And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?
–Milton, Aeropagitica, 1643
Participation is graded on whether your comments are thoughtful and coherent, respond directly to the question (or another post in the board), contribute something new to the discussion, reflect an effort to move the discussion along, bring some evidence to your argument, and reflect an understanding of the course materials.
NOTE: I take spelling, grammar, and composition into account when grading your work. Your work must be well-written to receive full credit.