Assignment 1

  

In Part II of the assignment (due Week 4), write a 4 to 5 pages, you will identify present and evaluate two arguments, one supporting your own view, and one supporting the view that you don’t agree with.

Part II – Arguments

1. Briefly introduce your topic (it should be      the same topic you worked on in week 2). Identify your own position in the      debate, and the position that you don’t agree with.
2. In the first paragraph, explain what a      logical argument is. Refer to reliable sources. Be detailed in your      explanations. 
3. Based on the research you’ve done in week      2, and also additional research when needed, choose the strongest argument      in support of your view.

Present the argument’s conclusion, and carefully list all of the premises. The conclusion, and each premise, should be formulated as a simple and complete declarative sentence.

Carefully explain what exactly the conclusion and the premises try to say. How can each of the premises be supported with strong evidence? Refer to reliable sources, to actual studies done on the issue, etc.

Evaluate the argument: are the premises well supported? Do they need additional support? Do they properly support the conclusion?

1. Based on the research you’ve done in week      2, and also additional research when needed, choose the strongest argument      in support of your opponent’s view.

Carefully explain what exactly the conclusion and the premises try to say. How can each of the premises be supported with strong evidence? Refer to reliable sources, to actual studies done on the issue, etc.
Evaluate the argument: are the premises well supported? Do they need additional support? Do they properly support the conclusion?

The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing:

• Include an introductory paragraph and concluding      paragraph.
• Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic      sentence and supporting sentences.
• Adhere to standard rules of English grammar,      punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.

Running head: CONFLICTING VIEWPOINTS 1

CONFLICTING VIEWPOINTS 2

Conflicting Viewpoints Essay – Part 1

Babatunde Ogunade

Professor Justyna Japola

PHI 210, Crictical Thinking

January 13, 2018

Introduction

Bestowing from Uggen and Manza (2014), felon disenfranchisement laws in the US continue to bar many citizens from partaking in the nation’s democratic process. Such draconian rule continues to affect the lives of many Americans in several different ways. Hence, it is appropriate that the US should continue to discourage the constitutional limitations to felony convicts considering that by denying them such voting rights amount to gross injustice to the primary stakeholders of the nation (Uggen & Manza, 2014). Agreeing with Pinaire, Heumann, and Bilotta (2015), the insight fueled by such laws are amiss considering that over forty-eight states in the US currently outlaws inmates participations in the voting process.

Currently, thirty-six states have moved to bar criminals under parole their voting rights. Besides, thirty-one states have moved to ban ex-felony probationers from voting even after entirely serving their terms in prison. Also, nine other States exclude convicts from voting and may restore such rights after a stated period (Pinaire et al., 2015). However, the primary question for many researchers and the thesis is whether the nature of crimes committed by felons prevents them from being humans and excluded from a democratic exercise? Suggestively, nurturing such perception for a nation is very dangerous and can culminate in social strife considering that such thinking tends to alienate people from the society rather than rehabilitating them back to the community (Pinaire et al., 2015).

Therefore, it is the right time for the US to rethink its position about felon disenfranchisement to save its future. Apparently, no nation would want to create hatred among its people as such may threaten the fabrics of the society. According to Karlan (2015), having such inhumane and a dangerous type of mindset in the community are retrogressive and could create a potential threat to the future of the nation. Hence, enacting disenfranchisement policies and promoting civil rights restorations for the application continue to inflict more harm than good. Conferring from Uggen and Manza (2014), nearly 53 million, i.e., 2.5% of the entire US population has so far lost their voting rights owing to felony convictions.

Three premises that oppose the thesis position

The most persistent imports of disenfranchisement are the loss of voting rights to the convicts. Furthermore, a jurisdiction may also bar an offender from accessing any form of employment adding to their frustrations. Such prerogatives may even deny victims access to quality and affordable housing, as well as have their parental rights terminated. However, the underlying perception is that the issuance of such stricter penalties tends to base on inept policies of enhancing public safety (Karlan, 2015).

Punitive Actions/Measures

Also, other retributive measures require the sex offenders to have their information captured on the public registry. In the same manner, convicts with the history of drug crimes disqualified from applying for the income-based housing plan, as well as accessing general welfare benefits, and educational loans (Karlan, 2015). Hence, such calamitous repercussions and disenfranchisement provide substantial reasons for opposing such policies. A remarkable view of the disenfranchisement philosophy is that it tends to brand others as enemies of the state as opposed to being regarded citizens/ nationals. The only reasonable position, in this case, is that these incarcerated individuals have in various ways violated the law. However, such status does not imply that these individuals should handle in inhumane ways.

Legal Action/ Measures

Another of the reason for strong opposition to the disenfranchisement policies is the concept of judicial action since it tends to deny a large part of the American population from demonstrating their democratic right of voting. In the statistics provided by Karlan (2015), over 57.6% of all felons reported of having voted before their convictions. Also, two-thirds of the sampled population that has never voted before expressed their desire to take part in the voting process than they were adults with families.

Restoration Action

Again, over 90% of all reprobates under the study revealed that they were not familiar with the due procedures for the restoration process of their voting rights (Karlan, 2015). Another 10% of the population were unaware of the existence of the application process and would feel degraded by having to apply for such voting rights. Also, all prisoners thought that that disenfranchisement was unjust and undeserving. In the studies, 83% of all offenders lacked the resources and skills needed to successfully apply for the restoration action for their voting rights (Karlan, 2015). Moreover, 35% of the population reported of not having a GED or a high school diploma. Three-quarters of the inmates also did not have any knowledge of individuals with such skills to help their cases.

Elbow ‘believing’ questions

What is particularly helping about the view is that it brands inmates as an enemy of the state instead of assimilating them into the society. The state of Kentucky provides a perfect example where such disenfranchisement laws continue to gain grounds. It is a fact that criminals must punish for their wrongdoings. Such can be accomplished through giving them fines and jail terms as opposed to denying them their democratic rights (Pinaire et al., 2015). However, if I believed these views, then it would confess my support for the denial of the basic human rights to vote as upheld by the constitution. Such conceptions are not only demoralizing but also encouraging baggage that may overburden the society in future. However, the purported ideals of the thesis may be true where inmates are of an unsound mind to rationally make decisions. It is, however, recommendable that avenues be established to respond to such sensitive issues as opposed to creating guilt in people’s mind (Karlan, 2015; Uggen & Manza, 2014).

References

Karlan, P. S. (2015). Convictions and doubts: retribution, representation, and the debate over felon disenfranchisement. Stan. L. Rev., 56, 1147.

Pinaire, B., Heumann, M., & Bilotta, L. (2015). Barred from the vote: Public attitudes toward the disenfranchisement of felons. Fordham Urb. LJ, 30, 1519.

Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2014). Democratic contraction? Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review, 777-803.