Call it fair. Call it doing the right thing. And, yes, you can also call it enlightened self-interest.
The Scott Administration should reverse itself when it comes to the restoration of felons’ voting rights. Even if it means Scott is on the same side as Charlie Crist. The side of public safety is the one that counts most.
The rate of recidivism is notably less among felons who have served their time and regained their rights: to vote, sit on juries or even run for governor. Not surprisingly, recent reports show that non-stigmatized, former prisoners who have had their rights restored re-offend at one-third the rate of other inmates who had completed their sentences. This is in everybody’s collective interest. Surely Scott can spin public safety. Surely.
The reality is that most felons don’t stay locked up in jail. And serious impediments to reintegration into the general population have a notable societal downside. That can’t be in anybody’s best interest.
But there is one caveat constant. Whereas the Crist Administration’s streamlining policy was for felons to regain their rights without a hearing, it only applied to those who weren’t convicted of serious offenses, such as murder. The latter required a hearing and investigation. As well it should.
And that shouldn’t change. We can’t be swayed by the seemingly unassailable contention that those who have paid their debt to society should now automatically regain all rights. “Paid their debt” is one of those seductive catch phrases–like “right to choose” and “choose life”–that comes with subplots.
A plea deal, for example, may have resulted in a reduced (debt) sentence. Expedient legal stuff happens. There is also the victim factor, depending on the crime. Even after “closure,” there is no unscarring of the scarred. If a victim has not been made whole, how has that societal debt been squared away? Literally, how can it ever be?
Obviously, there are as many inherent limits and variables as there are felons and felonies. Enough so that nothing involving a serious crime should ever be automatic. Enough so that the passive serving of a required sentence isn’t equated with actually “earning” something. (Thank you, for not channeling Hannibal Lector.)
It’s not, candidly, inappropriate to want further proof of reform and societal-re-entry worth, both as an inmate and as an ex-prisoner. It’s fair, in effect, to ask for a good-faith track record, however defined, for whatever reasonable time frame.
But, no, waiting a minimum of five years, as is currently the case in Florida, in order to apply to have rights restored is unacceptable. In too many cases that will be five years’ worth of a ticking, societal time bomb. If it lasts that long.