Jail guard Amara Brown admits to DoorDash delivery for inmate
Guard Amara Brown at Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center is charged with using DoorDash to deliver a meal to an inmate.
21 Jun 2023, Prisons, by
Discover the current state of prisoners’ voting rights in the Philippines with this informative article.
The issue of prisoner voting rights is a contentious one that has been debated around the world for decades. In the Philippines, the question of whether or not prisoners have the right to vote has been a subject of much discussion and controversy. In this article, we will explore the history of prisoner voting rights in the Philippines, the current laws and regulations surrounding prisoner voting, arguments for and against allowing prisoners to vote, as well as the impact of disenfranchisement on democracy in the country.
The question of prisoner voting rights is not a new one in the Philippines. The country has a long history of political repression, and the issue of prisoners’ right to vote has been a topic of discussion in various political circles for years. The first recorded instance of prisoners being denied the right to vote happened in 1902, when the Americans occupied the Philippines. Under American colonial rule, prisoners were not allowed to vote.
During the Marcos dictatorship, prisoners were also denied the right to vote. This was part of the regime’s efforts to suppress political opposition and maintain its grip on power. However, after the People Power Revolution in 1986, the new government under President Corazon Aquino restored the right to vote for prisoners.
Today, the issue of prisoner voting rights remains a contentious one in the Philippines. Some argue that prisoners should not be allowed to vote as they have forfeited their right to participate in the democratic process by committing crimes. Others argue that denying prisoners the right to vote is a violation of their human rights and undermines the principles of democracy. The debate continues, and it remains to be seen what the future holds for prisoner voting rights in the Philippines.
Currently, Philippine law does not allow prisoners to vote. Section 237 of the Omnibus Election Code states that “any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment of not less than one year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or conditional pardon, shall not be qualified to vote.” This means that any person who is currently imprisoned or has previously been imprisoned for at least one year is ineligible to vote.
However, there have been ongoing discussions and debates regarding the possibility of granting voting rights to prisoners. Some argue that denying prisoners the right to vote is a violation of their human rights and that it undermines the principles of democracy. Others argue that prisoners have forfeited their right to vote by committing crimes that have resulted in their imprisonment.
There are two major arguments when it comes to the issue of prisoners’ right to vote. One argument is that the right to vote is a fundamental human right that should be extended to all individuals, including prisoners. Those who support extending voting rights to prisoners believe that it is important for the rehabilitation of prisoners, as it ensures their continued participation in society and helps them to feel like they are still a part of it. Additionally, they argue that prisoners still have a stake in society and that their voices should be heard on matters that affect them.
Those who are against extending voting rights to prisoners argue that it is a privilege, not a right and that prisoners should be denied it as a result of their violation of the law. Additionally, they argue that the public may view prisoners as being undeserving of the right to vote due to their criminal past, and that allowing them to vote may be seen as condoning their inappropriate behaviour.
Another argument in favour of allowing prisoners to vote is that it can help to reduce recidivism rates. Studies have shown that when prisoners are given the opportunity to participate in civic activities, such as voting, they are more likely to feel connected to society and less likely to reoffend. By denying prisoners the right to vote, we may be hindering their chances of successful reintegration into society and increasing the likelihood of them returning to prison.
On the other hand, opponents of allowing prisoners to vote argue that it could lead to a skewing of election results. They argue that prisoners may vote in a way that is not representative of the general population, as their experiences and perspectives may be different from those of non-prisoners. This could potentially lead to an unfair advantage for certain political parties or candidates.
The denial of voting rights to prisoners raises serious questions about their participation in the democratic process. Critics argue that it is a violation of their human rights, as it denies them an opportunity to take part in society. This lack of participation can lead to a perceived lack of legitimacy of the democratic system, which can have negative long-term consequences for democracy in the Philippines.
Furthermore, the denial of voting rights to prisoners can also perpetuate social inequalities. Studies have shown that marginalized communities, such as those living in poverty or belonging to ethnic minorities, are disproportionately represented in the prison population. By denying these individuals the right to vote, their voices are silenced and their interests are not represented in the democratic process.
On the other hand, proponents of prisoner disenfranchisement argue that it is a necessary measure to uphold the integrity of the electoral system. They argue that prisoners have violated the social contract by committing crimes and therefore should not be allowed to participate in the democratic process. However, this argument fails to consider the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners into society, which is a crucial aspect of the criminal justice system.
There are several potential benefits to allowing prisoners to vote. Firstly, it can help to foster a sense of civic responsibility and encourage political awareness in prisoners, potentially contributing to their rehabilitation. Secondly, it ensures that their voices are heard, regardless of their current situation. However, there are also potential drawbacks. Allowing prisoners to vote may be seen as condoning their behaviour, and there is also the issue of the logistical difficulties in allowing prisoners to vote whilst in prison.
Another potential benefit of allowing prisoners to vote is that it can help to reduce the stigma and marginalization that prisoners often face. By allowing them to participate in the democratic process, they are being treated as equal citizens with a stake in society. This can also help to reduce recidivism rates, as prisoners who feel more connected to society are less likely to reoffend.
On the other hand, there are also concerns that allowing prisoners to vote could lead to political manipulation or coercion. There is a risk that prisoners could be pressured or influenced by other inmates or prison staff to vote a certain way, which could compromise the integrity of the electoral process. Additionally, there may be concerns about the potential impact of prisoners’ votes on election outcomes, particularly in areas with large prison populations.
The issue of prisoner voting rights is a global one, and different countries have different policies regarding it. Some countries, such as Canada and several European countries, allow prisoners to vote. Conversely, others, such as the United States, do not. The Philippines falls into the latter category.
However, it is important to note that the Philippines is not alone in its policy on prisoner voting rights. Many countries in Asia, including China, Japan, and South Korea, also do not allow prisoners to vote. The rationale behind this policy is often based on the belief that prisoners have forfeited their right to participate in the democratic process by committing crimes that have resulted in their incarceration. However, there are also arguments in favor of allowing prisoners to vote, such as the need to maintain their connection to society and to promote rehabilitation.
International human rights law dictates that all individuals, including prisoners, have the right to take part in the democratic process. This is recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and numerous other international treaties. As such, there is a strong case for extending voting rights to prisoners in the Philippines.
However, despite the clear provisions of international human rights law, many countries still deny prisoners the right to vote. In some cases, this is due to concerns about security and the potential for prisoners to influence elections. In other cases, it is simply a matter of political expediency, with politicians unwilling to extend voting rights to a group that is often marginalized and stigmatized.
Nevertheless, there are signs of progress in this area. In recent years, several countries, including Canada and Ireland, have taken steps to extend voting rights to prisoners. These moves have been driven by a recognition that denying prisoners the right to vote is not only a violation of their human rights, but also undermines the legitimacy of the democratic process as a whole.
Even if the right to vote was extended to prisoners, there are several challenges that would need to be overcome to ensure that they can exercise it. One significant challenge is ensuring that prisoners are able to register to vote. Additionally, there may be logistical challenges in terms of getting ballot papers to prisoners and ensuring that they are able to vote in an impartial manner.
Another challenge that prisoners face when trying to exercise their right to vote is the lack of information and education about the voting process. Many prisoners may not be aware of their right to vote or how to go about registering and casting their vote. This lack of information can lead to a significant number of eligible prisoners being unable to participate in the democratic process.
Furthermore, there may be social and cultural barriers that prevent prisoners from voting. For example, some prisoners may come from communities where voting is not seen as important or may have negative attitudes towards the political system. Overcoming these barriers would require targeted outreach and education programs to ensure that all prisoners have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
Political participation and representation is important for all individuals, including prisoners. Prisoners often come from marginalized and disadvantaged backgrounds and as such, their voices can be easily ignored by the government and those in power. By allowing prisoners to vote, they are given a voice in the democratic process, which can potentially lead to positive change for them and their communities.
Furthermore, political participation can also have a positive impact on the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners into society. By engaging in the political process, prisoners can develop important skills such as critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving. These skills can be useful in their personal and professional lives after their release from prison.
However, it is important to note that not all prisoners are eligible to vote. In some countries, prisoners who have been convicted of certain crimes may be disenfranchised. This can lead to further marginalization and exclusion of already vulnerable populations. It is important for governments to consider the potential benefits of allowing all prisoners to participate in the democratic process, while also ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to maintain the integrity of the electoral system.
There are a number of proposed reforms that could potentially improve voting rights for prisoners in the Philippines. One possibility is allowing them to vote through proxy, or by mail. Alternatively, voting booths could be set up within prisons to ensure that prisoners have the opportunity to cast their votes. However, these reforms would require changes to both legislation and the infrastructure necessary to support them.
Another proposed reform is to allow prisoners who have not been convicted of a crime to vote. Currently, only convicted prisoners are barred from voting, but pre-trial detainees and those who have not yet been convicted are still eligible to vote. Allowing these individuals to exercise their right to vote could help to ensure that their voices are heard and that their interests are represented.
Additionally, some advocates are calling for the establishment of a prisoner ombudsman or similar oversight body to ensure that prisoners’ rights are protected and that they are able to participate in the democratic process. This could involve providing prisoners with information about their voting rights, as well as ensuring that they have access to the necessary resources and support to exercise those rights.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought numerous challenges to the electoral process in the Philippines. With the risk of transmission of the virus, there are concerns and challenges in ensuring that prisoners are able to exercise their right to vote. As such, voting rights have become an even more pressing concern, and there may be more momentum behind reforms to improve voting rights for prisoners in light of the pandemic.
The question of prisoners’ right to vote in the Philippines is a complex issue that has no easy answers. While there are compelling arguments on both sides of the debate, it is clear that there are potential positive impacts that could come from extending voting rights to prisoners, such as improving their sense of civic responsibility and their rehabilitation. For now, however, the current law stands, and prisoners in the Philippines remain disenfranchised.
Guard Amara Brown at Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center is charged with using DoorDash to deliver a meal to an inmate.
Ali Miles, a trans woman, sues NYC for $22 million, alleging mistreatment and discrimination after being placed in a male prison.
South Dakota lawmakers explore shifting responsibility for inmate legal defense fees from counties to the state.