Will these ideas actually be so monumental?

 Brettschinder’s argues that prisoners have to have “an instrumental recognition of this democratic rights” (154). 


I fully agree with his first argument. Coming from a country that allows prisoners to vote I see that not allowing prisoners to vote is simply stripping them of their fundamental right which comes with having a citizenship. And, while, I am not convinced that giving them the right to vote will lead to some many positive outcomes outlined by Brettschnider. This is because that would require a robust civic societies to be formed within prisons,a point to which I will object later on. I believe the least it will do is make the US more of an actual democracy where voting is accessible to increasingly more citizens. 


Now, let’s suppose that prisoners have been given rights and now are allowed to vote in line with Brettschinder’s argument. He believes that this right will allow the formation of prison constituencies which will be active and have a huge impact on the political landscape. I think this view is overly optimistic. Even when prisoners will have the access to information and the political discussion will take place in prisons. I am not sure that prisoners while having a court hearing or when facing a life sentence will want to take part in a robust political life. I would rather imagine that allowing prisoners to vote will allow them to exercise their rights and they will use it. However, I am not fully convinced that they will form constituencies, which will be as powerful as Brettschiner imagines them. Will prisoners now mobilise and vote out local politicians or gain so much attention from politicians on the national-level to subvert the political agenda? I do not think so.


Firstly, prisoners do not trust politicians and thus why would they want reforms to be created by them. A political survey conducted by The Marshall Project discovered that more than 80% of prisoners do not believe that politicians are acting in their interest. Thus, will prisoners trust the distrusted politicians to change what is broken within the system?


Secondly, creating such constituencies requires collaboration and the ability to hold a public discourse. Is such democracy possible within prison walls? While prisoners are also able to think critically, form opinions, and examine other people point of views: is the US prison system created in a way that it will support and not hinder such discussion? Will they want to encourage democracy to be created or are we asking here for a structural change which is unlikely to happen fast and effectively. 


Therefore, while I agree with Brettschiner's view that it is essential we give prisoners the right to vote. I think he takes an overly positive view on the consequences this change will bring about.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does the social reality imply a natural reality?

I’m very interested in understanding where the boundary between what we might consider the (or a) ‘natural’ reality and our ‘social’ reality occurs. Professor Toole offers a compelling account of how the ideology of the ruling class shapes the body of knowledge and the conceptual tools available to understand social reality. Professor Toole’s account seems to imply the impossibility of social structures as being ‘natural.’ That is, the term natural social structure or formation would be an oxymoron. She writes, “social structures are…constituted by our choices and actions,” (4) which seems to indicate that social structures are the result of human choices and actions, and so they cannot exist in the absence of them. This also seems to suggest a division between our ‘social’ reality exclusively defined by and dependent on human action and choice and a ‘natural’ reality of things not affected by humans, say the ocean and uranium. I am interested in the boundary and relationship between t...
Read more

Is cancel culture democratic (with a small "d" even though it is also Democratic with a big "D")?

Regarding Kara's Post: I want to try and tease out how Kara's blog post fits the college into Anderson's image of a private government. It seems like Kara's suggesting that the college itself is the private government. The professors are the governors and the students are the governed. The college constitutes a government because a government "exists wherever some have the authority to issue orders to others, backed by sanctions" (Anderson 42). Professors can issue orders by assigning tasks students must perform, and professors can sanction students who fail to complete these tasks or fail to do them successfully by giving them poor or failing grades in courses. The college is a private government because the "governed are kept out of decision-making" (45). The students do not, for the most part, come up with their own assignments or come up with grading rubrics for those assignments.  I agree with Kara, based on the image of the college as a private...
Read more

Better Model?

     On page 54, Beitz says that human rights are like natural rights in that they are "critical standards" not determined by legal rules, but unlike natural rights in that they do not presuppose one view about their justification. He seems to be basing this off of Maritain's conclusion that human rights are a common ground for action despite different reasons for justification for different people. He uses this to say that human rights are not "out there" as natural rights are and continues the argument on 57. He argues that there seems to be no good reason for why we should  conceive of human rights as natural ones.      Beitz points to natural rights theorists like Locke, conceived of natural rights " formulate constraints on the use of a government’s coercive power in circumstances of religious and moral diversity" (57). While I suspect that Locke would argue that he had other reasons for posing these as natural rigthts and this was a just a desira...
Read more