Morality is one of the major causes for intellectual debate among scholars in philosophy and criminal justice. It is considered as a state of being upright and adhering to individual and societal standards of behavior. On the other hand, happiness as the end goal in life that and human beings pursue. Through the achievement of individual values happiness is realized as a basic satisfaction with life. Recent studies identify a close connection between happiness and moral behavior. In this case, scholars point out that achieving happiness is not possible if the individual experiences clashes with personal values and subsequent guilt (Aknin, Dunn, & Norton, 2012). This paper seeks to extend the debate on the issue by debating whether criminal justice policies such as disenfranchisement are morally upright and can lead to happiness, and ways to improve them.
Ethical Theory: Categorical Imperative
The Categorical Imperative is a well known ethical theory developed by Immanuel Kant as a concept in the deontological moral philosophy. The concept identifies a basic measure of reviewing the motivations for undertaking an action. According to the theory, Kant claimed that humans are sentient beings that hold a special place within all living creation. Therefore, morality of human actions are evident by the adherence to the ultimate commandment of reason or the imperative. The categorical imperative denotes an absolute and unconditional requirment that all actions must obey in all circumstances and which is an end in itself. To achieve full adherance to morals three formulations should be incorporated including universality and law of nature, humanity, and autonomy. In the first formulation, humans are expected to act in a manner that the action be considered universal law of nature. In the second one, actions should treat humanity as an end in itself and not a means to the end. Finally, obligations of the sentient beings is to ensure that the harmony of the first two formulations such that it demands the same from the individual.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Analysis of Disenfranchisement
The practice of disenfranchisement is a policy in the criminal justice system where individuals are denied the right to vote in local, state, and national elections. In this approach, the practice is usually enforced on individuals who have committed felony class of crimes (Marshall, 2018). These are the offenses that attract more than one year incarceration and fines exceeding $1000. The primary argument is that the individuals who have committed a felony have broken the social contract. Therefore, their actions are an indicator that they waive their rights to living in a civil society. The approach used in the criminal justice system does not reflect a morally upright measure (Marshall, 2018). As per the categorical imperative, it is evident that the proponents and enforcers of this policy would not wish that it becomes a universal law of nature. The founding fathers of the nation wished that all members participate in voting practices as a sign of equality in the country. The individual lives of incarcerated persons are utilized as a means to an end a measure tha Kant completely objects. The belief is that through disenfranchisement, more members of society will refrain from felony crimes.
Ways to Improve
There is only one single measure that criminal justice enforcers can improve the policy as a measure of making it morally upright. This is through undertaking measures to enable individual inmates to participate in the voting process. It is evident that majority of those incarcerated will one day be released from prison after serving their full sentence and in so doing paying their debt to society (Hamilton-Smith & Vogel, 2013). Such individuals should be able to return to a society where leaders are actively taking measures to serve their needs. Opponents note that the revocation of suffrage is closely associated with incidence of recidivism which beats the point of incarceration in the first place (Hamilton-Smith & Vogel, 2013).
References
Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Happiness runs in a circular motion: Evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13 (2), 347-355.
Hamilton-Smith, G. P., & Vogel, M. (2012). The violence of voicelessness: The impact of felony disenfranchisement on recidivism. Berkeley La Raza LJ, 22 , 407.
Marshall, P. (2018). Voting from prison: against the democratic case for disenfranchisement. Ethics & Global Politics, 11 (3), 1498696.
