The Refutation and Concession

1. What it my thesis

Because of irrationality of their decisions, prisoners should not be allowed to vote

2. What is the opposite position

Criminals also have human rights, thus we should allow them to vote.

3. What arguments can I anticipate

a) public opinion in the United Kingdom

b) social issues in Korea

4. How I counter those arguments

a) Criminals lose their right by committing a crime.

b) Criminals who committed a terrible crime cannot be believed to think correctly and carefully

c) Candidates for public officials may suggest advantageous laws for prisoners to get votes from prisoners

The Refutation and Concession

 In fact, many people believe that criminals are also citizens. They say that even though criminals committed felony, they are still citizens of their home country. Of course, they were citizens, but not at all after they commit a crime. Thus, I absolutely oppose this idea. Criminals destroyed their rights as citizens by committing a crime. Also, they violated other people's right to live like a human being. According to people who believe criminals are also citizens, we should also regard serial killers as citizens and allow them to vote for our president who should look after for five years. I can't agree their opinion at all and I think criminals gave up their rights as citizens since committing a crime.
Moreover, some people say prison has a function of rehabilitation, thus we should allow prisoners to vote. I agree prison's function. But need we allow prisoners to vote? In fact we already allow criminals who get out of prison to vote. In prison term, they can take time for self-reflection and be rehabilitated. Therefore, I think people who get out of prison can think correctly and deserve right to vote. However, prisoners who were monitored in prison and locked away not to do wrong actions need to have some time to rehabilitate themselves. Therefore, allowing prisoners to vote is too early choice.