No tolerance for Prisoners
In Korea, there was serious and terrible accident, the sinking of Sewol Ferry, last April. Many people have criticized government's action about this terrible accident. Also, the Commissioner of the Jeju police agency committed sexual assaults and has been criticized. To prevent this corruption of high-ranking government officials, which effort should we put? I think the very answer is that people should elect right person as officials. However, it is clear that there are someone who cannot perform this role to elect right person. I think if someone of the public is of no service to elect right person, they should suffer deprivation. In this case, I regard ‘Prisoners’ who committed lurid crimes as the very person who cannot anything beneficial to our society. Actually, Prisoners who committed serious crimes and were sentenced to more than three years are likely to commit crimes again. Then, should we believe them one more time? I can't believe their judgement and think they can bring confusion in our society. Thus, I believe that prisoners have difficulty in making correct decision and should not be allowed to vote.
Before I begin to provide reasonable evidences, I want to analyze government policies concerning right to vote of prisoners in Korea and other countries. In Korea, we can know Korea have limited right to vote of prisoners under Article 18 of Public Official Election Act. However, Constitutional Court decided that prisoners who are on probation can have right to vote. Therefore, prisoners who are on probation voted in this local election. Moreover, Constitutional Court is now trying to allow prisoners who are in jail to have a right to vote from 2016. Actually, prisoners in Canada, South Africa, Israel and Sweden can vote regardless of their gravity of the offence. In other words, they allow all prisoners to vote undiscriminatingly. What I want to bring up in this essay is not prisoners who are on probation, but prisoners under sentence, meaning prisoners who committed a grievous offense. Frankly speaking, I can acknowledge allowing prisoners who are on probation to vote, but to allow prisoners under sentence is nonsense decision.
The reason why I believe prisoners are likely to make wrong decisions is because of one research. Last year, Mind Research Network in University of New Mexico proceeded the study to know why prisoners are likely to commit a crime again. As a result of study, if part of brain which are concerned with decision making and behavior activate dully, second conviction is more likely to occur. Dr. Kent A. Kiehl scanned brains of 96 prisoners. Through it, he could understand which parts of brain make that problem. He revealed if ACC(anterior cirgulate corties) of brain activate dully, people who have these brains can behave on impulse and cannot think properly. Moreover, prisoners who committed lurid crimes are more likely to have this peculiarity in their brains. Therefore, Dr. Kent A. Kiehl concluded that because prisoners have that problem in their brains, it can be hard to expect them to think normally and believe they can make correct decisions.
What I want to say in this essay is not prohibiting right to vote of prisoners unquestioningly, but setting a limit to allow prisoners to vote in accordance with the gravity of the offense. Thus, in this essay, I am seeing prison inmates who committed grievous offenses as people who cannot be allowed to vote in any case. Then, I’ll provide some reasons which give validity to my position.
First, prisoners already destroyed the social contract by committing crimes. Actually, there are pledges in our society which are made because people live safely and society becomes stable. Thus, there are laws which can protect these pledges. However, prisoners are people who already violated that laws and disturbed the stability of a society. Actually, in Bible, we can find a verse which prohibited a criminal act, “Thou shalt not kill” meaning do not kill anyone. Can we say that prisoners also have right to live as people in our nation even though they already violated rules of society and also violated others’ rule? I want to say that civil rights of prisoners vanish when they violate victims’ rights.
Moreover, it is insult to victims to allow criminals. Actually, there is any reason why victims suffer because of a cruel crime. Criminals can be criticized in that they didn’t consider what others suffer if they commit crimes. Then, should we allow them to vote believing they can make a correct decision regarding our society even though they failed to make a correct decision on only one person, victim. If Constitutional Court passed a bill which allows all prisoners to vote without reference to gravity of offenses, it will be apparent affront to victims.
Second, candidates may use right to vote of prisoners improperly, creating confusion in our society. If prisoners can vote for public officials, candidates will try to make them cast a vote for them. Then, to make them do that, candidates may suggest favorable laws for prisoners. Finally, criminals will be punished less severely than before, and therefore a crime rate will increase inevitably. It may bring social confusion, and terrible accidents can be reoccur, such as the sinking of Sewol Ferry. Therefore, it is too generous policy to allow prisoners to vote.
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 completely 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 need to 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.
Nowadays, many people in various states insist prisoners also have the right to vote as a citizen. Frankly speaking, I also believed them just lately. However, after learning some serious social issues, I realized that corruption of Korean government are prevalent and these occur because of failure of election. Therefore, I learned we should elect public officials carefully. After thinking like this, I can believe that prisoners in Korea should not be allowed to vote, because prisoners already lose their rights after crimes, prisoners who committed serious and terrible crimes can't think as normal person, thus making wrong decisions and candidates can try to plan favorable laws for prisoners to get votes. What I insist is directly relevant to social stability. Thus to consider it is the right decision is crucial.
Reference
http://blog.daum.net/correction-in-korea/167
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11674014
http://www.wkh.kr/khnm.html?mode=view&artid=201011101607501&code=117
1D 1
답글삭제2D 2
R 3
F 3
T 9