Dissertation
By
Bryan Lee Miller
Criminology, Law and Society
University of Florida
Abstract:
In the state of Florida, when individuals are adjudicated guilty of a felony crime they forfeit the right to vote, serve on a jury, and run for elected office. These civil rights are lost regardless of whether they are sentenced to incarceration, probation, or released into the community. The process to regain these civil rights can be difficult, time consuming, and nearly impossible for some. Current research on prisoner reentry suggests that the loss of these civil rights constitutes a barrier to full citizenship that may impede the process of community reintegration. This research examines data from the hearings of the Executive Clemency Board to evaluate the predictors of having one’s rights restored. In addition, 54 semi-structured interviews with ex-felons were conducted to understand the meaning former offenders attribute to the loss of their civil rights and the impact this may have on staying out of trouble. Findings from this study show rights restoration to be difficult, and their denial to pose a significant obstacle to successful reintegration.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Research:
The right to vote for those convicted of crimes is an issue that has received growing attention in several disciplines. Political, legal, and philosophical concerns over disenfranchisement have dominated this debate and are all worthy of further time and attention. This study, though, examined a neglected dimension of the issue – the criminological perspective. In other words, the primary purpose of this study was to consider the impact if any, of disenfranchisement on the reintegration of ex-offenders into their communities.
In the state of Florida, when individuals are adjudicated guilty of a felony crime they lose the right to vote, serve on a jury, and run for elected office. When it comes to the right to vote, Florida is among the most aggressive states in utilizing ex-felon disenfranchisement. In the process, the state has created a barrier to voting that has excluded more Floridians from voting than at any time since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite a growing interest in this issue, little is known about the impact political exclusion has on community reintegration.
This study was the first ever comprehensive examination of ex-felon disenfranchisement and the process of rights restoration. The study utilized both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to further evaluate the impact of ex-offender disenfranchisement. This research employed the following: 1) a comprehensive evaluation of state records from the Executive Clemency Board (ECB) focusing on predictors of successful rights restoration 2) a qualitative assessment of the process of rights restoration and the ECB’s quarterly convening 3) 54 in-depth semi-structured interviews with ex-offenders who were disenfranchised. This diverse methodological strategy was used to triangulate the impact of ex-felon disenfranchisement and to better understand its effect on the process of successful reintegration into the community.
The data collected from the ECB over the past six years were used to evaluate predictors of having one’s rights restored. This rich data were used to perform the first analysis of systematic patterns in the process of rights restoration. The ECB offers an opportunity for ex-offenders to speak before the governor and his cabinet to ask for the restoration of their civil rights. The Florida Parole Commission (FPC) provides the governor, attorney general, chief financial officer, and commissioner of agriculture with its recommendations. Victims are notified and sometimes speak or have statements read at these hearings. To supplement the quantitative assessment of this process, I provided a detailed account of these hearings and an evaluation of ex-felons’ arguments and the decision process.
The final component of this research was 54 in-depth interviews with ex-offenders. Ex-offenders were recruited throughout the state from halfway houses, recovery groups, faith-based reentry groups, ex-felon advocacy groups, and community outreach programs. This strategy produced an interview population with a representative range of felony offenses who were at various stages of community reintegration. The aim of these interviews was to better understand the impact ex-felon disenfranchisement has on self-identity and the reintegration process. Towards that end, the interviews had two main points of focus: 1) to understand the meaning ex-offenders attribute to the loss of their basic civil rights after their criminal sentence 2) to examine the impact of this loss and the subsequent restoration process on the ability of ex-offenders to successfully reintegrate into the community.
Findings:
“I’d like to be a part of the number that makes the decisions of who goes where, who does what, and make people accountable for what they do and what they say. And sure it’s good to run for office and I’d like to do that someday myself, but… until people find forgiveness and find a way to… let people go after they done what they done, ‘cause all of us have done some stuff all of us didn’t go to prison for, but until… you get to the point, when is enough, enough? How long do I have to do it? Do I have to do it inside or do I have to come outside and do the same thing and then have another sentence passed on me as well?” (47-year-old sales representative).
One of the main questions raised by ex-offenders is how long they have to be clean and crime free to receive recognition for their change. Unfortunately, this is a question that may not have a satisfying answer. Long after offenders have served their criminal justice sentence, they are continuously excluded in many ways. The mark of their criminal record follows them for the rest of their lives. In addition, many states officially brand them as others and reduce their citizenship. This research found that not all of those who were disenfranchised were negatively impacted in their reintegration process, but a substantial number of ex-felons were both directly and indirectly affected by these policies.
An evaluation of the restoration process found that the cumbersome and complex process of rights restoration has essentially created a “bureaucracy of disenfranchisement.” The restoration process is difficult, and for those ex-offenders denied, it serves to further alienate them. The benefits for the few who are able to achieve restoration of civil rights through the Executive Clemency Board hearings are likely to be far too few to outweigh the negative effect on the many denied, misinformed, or unwilling to even apply for their rights back.
The majority of former offenders learned about the loss of their voting rights after they had committed their offense, which rejects the claim that disenfranchisement serves a general deterrent form of punishment. For many ex-felons, the loss of voting rights was viewed as a punishment that created feelings of anger, embarrassment, and negativity impacted their self-identity. Former offenders frequently made a connection between these policies and other forms of concentrated disadvantage in minority communities, and perceived them to create even more challenges for reintegration. For their part, the veterans who participated in this study felt that the loss of civil rights further devalued their service to their county. All of the diverse ex-offender reactions surveyed here are likely to influence whether disenfranchisement has a defiant, deterrent, or labeling effect.
The results of this analysis indicated that restrictions on civil liberties have a significant impact on a large portion of ex-offenders either directly or indirectly. Although not all former offenders indicated that the loss of their voting rights impeded successful reintegration into the community, a substantial number were affected by these policies, suggesting that these policies may be harmful to their desistance from criminal activity. Better understanding of the different stories that ex-offenders tell advances the current state of knowledge of the impact civic exclusion has on community reintegration. In sum, the impact of ex-felon disenfranchisement goes well beyond the electoral consequences to include highly personal effects on the process of “making good.”
Policy Recommendations:
The primary focus of this research was to evaluate the impact that disenfranchisement policies have on former offenders’ reintegration into the community. This is an important issue because, “Without successful re-entry into one’s community, recidivism is likely to occur, to the great detriment to the public safety, Florida’s communities, families, taxpayers, and individual ex-offenders” (Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force 2006:4). It is with this goal in mind that the study makes the following recommendations.
The most immediate need is for ex-felon assistance in navigating the process of rights restoration. As noted by the Florida Parole Commissioner, the process is “cumbersome and complex,” and unfortunately, many of those directly involved with the process do not understand these rules. Knowledge of the Rules of Executive Clemency need to be better understood by the parole examiners, election supervisors, the Governor’s Office, and members of the Executive Clemency Board in order to prevent errors. In addition, resources need to be made available for ex-felons attempting to understand this process. Increased information and support are needed for out-of-state ex-felons, and clarifications of these rules need to be made. Furthermore, the under-funded and lengthy process of restoration needs to be further evaluated to assess if the lack of support and low success rate poses a significant threat to reintegration. All four interviewees rejected at the ECB hearings were angry and frustrated with the system. It is likely that this further alienation and rejection can be harmful for reintegration.
The presence of a victim was the largest predictor for applicants having their petition denied. Further evaluation of the role of the victim at these hearings is warranted. Hearings involving a victim dramatically changed the focus of the hearing from the positive changes in the applicant’s life to the pain caused to the victim. Unfortunately, this process does not seem therapeutic to either party, but only creates a situation that is disintegrative for the applicant, further excluding them.
Attendance at the Executive Clemency Board played a very large role in whether applicants were able to get their rights restored. The geographic location of Tallahassee creates logistical problems for applicants traveling from various parts of the state. In order to create a more equitable process for all Floridians, this study suggests that hearings be conducted in various geographic regions. This could be accomplished by either a rotation of the ECB hearings or by establishing satellite facilities in which applicants could communicate with the ECB via video conferencing technology. Additional locations in Orlando and Miami would ease the travel burden many applicants face and allow them to present their cases to the governor.
All of these problems could be remedied by either a simplification of the process or the removal of disenfranchisement for those in completion of their criminal justice sentence. It is with this assessment that this study recommends altering the current policy of disenfranchisement and increase practices of inclusion for ex-offenders in attempt to help reduce recidivism rates among those reentering the community. This study concludes that ex-felon disenfranchisement is likely to impede the reintegration process rather than aid it. As a matter of public safety, it appears that the consequences of civic exclusion, in impeding the successful reintegration of ex-offenders, outweigh any potential benefit to its criminological value. Ex-felon disenfranchisement’s political, philosophical, or legal value should be greatly evaluated against the negative impact that it has on the safety of the community.
Bryan Lee Miller, Ph.D. 