The United States is experiencing expanding international criticism for its felon disenfranchisement laws, which leave millions of voices silent in the democratic process. Domestically, the United States’ disenfranchisement laws are balanced between conservative politicians calling for retribution against criminals and progressive politicians looking to advance rehabilitation goals in the criminal justice system. With no easy compromise, both sides must think adaptively about felon disenfranchisement to develop laws that ameliorate international pressure and domestic strife.

America’s cultural focus on punishment stems from an instinctual need for vengeance. Vengeance is foundational to retributional punishment, analogizing to jus talionis. Looking toward “the past rather than the future,” retribution has a well-documented history of embodying multiple forms of punishment that emphasize a proportional response to criminals’ actions. The justification for this approach originates in social contract theory. Essentially, once a person commits a crime, the social contract has been broken and the function and safety of society has been attacked. Society then has an interest in enacting vengeance on the law-breaker, because society has been harmed. In order to restore safety and order the perpetrator must suffer consequences.

While retribution looks toward the past, rehabilitation looks to the future. Rehabilitation focuses on re-acclimation into society and reinstating people to “a former position or rank.” Rehabilitation became popularized in the late nineteenth century, developing from religious roots. Over the next hundred years, rehabilitation efforts developed in several fields, among them medicine, psychology, and education. These initiatives focus attention on felons’ reentry into society, as opposed to revenge.

The issue of felon disenfranchisement is central to the debate on which theory should inform the criminal justice system. To advance retribution, disenfranchisement  works to punish felons by removing their participation in influencing society and the government. Rehabilitation advocates argue disenfranchisement hinders felons’ reentry into society by deeming them unworthy to vote, therefore perpetuating their status as a lower class of people.