Prisoners to get the vote.

[InsaneApache]

Courtesy of this man....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkrYr-FTyOw&feature=player_embedded

Nice guy.

I don't think that they should have the vote. Do you?

Edit: Some good news, this berk might be called back to gaol. Excellent.

[rory_20_uk]

My personal view is that jail should be reserved for either prolific / repeat offenders or those who have committed violent / 'orrible crimes. Most other offences should be dealt with in the community in terms of fines and community service (which should be properly supervised).

Jail should therefore be a pretty nasty place with few amenities and a 6 day a week work schedule.

I also think that these individuals are repaying society back for their crimes. Until they have done so they are not citizens and therefore have a vastly reduced set of rights - one of which definitely isn't the right to vote.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't think that they should have the vote. Do you?I am against a blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners. Everybody has got rights, and any government infringement of any right needs to be for a specific purpose. Society needs to protect its liberties by curbing both the powers of the government and of the criminal.

Having said that, civic rights come with civic duties, and anybody who has committed a crime punishable by, say, more than two years imprisonment, has shown himself grossly unwilling to accept civic duty. So no vote for them.
Gaol, lest we forget, is meant to avenge too. The prisoner is supposed to lose something with it.


Some good news, this berk might be called back to gaol. Excellent.I just read an interview with him. A tragic lifestory, indeed. Otherwise, all the usual nasty tripe which is so typical of the criminal mind. He'll be a repeat offender.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/humberside/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9151000/9151866.stm

[Furunculus]

more less agree with your view Louis, what i object to is where the judgement came from.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I watched up until he said "because you can't start saying that certain people have human rights and other people don't have human rights"...what about the right to liberty, dumbass?

[gaelic cowboy]

I think that prisoners should not only have the vote I think they should be allowed stand for election, I don't want some fella deciding where some arbitrary line is for enfranchisement who says where it stops eventually.

My reason is simple as long as the right to vote cannot be take from a prisoner then it cant be taken from me simple as, you could end up in a situation where a country could start locking up all sorts of people up on spurious minor charges road tax etc and swing an election.

Some of you will say well maybe not for minor charges but where is the divide between minor and serious crime to lose the vote it would and is seriously grey.

[Furunculus]

I watched up until he said "because you can't start saying that certain people have human rights and other people don't have human rights"...what about the right to liberty, dumbass?

more or less why i don't have time for the concept of inalienable human rights, every right is a right conferred by society and extended for so long as society wills it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

more or less why i don't have time for the concept of inalienable human rights, every right is a right conferred by society and extended for so long as society wills it.

I'm not sure that follows though. You can still have rights that exist independently of what society says, that can't be given away by people, and that can only be lost by willfully committing crimes.

[HoreTore]

Of course prisoners should have the vote.

They are a part of society, and most important of all, they have experience and knowledge of a side of society we others do not have.

[tibilicus]

Disagree with the decision. Voting isn't a human right, it's a right which you gain by opting to live within a civil society. By breaking the civil contract an individual has with society (the law), that said individual loses the right to have a say on what goes on within that society. Those people who are incarcerated are normally in prison because they have broken the law in a way which is deemed worthy enough for society to suspend those liberties.

It is a temporary suspension as well, the rights are fully restored once the judicial service deems the individual fit enough to return to society. We also have to remember that this right to vote will make prisoners part of the electorate and thus, MPs will canvas them. Do you really want your representative angling towards the rapist/ common scum bag vote? I wouldn't..

[gaelic cowboy]

We also have to remember that this right to vote will make prisoners part of the electorate and thus, MPs will canvas them. Do you really want your representative angling towards the rapist/ common scum bag vote? I wouldn't..

Not very likely now is it unless they all change there constituency on the register of electors to the one where the prison is located now is it eh.

If your worried about them actually changing where there vote resides you could simply deny them this right till they leave prison but still allow the vote, seeing as they would be from all over the country there electoral power would be diluted but still counted.

[HoreTore]

Honestly though, this is mostly a non-issue. Whether prisoners are allowed to vote or not won't affect politics in the slightest, only a couple of percent of them are going to vote anyway.

The impact on real-life politics will therefore be around 0.

[InsaneApache]

Honestly though, this is mostly a non-issue. Whether prisoners are allowed to vote or not won't affect politics in the slightest, only a couple of percent of them are going to vote anyway.

The impact on real-life politics will therefore be around 0.

Not really the point though is it? If you break the law and go to gaol, the punishment is your loss of liberty. The removal of that liberty is the suspension from society. Therefore it follows that because you are suspended from society you lose the right to vote. Don't like it? Then don't break the law. Or get caught. :sweatdrop:

[gaelic cowboy]

Not really the point though is it? If you break the law and go to gaol, the punishment is your loss of liberty. The removal of that liberty is the suspension from society. Therefore it follows that because you are suspended from society you lose the right to vote. Don't like it? Then don't break the law. Or get caught. :sweatdrop:

So does a person who is arrested protesting outside the Iranian embassy get the same treatment as a scum bag who robs from the back of trucks??

I don't like the idea that you lose your vote cos your in jail the temptation to abuse it for political purposes in a marginal constituency is possible. If everyone has the vote regardless then they are all protected from dodgy governments.

[HoreTore]

Not really the point though is it? If you break the law and go to gaol, the punishment is your loss of liberty. The removal of that liberty is the suspension from society. Therefore it follows that because you are suspended from society you lose the right to vote. Don't like it? Then don't break the law. Or get caught. :sweatdrop:

True, but I've seen some people try to scare people with this, with comments like "they'll vote in people that will help them break the law" and other such complete nonsense(I think it was CR who last had a thread about this, with the argument that it was a ploy from some politician to ensure his reelection or something).

We've accepted that breaking the law results in the loss of rights; I have no problems with people who feel that the right to vote can be one of those lost rights. I don't feel that's a right we should take away, but that's my opinion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

My reason is simple as long as the right to vote cannot be take from a prisoner then it cant be taken from me simple as, you could end up in a situation where a country could start locking up all sorts of people up on spurious minor charges road tax etc and swing an election.

Some of you will say well maybe not for minor charges but where is the divide between minor and serious crime to lose the vote it would and is seriously grey.

If things ever got to the point where vast swathes of the population were being locked up nothing at all, then I expect the vote would have to have been lost a long time beforehand for such things to happen. And of all the liberties I would be concerned with getting back, the vote would be pretty far down the list.


So does a person who is arrested protesting outside the Iranian embassy get the same treatment as a scum bag who robs from the back of trucks??

Depends if they can hold the protest lawfully. Although I'm with Louis, I would work within the grey area, and allow minor offenders to keep the vote.

[gaelic cowboy]

If things ever got to the point where vast swathes of the population were being locked up nothing at all, then I expect the vote would have to have been lost a long time beforehand for such things to happen. And of all the liberties I would be concerned with getting back, the vote would be pretty far down the list.

does not require vast swaths at all it only requires a few people in marginal constituencies if the election is forecast to be tight what was it Fermanagh and South Tyrone was just 4 votes

Plus does this not tie in with Florida election and the whole felons cant vote thing



Depends if they can hold the protest lawfully. Although I'm with Louis, I would work within the grey area, and allow minor offenders to keep the vote.

my problem here is that where dose the line fall I think it's better to have no line so we know where we stand.

I would like to point out this does not mean I would mind scumbags not havin the vote but once you have a precedent in law for something who says it wont be applied to you.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

my problem here is that where dose the line fall I think it's better to have no line so we know where we stand.
.

Don't you have something like felonies vs misdemeanors?

[gaelic cowboy]

And who makes the case for if it is a felony or misdemeour the director of public prosecutions a state organisation

Plus say I protest peacefully outside some business or embassy but I have a judgement against me to desist I could end up charged potentialy with rioting even if I never threw a single stone.

While some scumbag who steals small amounts from shops regular is allowed to vote how is that ok.

[Beskar]

Depends on Prisoners and Personal circumstances.

There are some prisoners which are not necessarily "evil", and others who have reformed and redeemed themselves. Even then, some of the minor crimes shouldn't really stop people from voting.

Obvious examples of where voting should be restricted (Such as the person in the Youtube video) should be obviously restricted.

[Rhyfelwyr]

my problem here is that where dose the line fall I think it's better to have no line so we know where we stand.

But in that sense, how is the right to vote different from the right to not have your liberty restricted by being stuck in a prison?

You could just as easily say that since some people might be locked up unjustly, nobody should be sent to prison for anything, and so we will all know where we stand.

[gaelic cowboy]

But in that sense, how is the right to vote different from the right to not have your liberty restricted by being stuck in a prison?

You could just as easily say that since some people might be locked up unjustly, nobody should be sent to prison for anything, and so we will all know where we stand.

I think restricting peoples liberty is enough really it is bad enough we are doing things like that with out taking the vote too. It can have nasty consequences if it's bluntly used or unevenly applied my guess we would have loads of poor people stopped while toffs would still have there vote.

I basically do not trust people with taking anyones vote off them it is a step too far in my view.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think restricting peoples liberty is enough really it is bad enough we are doing things like that with out taking the vote too. It can have nasty consequences if it's bluntly used or unevenly applied my guess we would have loads of poor people stopped while toffs would still have there vote.

I basically do not trust people with taking anyones vote off them it is a step too far in my view.

But surely forcing someone to live in a small cell for years is a much bigger step than not letting them take a trip to the ballot box? Obviously there are electoral issues, with the fact that most prisoners are working-class and are likely to vote a certain way, but that does not change the fact that they still effectivley surrender their rights as 'rights' when they break the law. From then on, anything they get is a privilege.

At least we all seemed to be agreed on that I guess. It is just a matter of personal preference with how far you want to in the grea area.

Nowhere near controversial enough for the Backroom.

OMG, Nazi's didn't give prisoners the vote!!!

[gaelic cowboy]

A compromise might be that people would show how they were working to regain the rights they lost with the vote being one, we encourage long term prisoners to rehabilitate inside say a lifer might eventually get back the vote after several stages of proven work.

[Furunculus]

So does a person who is arrested protesting outside the Iranian embassy get the same treatment as a scum bag who robs from the back of trucks??

I don't like the idea that you lose your vote cos your in jail the temptation to abuse it for political purposes in a marginal constituency is possible. If everyone has the vote regardless then they are all protected from dodgy governments.

yes, for the limited amount of time they find themselves in gaol.

i would recommend being careful about when they wish to violently protest.

[Furunculus]

I'm not sure that follows though. You can still have rights that exist independently of what society says, that can't be given away by people, and that can only be lost by willfully committing crimes.

i disagree.

------------

but let me be clear, i have no real heartfelt position on the matter, much as with the death penalty, i have my opinion but i am happy to abide by the opinion of society at large. i just object to the decision being taken beyond british society, for it is no longer their will.

[InsaneApache]

i just object to the decision being taken beyond british society, for it is no longer their will.

A lot of us do but we've been stitched up. Tight as a kipper. Job done. :no:

[Beskar]

Well, that is not actually true, we are part of Europe, after all.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you guys are kinda giving up on the whole 'sovereign nation' thing, huh?

It seems to be a person sentenced to jail has shown they have harmed someone and society as a whole. It seems letting them vote would just give them more power to harm.


They are a part of society, and most important of all, they have experience and knowledge of a side of society we others do not have.

I have a bunch of experiences most of you Norwegian types don't - can I vote in your elections?

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

This has got nothing to do with the EU. The much maligned court decision is not an EU one. It was instead made by that most wonderous of instruments of European civilisation, the ECHR.

The European Court for Human Rights safeguards human rights of all Europeans against their governments. It has been enormously succesful in empowering dissidents in the former Eastern Bloc. The ECHR has also been very instrumental in protecting citizens against government infringements of human rights in more established democracies. All countries have little blind spots, structural faults, unfortunate aspects in their legislation. The ECHR provides a citizen with a second opinion against his government.

In this case, against British prison legislation dating back to 1870, made in time when a prisoner ran the risk of being shipped to the Australian desert and all that. Now, British legislation will have to be brought up to speed with that of a 21st century democracy.



Be careful what you wish for when criticising the ECHR- the call for sovereignity is not a call for 'British' sovereignity. It is a call for government sovereignity against meddlesome citizens and their pesky human rights.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In this case, against British prison legislation dating back to 1870, made in time when a prisoner ran the risk of being shipped to the Australian desert and all that. Now, British legislation will have to be brought up to speed with that of a 21st century democracy.


This doesn't lead to the conclusion that prisoners should have the right to vote...

[Skullheadhq]

"You don't suspend human rights"
"But...but..."

[Fragony]

The idea behind jail is to deny someone a certain amount of his life. To give them voting rights is contadictory, there is a difference between human and civil rights.

[Skullheadhq]

The idea behind jail is to deny someone a certain amount of your life. To give them voting rights is contadictory, there is a difference between human and civil rights.

Wat zouden gevangenen stemmen?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Be careful what you wish for when criticising the ECHR- the call for sovereignity is not a call for 'British' sovereignity. It is a call for government sovereignity against meddlesome citizens and their pesky human rights.

It seems to me it is just a simple call for British sovereignty, and I am happy to live under a sovereign democratic government, as opposed to having my laws made by non-democratic transnational institutions/courts.

[HoreTore]

Wat zouden gevangenen stemmen?

Bruk et språk vi andre kan forstå ~;)