View Full Version : Prisoners to have the right to vote
English assassin
10-06-2005, 14:43
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4315348.stm
Banning prisoners from voting breaches their human rights, a court has ruled.
The judgment by the European Court of Human Rights looks likely to force a change in British law on parliamentary and local elections.
This seems to me to be a difficult issue requiring careful consideration of the arguments on either side.
But stuff that, this is the backroom.
I'd have to see the judgement but at first sight this looks mad. The whole point of people being in prison is that they are removed from wider civic society for a time as a result of the crimes they have committed. If they are to have the right to vote they must surely be allowed conjugal visits (under the right to marry and found a family), presumably they should be allowed to take any personal property in that they like (right to enjoyment of possessions), and so on. In fact lets just not bother locking them up at all.
I also see, if the BBC report is accurate, that the court has taken the classic admin lawyer's cowards way out, in making the ruling on the basis that a blanket ban is disproportionate. So, SOME ban MIGHT be lawful, and now huge amounts of public money must be spent on civil servants to make a decision in each and every case, not to mention appeals and challenges to those decisions. Just so scrotes who can't keep their fingers off other people or their property can vote for the "be nice to criminals" party (eg the liberal democrats)
over here prisioners can vote....i don´t see a problem with it.....
the point of prison is preventing the prisioners from causing harm to the society....i don´t see how they can do this with a vote.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-06-2005, 14:51
Perhaps the courts will next rule that a Marine platoon should be polled for their decision as to whether or not they should attack an enemy position. Plebesites for all decisions -- what could be more efficient?
Seamus
P.S. I don't mind irony, it just takes too long to get my sleeves smooth.
Perhaps the courts will next rule that a Marine platoon should be polled for their decision as to whether or not they should attack an enemy position. Plebesites for all decisions -- what could be more efficient?
Seamus
P.S. I don't mind irony, it just takes too long to get my sleeves smooth.
i fail to see the paralelism between the situations.....it´s not like the prisioners are voting if they should stay in prision or not......and even if they were...the rest of the population would also vote.....which means they´d lose.
Big King Sanctaphrax
10-06-2005, 15:05
i fail to see the paralelism between the situations.....it´s not like the prisioners are voting if they should stay in prision or not......and even if they were...the rest of the population would also vote.....which means they´d lose.
Well, they could vote for parties promising shorter prison terms. That's sort of the same thing.
This seems ridiculous. I'm all for ex-cons being allowed to vote, but you shouldn't be able to do it whilst you're in prison. It's part of your punishment.
English assassin
10-06-2005, 15:21
over here prisioners can vote....i don´t see a problem with it.....
Voting is exercising an important civic responsibility, maybe the most important one there is. Why should people who have completely failed to observe the most basic rules of civic society, and who are in the middle of being punished for it, be allowed to have/trusted with the vote?
As usual in this case IMHO the trouble is we focus on the "right" to vote withiut thinking about the "duty" to use your vote in the interests of all your fellow citizens. Which a con in prison seems unlikely to be able to do. As I said (rather cleverly I thought) in a debate on whether 16 year olds should have the vote, the issue isn't whether they should have a say over their own lives, the issue is whether they should have a say over other people's.
thrashaholic
10-06-2005, 15:22
over here prisioners can vote....i don´t see a problem with it.....
the point of prison is preventing the prisioners from causing harm to the society....i don´t see how they can do this with a vote.
The government is a major determinant of the society, surely allowing prisoners to influence the government is allowing them to influence society, and their 'influence' on society is precisely what they're being punished for.
Ser Clegane
10-06-2005, 15:30
How is that regulated in the UK?
Does it depend on the crime or the length of the sentence whether a prisoner is allowed to vote or not?
Or is it that you lost your right to vote automatically if you happen to serve a prison sentence at the time of the election (even if it is something like a 30 day sentence)?
EDIT: I have to admit that I do not even know if prisoners are allowed to vote hre in Germany :embarassed:
Gawain of Orkeny
10-06-2005, 15:31
The government is a major determinant of the society, surely allowing prisoners to influence the government is allowing them to influence society, and their 'influence' on society is precisely what they're being punished for.
This is the problem with the UN. The criminals get to vote.
English assassin
10-06-2005, 15:42
How is that regulated in the UK?
Does it depend on the crime or the length of the sentence whether a prisoner is allowed to vote or not?
Or is it that you lost your right to vote automatically if you happen to serve a prison sentence at the time of the election (even if it is something like a 30 day sentence)?
The latter. If you happen to be a guest of her majesty on polling day you don't vote.
I'm not sure what happens if you are out on licence, I guess you still can't vote but I'm not sure.
Reverend Joe
10-06-2005, 15:48
This is the problem with the UN. The criminals get to vote.
Like the US? ~D (no, seriously, I'm not anti-American... I just like to give conservatives a jab every now and then.)
I see no reason prisoners should have a right to vote. If you think about it, locking a man up in a small room is also a violation of his civil rights- but there is a reason that man has lost his civil rights. Granted, maybe he should not be there- but that is another issue entirely. Prison is an area where civil rights should be suspended, up to the point where direct physical or psychological harm can be visited upon the person.
The government is a major determinant of the society, surely allowing prisoners to influence the government is allowing them to influence society, and their 'influence' on society is precisely what they're being punished for.
the prisioners are not enough of a % of the population to have any effective effect on the election results......could they make bad choises and hurt the country...yes they can......so can morons....but we don´t conduct IQ tests on people before we let them vote do we?...
_Martyr_
10-06-2005, 16:03
Perhaps it should be conditional on good behaviour? Giving people the chance at civic involvement might actually connect them to society again as opposed just becoming increasingly imbittered and angry at "the system", I wouldnt imagine the majority of prisoners ever voted before they went into the slammer. If you arent one of the people who chose those in power its a lot easier to point the finger at others, if you are involved in the decision, then you are at least a functioning part of the system. I dont think it should be automatic for all prisoners, but those that show they are reforming should be given the oppertunity.
Perhaps it should be conditional on good behaviour? Giving people the chance at civic involvement might actually connect them to society again as opposed just becoming increasingly imbittered and angry at "the system", I wouldnt imagine the majority of prisoners ever voted before they went into the slammer. If you arent one of the people who chose those in power its a lot easier to point the finger at others, if you are involved in the decision, then you are at least a functioning part of the system. I dont think it should be automatic for all prisoners, but those that show they are reforming should be given the oppertunity.
exactly...over here.....in a prison with let´s say 500 prisioners when election day comes around maybe 20-30 prisioners will vote....it´s not like these guys are electing presidents to pull for their views or anything.
So once again the European Union courts will force a soveriegn nation to bend to its will.
If you break the law which is there to protect society from harm, and are convicted of that crime - your rights granted to you by society should suffer the consequences of your failure to abide by society's rules. Losing the right to vote - is in line with that philosophy.
yesdachi
10-06-2005, 16:37
...but we don´t conduct IQ tests on people before we let them vote do we?...
I'd be ok with it.:book:
Prisoners should not be allowed to vote, neither should morons, two catagories that I'm sure overlap.~;)
King Henry V
10-06-2005, 16:42
Except in the UK, with the "first past the post" way of voting, a few votes can change the person elected as MP.
If you take this ruling ot the endth degree, is not illegal to deprive someone of their "basic human right" to freedom?
_Martyr_
10-06-2005, 16:45
If you break the law are convicted of a crime then yes you lose certain rights. No one would deny that. The thing we are arguing is that for those who want to win the right to vote back, they should be able to through good behaviour and a genuine positive response and remorse.
Come on, how many prisoners are we actually talking about here? What percentage are actually going to avail of this oppertunity? If people are showing positive signs that they are reforming and responding to their punishment, we should encourage it with granting them back some of their rights. Disenfranchised people with no civic awareness or connection are after all more likely to re-offend, no?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-06-2005, 17:04
the prisioners are not enough of a % of the population to have any effective effect on the election results......could they make bad choises and hurt the country...yes they can......so can morons....but we don´t conduct IQ tests on people before we let them vote do we?...
Nor do we require a demonstration of parenting skills/basic responsibility prior to breeding. Please don't get us started on that line, my computer does not have that much processing ability.
Seamus
yesdachi
10-06-2005, 17:20
Come on, how many prisoners are we actually talking about here? What percentage are actually going to avail of this oppertunity?
So because they are relatively small in numbers it doesn’t matter? What if we only had a small number of slaves? It is not the number but the point.:bow:
Duke Malcolm
10-06-2005, 17:31
I'm sure there is something illegal about foreign courts meddling with laws and the Queen's writ and such like in the great few but existing Uneditable laws of the Constitution...
English assassin
10-06-2005, 17:31
So once again the European Union courts will force a soveriegn nation to bend to its will
In a nutshell.
This is the European Court of Human Rights, which, strictly, we can ignore if we like, unlike the European Court of Justice which can indeed override any UK law it feels like, or, rather, it thinks it can. (ECHR rules on the European Convention on Human Rights, ECJ on the EU treaties).
But basically, yeah, another decision made somewhere where we have no say.
Devastatin Dave
10-06-2005, 18:15
God knows the liberals here in the States needs some votes, I bet there is nothing more the democrats want is for criminlas to vote.
It's not going to make any difference. They're still citizens anyway.
I'd be ok with it.:book:
so would I......but the fact stands that our societies don´t do that sort of thing.
If you take this ruling ot the endth degree, is not illegal to deprive someone of their "basic human right" to freedom?You beat me to that one... Isn't being forcibly placed in prison also a 'breach of human rights'? I thought that was the whole idea with prison, but what do I know? :shrug:
Marcellus
10-06-2005, 20:18
Isn't being forcibly placed in prison also a 'breach of human rights'?
This incursion of the prisoner's human rights is allowed because it is to protect the human rights (of safety etc.) of others, whose rights the prisoner has aready tried to violate. Allowing a prisoner to vote hardly damages others.
Papewaio
10-06-2005, 21:07
I'm not sure if prisoners in Aus can vote... I know that you can get fined if you dont vote, so I'm not sure if they are in a catch 22 or treated like overseas citizens.
Personally I think they should not get a vote while doing time, and for violent crimes unless pardoned they never should get the right to vote again (murder, rape or line dancing).
I think we should focus on a society that restores the dignity and rights of the victims before we start looking after additional rights for criminals.
Also as a priority we should be removing drugs from prisons, and teaching the prisoners social skills before we make them have powers to change the wider society.
Goofball
10-06-2005, 23:39
Screw 'em.
Prisoners should definitely not be allowed to vote.
_Martyr_
10-06-2005, 23:48
So because they are relatively small in numbers it doesn’t matter? What if we only had a small number of slaves? It is not the number but the point.:bow:
Thats a bit of a cheap shot it I may say so, anyone can all pull on empty rhetoric...
My point was that the overall effect will not be a huge surge for liberal parties who may be in favour of more leniant terms. as the numbers of prisoners who would take up this oppertunity would be tiny. So any concerns that the prisoners could "vote themselves out of prison" are put aside.
Soulforged
10-07-2005, 00:14
I'd have to see the judgement but at first sight this looks mad. The whole point of people being in prison is that they are removed from wider civic society for a time as a result of the crimes they have committed. If they are to have the right to vote they must surely be allowed conjugal visits (under the right to marry and found a family), presumably they should be allowed to take any personal property in that they like (right to enjoyment of possessions), and so on. In fact lets just not bother locking them up at all. I agree with you, I think that the privation of freedom is in a certain level as inhuman as the death penalty. A new rational society looking foward to the solutions of society should disregard more and more the criminal law as a whole. In this case, the whole point about formal democracy is the universal vote, some say of citizens, but I think that while the person has the corpus and the animus of habitating the country in question, he should have the right to vote. To me this discussion is a parallel to the one done in the times of Adam Smith.
I also see, if the BBC report is accurate, that the court has taken the classic admin lawyer's cowards way out, in making the ruling on the basis that a blanket ban is disproportionate. So, SOME ban MIGHT be lawful, and now huge amounts of public money must be spent on civil servants to make a decision in each and every case, not to mention appeals and challenges to those decisions. Just so scrotes who can't keep their fingers off other people or their property can vote for the "be nice to criminals" party (eg the liberal democrats)This has large amounts of phylosophy, but my final asnwer will be, yes be nice to criminals, he never seizes to be an human being and a person.
bmolsson
10-07-2005, 03:02
If you break the law which is there to protect society from harm, and are convicted of that crime - your rights granted to you by society should suffer the consequences of your failure to abide by society's rules. Losing the right to vote - is in line with that philosophy.
Only one problem with your logic. If the society target a minority it can put them all in to jail and revoke their rights in the society. It is also a direct tool for a totalitarian regime to use this and remove democracy.
True, voting is not a right, its a duty.......
Only one problem with your logic. If the society target a minority it can put them all in to jail and revoke their rights in the society. It is also a direct tool for a totalitarian regime to use this and remove democracy.
True, voting is not a right, its a duty.......
You are attempting to reach a conclusion that is not stated - it seems you missed the main point. Here let me help you understand the simple statement - If you break the law which is there to protect society from harm, and are convicted of that crime----; Where does a minority harm society? Where am I alluding to that its harmful to society to have a minority population? Your attempting to insert race, religion, or sexual preference into the equation when its not there, its a fairily simple statement; laws to protect society from harm - does not mean race or minority issues - it means the rule of law as determined by the society, those laws primarily focus on problems created when individuals want to deprive other individuals of thier rights or property - its one of physical destruction, or danger not what your attempting to allude to here.
Have a nice day - a poor attempt - I expected more from you on attempting to find a problem with my statment.
Soulforged
10-07-2005, 07:08
If you break the law which is there to protect society from harm, and are convicted of that crime - your rights granted to you by society should suffer the consequences of your failure to abide by society's rules. Losing the right to vote - is in line with that philosophy.This will lead to our old discussion but... Red I think you've a very old idea of what criminal law does. I've clearly pointed out that the person is convicted over his "actions", the society (and for instance the state, at least it should be) judges him by those actions, all personal circumstances aside. So the problem with your statement is the same obsolete argument of retribution, yes this appears a little contradictory with old statements of mine but let's see. Today it's accepted that the penalty applied and for instance all the penal system functions to prevent a certain harm to a juridical good, represented as one by society. Retribution has in itself a moral component, thus the expiration of guilt will always occur inside the self, having no sistematic effect on society, more than the ideal of "returning of health". This possition cannot be accepted if we recognice the primary function of the punishment, that's prevention, and yes this is the one accepted today, for almost all doctrine. Now parting from that base I can now refute your statement: the state tries to prevent the commiting of new harming actions in the line of the one commited, not by the individual (only) but by society too. There the atributions of the punishment ends. The prisoner does not loose, or at least shouldn't loose, any of those rights that constitutes his personality. The idea of lost citizenship, is a very primitive one, and now it's unacceptable, primarily because of the same reason, the state only punish trying to met a goal of prevention of certain actions, not with the purpose of hitting the man with an stick and saying him that until he gets out he's no longer an human, or at least a citizen. Like I said on my post above IMO this should be the line of thinking that the legislations should take from now on.
Papewaio
10-07-2005, 07:34
Surely the loss of voting prevents him having a voice in society. One the prisoner does not deserve as long as he is incarcerated as harmful to society.
If he has harmed society and is in prison why not minimise any more harm he can do and remove his vote. If voting is so special to him, then he should work harder on reforming himself.
Voting is a duty of a citizen. A citizen should stay informed, have a basic understanding of their rights and responsibilities. A prisoner has shown scant regard for his social responsibilities and as such should lose his chance to vote on society while in prison. Afterwards he has done his time and is no longer harming society he should get his vote.
Honestly, whats next? Allowing them to have conjugal visits? ~D
English assassin
10-07-2005, 10:01
Honestly, whats next? Allowing them to have conjugal visits?
Well, yes. Art 12 ECHR is the right to marry and found a family. The usual way to found a family is [carnal knowledge]. If we can't interfere with the right to vote I can't see how we can interfere with the right to start a family either. So conjugal visits would have to be allowed.
It's as mad as a bag of monkeys.
bmolsson
10-07-2005, 10:08
You are attempting to reach a conclusion that is not stated - it seems you missed the main point. Here let me help you understand the simple statement - If you break the law which is there to protect society from harm, and are convicted of that crime----; Where does a minority harm society? Where am I alluding to that its harmful to society to have a minority population? Your attempting to insert race, religion, or sexual preference into the equation when its not there, its a fairily simple statement; laws to protect society from harm - does not mean race or minority issues - it means the rule of law as determined by the society, those laws primarily focus on problems created when individuals want to deprive other individuals of thier rights or property - its one of physical destruction, or danger not what your attempting to allude to here.
Have a nice day - a poor attempt - I expected more from you on attempting to find a problem with my statment.
The intention was not to point you out as a racist, at least not in this thread. ~;)
Assume that we have outlawed homosexual relationships and all gay persons are put in to jail. Well, that would mean that we have taken them out of society and disqualified them as voters.
Assume that we outlaw the reading of Karl Marx and convict all communists for subversive actions. Well, that would mean that we have taken political opponents out of society and disqualified them as voters.
The whole point with democracy is that everyone have a vote and participate, even the people that believe that your property is a public domain......~:grouphug:
bmolsson
10-07-2005, 10:13
Honestly, whats next? Allowing them to have conjugal visits? ~D
Why not ? Or do you see masturbation as some kind of punishment ?? ~;)
Assume that we have outlawed homosexual relationships and all gay persons are put in to jail. Well, that would mean that we have taken them out of society and disqualified them as voters.Wow, really going off the deep end here I think... But, in this bizzarro world where being gay is outlawed, didn't they already get a vote in determining the policy beforehand? If not, how the heck does it matter whether or not they can vote from prison if they didn't get to vote on it in the first place?
Spetulhu
10-07-2005, 12:24
Voting is a duty of a citizen. A citizen should stay informed, have a basic understanding of their rights and responsibilities. A prisoner has shown scant regard for his social responsibilities and as such should lose his chance to vote on society while in prison. Afterwards he has done his time and is no longer harming society he should get his vote.
While bmolsson says he wasn't going for racism that's exactly what you find in many judicial systems. Unpopular minorities often get prison time, while the main population group gets away with fines and probation for the same crime. So not only do you sit in prison longer, you're also denied a vote?
No, let the prisoners vote. I don't think there are many candidates advocating shorter sentences for hard crimes anyway.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
10-07-2005, 12:44
Wow, really going off the deep end here I think... But, in this bizzarro world where being gay is outlawed, didn't they already get a vote in determining the policy beforehand? If not, how the heck does it matter whether or not they can vote from prison if they didn't get to vote on it in the first place?
One point everyone ought to remember is that it has been used that way in the past... People were sentenced to jail for silly motives, and deprived of their votes. It's something some former dictatorship that joined EU recently are quite sensitive about.
That being said, the whole discussion is a bit silly. All that the court requires is that depriving of vote right be a distinct sentence.
If a national court wants to deprive someone from voting, it got to specifically sentence for that, and that would require a specific crime.
The problem is that, in UK, it's automatic, and not a specific sentence.
Louis,
The intention was not to point you out as a racist, at least not in this thread. ~;)
And you would have a very difficult time trying to show that I am a racist - since I am not. But try if you think you can.
Assume that we have outlawed homosexual relationships and all gay persons are put in to jail. Well, that would mean that we have taken them out of society and disqualified them as voters.
THat would be a violation of the individuals rights - so it is mute toward my point.
Assume that we outlaw the reading of Karl Marx and convict all communists for subversive actions. Well, that would mean that we have taken political opponents out of society and disqualified them as voters.
That again would be a violation of the consitution and therefor the law - again mute toward my statement.
The whole point with democracy is that everyone have a vote and participate, even the people that believe that your property is a public domain......~:grouphug:
Nope - you violate the law - you get punished - to include the taking away of certain rights that were given to you by society. When you complete your punishment all your rights, benefits, and yes even duties should be restored to you.
Now if someone was to get into the discussion about why ex-convicts no longer on probation are not allowed to vote - you will find that I am against this particular law that is in some states. You do your punishment and you are restored to society until such a time as you break the law and are convicted.
This will lead to our old discussion but... Red I think you've a very old idea of what criminal law does. I've clearly pointed out that the person is convicted over his "actions", the society (and for instance the state, at least it should be) judges him by those actions, all personal circumstances aside. So the problem with your statement is the same obsolete argument of retribution, yes this appears a little contradictory with old statements of mine but let's see. Today it's accepted that the penalty applied and for instance all the penal system functions to prevent a certain harm to a juridical good, represented as one by society. Retribution has in itself a moral component, thus the expiration of guilt will always occur inside the self, having no sistematic effect on society, more than the ideal of "returning of health". This possition cannot be accepted if we recognice the primary function of the punishment, that's prevention, and yes this is the one accepted today, for almost all doctrine. Now parting from that base I can now refute your statement: the state tries to prevent the commiting of new harming actions in the line of the one commited, not by the individual (only) but by society too. There the atributions of the punishment ends. The prisoner does not loose, or at least shouldn't loose, any of those rights that constitutes his personality. The idea of lost citizenship, is a very primitive one, and now it's unacceptable, primarily because of the same reason, the state only punish trying to met a goal of prevention of certain actions, not with the purpose of hitting the man with an stick and saying him that until he gets out he's no longer an human, or at least a citizen. Like I said on my post above IMO this should be the line of thinking that the legislations should take from now on.
Difference in opinion. No need to discuss a point that we will not agree on. At least you not trying the tact that was done by another.
bmolsson
10-08-2005, 04:00
And you would have a very difficult time trying to show that I am a racist - since I am not. But try if you think you can.
You brought in racism in to the discussion, why is that ? Guilt ? ~;)
THat would be a violation of the individuals rights - so it is mute toward my point.
Not if it is decided that it is against the law.
That again would be a violation of the consitution and therefor the law - again mute toward my statement.
We where not specifically talking about US here, so a constitution has nothing to do with this discussion.
Nope - you violate the law - you get punished - to include the taking away of certain rights that were given to you by society. When you complete your punishment all your rights, benefits, and yes even duties should be restored to you.
The law is decided by the majority. Anyone breaking the law is of a different opinion. The basic definition of a western democracy is that everyone has a vote, even if his opinion differs. You can take away any other right or duty, but you can NEVER revoke the duty to vote, since that would be a direct violation to the democratic principles.
Now if someone was to get into the discussion about why ex-convicts no longer on probation are not allowed to vote - you will find that I am against this particular law that is in some states. You do your punishment and you are restored to society until such a time as you break the law and are convicted.
Can't really see the difference between somebody on probation, in jail or that have just received a fine. They have received a punishment and their ability to vote has absolutely nothing to do with it......
You brought in racism in to the discussion, why is that ? Guilt ? ~;)
You would be incorrect - you actually brought it into the discussion with this comment.
If the society target a minority it can put them all in to jail and revoke their rights in the society.
Don't try to back peddle out of it now.
Not if it is decided that it is against the law.
Again the legislative process does not allow that to happen.
We where not specifically talking about US here, so a constitution has nothing to do with this discussion.
Wrong again - my comments were my comments - which is from my prespective under the laws that I live in.
The law is decided by the majority. Anyone breaking the law is of a different opinion. The basic definition of a western democracy is that everyone has a vote, even if his opinion differs. You can take away any other right or duty, but you can NEVER revoke the duty to vote, since that would be a direct violation to the democratic principles.
While voting is a duty - the state has the ability to remove you from society and therefor your duty to society also goes with it. Its all in the punishment process that the state can use based upon the severity of the crime.
Can't really see the difference between somebody on probation, in jail or that have just received a fine. They have received a punishment and their ability to vote has absolutely nothing to do with it......
That is your opinion. Mine is something else.
Soulforged
10-08-2005, 05:11
Difference in opinion. No need to discuss a point that we will not agree on. At least you not trying the tact that was done by another.
What's "tact"? Wow I learn something new everyday on this forum...~D
What's "tact"? Wow I learn something new everyday on this forum...~D
Well I used it in the negative form - but Tact is defined as
1 : sensitive mental or aesthetic perception <converted the novel into a play with remarkable skill and tact>
2 : a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense
Crazed Rabbit
10-08-2005, 06:04
Huh. Prisoners have the right to vote, but 'soveriegn' countries don't have the right to make their own laws.
Crazed Rabbit
Ja'chyra
10-08-2005, 11:16
No vote for crims, you get it back when you've done your time and paid your debt.
bmolsson
10-09-2005, 03:43
You would be incorrect - you actually brought it into the discussion with this comment.
No.
Don't try to back peddle out of it now.
I dont.
Again the legislative process does not allow that to happen.
Not at all.
Wrong again - my comments were my comments - which is from my prespective under the laws that I live in.
Not at all. You attempt to make in to a US bashing has failed. ~;)
While voting is a duty - the state has the ability to remove you from society and therefor your duty to society also goes with it. Its all in the punishment process that the state can use based upon the severity of the crime.
Its not a question of ability. In a democratic society, the society have no right to remove opposition just because they don't follow the rules of the society. If they do so, its no longer a democratic society.
That is your opinion. Mine is something else.
I think we all noticed that several times.... ~D
No.
Incorrect again -
I dont.
You are here
Not at all.
[quote]
Then you don't understand the legislative process
[quote]
Not at all. You attempt to make in to a US bashing has failed. ~;)
My opinion and your disagreement with my opinion does not equate to an attempt to make it a US bashing thread. Try again
Its not a question of ability. In a democratic society, the society have no right to remove opposition just because they don't follow the rules of the society. If they do so, its no longer a democratic society.
Again you would be incorrect. The society through the democratic process has already decided that certain crimes require tough punishment to include removing the individual from the society be it permant or for a period of time.
I think we all noticed that several times.... ~D
Yep -
mystic brew
10-09-2005, 10:51
the ruling isn't saying that all inmates should have the vote, but that some should.
the ruling is effectively saying that not all crimes are created equal.
For example, there are, even today, prisoners of conscience exist in democracies.
bmolsson
10-09-2005, 11:14
Incorrect again -
No
Then you don't understand the legislative process
No
My opinion and your disagreement with my opinion does not equate to an attempt to make it a US bashing thread. Try again
Your opinion is that everyone is after you and US. This is reflected in your responses in this thread. Well, I have to give to you that just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not after you....... ~D
Again you would be incorrect. The society through the democratic process has already decided that certain crimes require tough punishment to include removing the individual from the society be it permant or for a period of time.
That mean that the mentioned society have abandoned being a democratic society. :bow:
No
You are again incorrect
No
ditto
Your opinion is that everyone is after you and US. This is reflected in your responses in this thread. Well, I have to give to you that just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not after you....... ~D
Not at all - you are attempting to put words that were not written. Try again.
That mean that the mentioned society have abandoned being a democratic society. :bow:
Not at all - the United States is still a democratic republic at the national level, a representive democracy at the state and local level.
Your still attempting to back peddle off of your initial response, and now attempting to redirect - very poor show.
bmolsson
10-11-2005, 04:02
You are again incorrect
No
you are attempting to put words that were not written.
No I don't
Not at all - the United States is still a democratic republic at the national level, a representive democracy at the state and local level.
I would say that it is a question of opinion.
Your still attempting to back peddle off of your initial response, and now attempting to redirect - very poor show.
My initial response:
Only one problem with your logic. If the society target a minority it can put them all in to jail and revoke their rights in the society. It is also a direct tool for a totalitarian regime to use this and remove democracy.
Where do you find the racism ?
:book:
Zalmoxis
10-11-2005, 06:28
Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote, imagine politicians exchanging money or certain services with the "bosses" for votes.
Ser Clegane
10-11-2005, 08:31
Only one problem with your logic. If the society target a minority it can put them all in to jail and revoke their rights in the society. It is also a direct tool for a totalitarian regime to use this and remove democracy.
I cannot quite follow this logic here - If a society goes as far as to decide to put a minority to jail - and does that just based on the trait that defines them as a minority - do you seriously think it would matter whether the members of this minority maintain theit voting rights while in jail?
If this society goes as far as putting people to jail for being member of a minority, they could just as easily decide to remove their voting rights for the very same reason.
Whether the loss of voting rights is an automatism that is linked to the jail sentence or whether the removal of voting rights is decided on in a separate act does not really make much of a difference in such a society.
@ Redleg & bmolsson
It might be a good decision to quit this somewhat strange discussion about implications of racism in this thread - I fail to see were any accusations of racism have been made, and I also fail to see how any baiting about this issue would lead to a meaningful discussion.
Please stay on the actual topic, guys.
Thanks :bow:
Ser Clegane
Spetulhu
10-11-2005, 10:11
Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote, imagine politicians exchanging money or certain services with the "bosses" for votes.
In many countries those "bosses" get themself elected so they can stay out of prison. ~;)
Tribesman
10-11-2005, 14:01
Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote
Does that mean prisoners who are convicted or prisoners in detention ?
For example , anyone have any thoughts on someone like Saddam being allowed to vote ?
English assassin
10-11-2005, 15:28
Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote
Does that mean prisoners who are convicted or prisoners in detention ?
For example , anyone have any thoughts on someone like Saddam being allowed to vote ?
Well I don't know about Iraq but in the UK prisoners on remand can vote, because they haven't been convicted of anything.
Well I don't know about Iraq but in the UK prisoners on remand can vote, because they haven't been convicted of anything.
Well one of the few times I watch television news - on CNN they are announcing that Iraq has ruled that Saddam and several prisoners being held but not convicted will be allowed to vote.
Tribesman
10-11-2005, 16:01
on CNN they are announcing that Iraq has ruled that Saddam and several prisoners being held but not convicted will be allowed to vote.
Theres a word missing there Red , several "Thousand" .
Which way do you think Saddam will vote ?~D ~D ~D
Duke Malcolm
10-11-2005, 17:09
So, they want prisoners to vote, and murderous ex-dictators to vote, but not the poor, demonised hereditary peers?
Soulforged
10-12-2005, 05:13
So, they want prisoners to vote, and murderous ex-dictators to vote, but not the poor, demonised hereditary peers?They're all in the same group, marginals. Marginalized by the rich in ancient times and mainteined that way by the capitalist regime.
bmolsson
10-12-2005, 12:43
I cannot quite follow this logic here - If a society goes as far as to decide to put a minority to jail - and does that just based on the trait that defines them as a minority - do you seriously think it would matter whether the members of this minority maintain theit voting rights while in jail?
If this society goes as far as putting people to jail for being member of a minority, they could just as easily decide to remove their voting rights for the very same reason.
Whether the loss of voting rights is an automatism that is linked to the jail sentence or whether the removal of voting rights is decided on in a separate act does not really make much of a difference in such a society.
Assume that the minority is a political faction or a political opinion, then you might see what I mean. ~;)
Ser Clegane
10-12-2005, 13:18
Assume that the minority is a political faction or a political opinion, then you might see what I mean. ~;)
Well - if you go as far as throwing people into jail for their political opinion, I think you are way past the point of having to worry whether prisoners should be allowed to vote or not.
bmolsson: I agree to a very small level, I do not think that any state or country would be able to simply block a minority, political faction or standing that is not against the law just from the beginning, at least not without severe problems internationally and nationally. But there surely might be cases in which single persons are put to jail for beeing in a minority that is potentially against a certain political party...
Ehm, anyway, I do not think that prisoners in general should be allowed to vote, neither would I allow individual prisoners to vote, simply because it complexes the system unnecessarily.
When they are over with their jail time, then they are free to vote, but allowing single prisoners via private estimation of psychologists or because of just minor criminal actions - for which they wouldn't be sent to jail - to vote, is against my ignorant understanding.
Feel free to take me out. ~:)
therother
10-13-2005, 01:04
You can find the Judgement here (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=John%20%7C%20Hirst&sessionid=4111015&skin=hudoc-en). Interesting reading, if you filter out all the legalese; there is plenty of stuff in there for both sides of the argument.
On the issue of stripping all inmates of the vote, regardless of the duration of their sentence (with a few exceptions like contempt of court or non-payment of fines), I think the Government is on very dodgy ground. Given that roughly 50% of the prison populace are there for 4 years or less, it would seem that automatically stripping such people of the vote is unfair and anomalous, e.g. someone sentenced to 3 months on mid-February 2005 for a petty offence didn't get to vote in the General election, but someone who committed the same offence, but was sentenced a few days earlier, did. Also someone who sentenced for a more serious crime in September 2001 and received a sentence of 3.5 years, did not lose the right to vote in any GE.
Well - if you go as far as throwing people into jail for their political opinion, I think you are way past the point of having to worry whether prisoners should be allowed to vote or not.
Ever feel like you're talking to yourself?~;)
I made that point on page 2, and I see this is your second attempt- that line of argument is just silly, as you've pointed out.
bmolsson
10-14-2005, 03:24
Well - if you go as far as throwing people into jail for their political opinion, I think you are way past the point of having to worry whether prisoners should be allowed to vote or not.
Assume we have a law against drinking alcohol. The younger generation is against this law and drink anyway. All youngsters caught are arrested, punished and have their voting rights removed.
A referandum is announced to determine if the law to drink alcohol is to be abolished or not. The alcohol drinkers are not permitted to participate.
Democracy doesn't work anymore. :bow:
Simple actually. Stop thinking Stalin and Ayatollah in all democratic issues.... ~:grouphug:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.