Bye bye, Britain

[Pannonian]

I think you have to be a conservative to be able to misunderstand things so completely. Hearing the voices of the prisoners(or any other group for that matter), does the opposite of this. It adapts the prisoner to society, it doesn't adapt society to the prisoner.

If you fail to understand this, I see very little point further discussion.

I suppose Britain tends towards conservatism and the approval of the community, rather than building on grand principles. Conviction is done by the community, and once you're convicted, few outsiders care about your theoretical well being in order to uphold some high principle.

[HoreTore]

Neither of these frameworks is without value, but on this issue at least they can easily "speak past" one another.

Indeed, and as such I don't see any point in having a "wall of nonsense"-discussion where neither of us really engage with the arguments of the other, which is why I said I didn't have much interest in discussing it further.

I do realize it may have come off as more cross than I intended it to be.

I suppose Britain tends towards conservatism and the approval of the community, rather than building on grand principles. Conviction is done by the community, and once you're convicted, few outsiders care about your theoretical well being in order to uphold some high principle.

It is not the "right of the individual"(the prisoner) I care about. I care about the larger community. Why on earth should a pinko-commie like myself care about the rights of an individual? Lenin focused on class and state, nothing else!

[Pannonian]

It is not the "right of the individual"(the prisoner) I care about. I care about the larger community. Why on earth should a pinko-commie like myself care about the rights of an individual? Lenin focused on class and state, nothing else!

In which case, once the community has passed its verdict, why should the prisoner have a voice in how the community conducts its affairs? If they want a voice, let them air it after they're out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Britain has bigger problems than the rights of British citizens?

Your prime minister seems to agree with that....

Her her

I suppose Britain tends towards conservatism and the approval of the community, rather than building on grand principles. Conviction is done by the community, and once you're convicted, few outsiders care about your theoretical well being in order to uphold some high principle.

This is the kind of thing that makes us sound despotic - there is a principle at work here - and it's a very important one. Namely, that those who break the law should not have a voice in the making of the law.

Indeed, and as such I don't see any point in having a "wall of nonsense"-discussion where neither of us really engage with the arguments of the other, which is why I said I didn't have much interest in discussing it further.

I do realize it may have come off as more cross than I intended it to be.

It is not the "right of the individual"(the prisoner) I care about. I care about the larger community. Why on earth should a pinko-commie like myself care about the rights of an individual? Lenin focused on class and state, nothing else!

The Norwegian model appears to largely work for Norway at the moment - but it is predicated on a small population and relatively high homogeneity. The population of Norway is roughly 70% of the population of London, spread over a much wider area. That means smaller communities where you're more likely to know people, and hence the pressure of offenders to reform within their commies much higher. Added to that, homogeneity means that the reaction of felons will be similar across the country AND you have stronger communities which apply pressure on the individual to reform.

A few Norwegian expats I have met have highlighted the pressure to conform as a reason for leaving the country - which tells you how strong it is. You get similar responses from Swedish and French expats too.

Now - after hundreds of years of immigration, especially over the last 150 years,the UK is both densely populated and heterogeneous. Communal pressure to conform to national laws is relatively weak, and in some instances whole communities willfully uncooperative with the national government - up to the point of waging sustained terror campaigns in order to force central government to accede to their demands.

In our society, the rule of Law is NOT vested in the community as it is in Norway, it is vested in the national government which has to manage competing demands from antagonistic factions. This being so, the government cannot allow those who break the law to vote. Consider - when a few hundred or a thousand prisoners are incarcerated in a city ward, their votes could determine who is elected to the local Council. The prisoners are there to be punished by they could potentially disenfranchise the law abiding citizens who live in the ward.

This may not have a practically adverse affect on those people, but that does not make the situation less repugnant to our democracy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And you wonder why we have so much trouble getting a consistent rule of law in America? I'll be quoting your post liberally the next time we have a gun debate.

I don't actually believe America is "governable" in the technical sense - it holds together for the moment but I keep waiting for it to fly apart in another Civil War.

My issue with the gun debate isn't the difficulty in implementing laws - same with your healthcare system - I get that. What I don't get is the opinion of the average American *about* Guns and healthcare - that's what I think is nuts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If another civil war was needed to make a congress that was actually productive, people would line up for miles to vote on which state to attack first.

[Fragony]

Kewl, a calculation of Capital Economics, certainly not the least, says leaving the EU is a smashing good idea for the Netherlands. Quality newspapers and state-media couldn't wait to discredit Capital Economics (it isn't even out yet), but they are no small fry. Up to 10% of growth without having to deal with a Flemisf ferrest who looks like an owl who fell out of his tree, a German booksalesman and his Portugese waiter? Gimme. Not to mention that ugly chimpette Ashton and that Swedish hippie Maelstrøm. Yes I wrote that wrong on purpose.

[Husar]

Fragony has two choices:

a) make some completely unsubstantiated claims about the EU

b) provide any evidence for what he says

what will he choose?


Apparently the article can be downloaded as a pdf if anyone wants to read it:

https://www.capitaleconomics.com/hig...ean-union.html

[Pannonian]

This is the kind of thing that makes us sound despotic - there is a principle at work here - and it's a very important one. Namely, that those who break the law should not have a voice in the making of the law.

My point was that, whatever the scare stories about corrupt governments dictating politicised law and so on, people are in prison after a trial by jury. Juries are free to disregard the law if they feel it is unjust, and it takes just 3 out of 12 to make a conviction impossible. If there are problems with the justice system, it lies not with the political process, but with the police who provide the evidence. The vote has nothing to do with the fair representation of the convicted; the community has already spoken, in sending them to prison.

[HoreTore]

In which case, once the community has passed its verdict, why should the prisoner have a voice in how the community conducts its affairs? If they want a voice, let them air it after they're out.

Again: I argue for prisoner votes because it is beneficial for society that they vote(discounting the fact that they won't anyway). I do not argue on the grounds of any benefit/right/whathaveyou on behalf of the prisoner.

In our society, the rule of Law is NOT vested in the community as it is in Norway, it is vested in the national government which has to manage competing demands from antagonistic factions. This being so, the government cannot allow those who break the law to vote. Consider - when a few hundred or a thousand prisoners are incarcerated in a city ward, their votes could determine who is elected to the local Council. The prisoners are there to be punished by they could potentially disenfranchise the law abiding citizens who live in the ward.

I'd say your voting structure is a valid counter-argument*, as having inmates vote in the local elections where the prison is situated could create havoc. The solution is extremely simple, though: have the prisoner stay registered in the same district they were registered in prior to imprisonment.

*I won't touch the hetero/homo and density arguments....