Prisoners to have the right to vote

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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]

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]

This is the problem with the UN. The criminals get to vote.

Like the US? (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.

[_Martyr_]

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.

[Ronin]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[_Martyr_]

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?

[yesdachi]

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.

[bmolsson]

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.......

[Redleg]

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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

Ser Clegane

[Soulforged]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[King Henry V]

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?

[Xiahou]

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?

[Marcellus]

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.