Prisoners to have the right to vote

[Soulforged]

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]

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.

[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.

[Xiahou]

Honestly, whats next? Allowing them to have conjugal visits?

[English assassin]

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]

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......

[bmolsson]

Honestly, whats next? Allowing them to have conjugal visits?

Why not ? Or do you see masturbation as some kind of punishment ??

[Xiahou]

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]

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]

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,

[Redleg]

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......

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.

[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.

[bmolsson]

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......

[Redleg]

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]

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...

[Redleg]

What's "tact"? Wow I learn something new everyday on this forum...

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]

Huh. Prisoners have the right to vote, but 'soveriegn' countries don't have the right to make their own laws.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ja'chyra]

No vote for crims, you get it back when you've done your time and paid your debt.

[bmolsson]

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....

[Redleg]

No.

Incorrect again -

I dont.

You are here

[quote]
Not at all.
[quote]
Then you don't understand the legislative process

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....

Yep -

[mystic brew]

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]

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.......

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.

[Redleg]

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.......

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.

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]

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 ?

[Zalmoxis]

Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote, imagine politicians exchanging money or certain services with the "bosses" for votes.

[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

[Spetulhu]

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]

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 ?