Oh dear.

No, we haven’t.

Rather overstated the case a bit there, I think.

Now who’s into soundbite responses?

By any definition ‘PR-man Cameron’ and his ineffectual mates are not extremist – it’s actually insulting to even state it when you contrast it with bona fide extremists.

Well, even some Conservatives baulk at the neo-nazi homophobes the Tories have allied themselves with in Europe…..

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/letters-and-columnists/edward-mcmillan-scott-why-we-must-stop-rise-of-a-new-face-of-fascism-1-2295851

Er, didn’t someone recently get 8 months’ porridge for wearing an anti-police T-shirt? See also a few other similar cases recently, much publicised on social media. They’re not exactly sophisticated political dissent, they’re mostly idiots; but they’re in a similar vein, of holding an anti-establishment view or saying things which cause some people to be upset but cause no actual harm

That’s a different argument altogether, I’m afraid. If they have not been correctly convicted and imprisoned, they have the right of appeal. If said appeal is won, all rights are restored, and some form of compensation is in order.

Prison serves the following purposes for me (in order of importance):

1. Get the offender ‘out of circulation’ to protect the law-abiding public.
2. Be seen to punish the offender as a deterrent to others, but mainly to ensure that the law-abiding majority can see that crime does not pay and that the offender suffers some kind of penalty.
3. Rehabilitation, but only with the goal of preventing re-offending, again the emphasis is on crime reduction, not empowerment for the offender. If the likelihood of re-offending is reduced by allowing someone to get A-levels in prison, then I’m 100% behind it. If it just an indulgence, then I’m not.

I know that environmental/societal factors are a massive contributing factor in why people commit some types of crime, but there is a moment of choice – commit a crime, or don’t – when you’ve made that choice it’s time to accept the consequences.

1. Get the offender ‘out of circulation’ to protect the law-abiding public.
2. Be seen to punish the offender as a deterrent to others, but mainly to ensure that the law-abiding majority can see that crime does not pay and that the offender suffers some kind of penalty.
3. Rehabilitation, but only with the goal of preventing re-offending, again the emphasis is on crime reduction, not empowerment for the offender. If the likelihood of re-offending is reduced by allowing someone to get A-levels in prison, then I’m 100% behind it. If it just an indulgence, then I’m not.

And what does voting have to do with any of those points?

If the likelihood of re-offending is reduced by allowing someone to get A-levels in prison, then I’m 100% behind it.

This is an almost entirely hypothetical position, given the state of education opportunities inside, the education level of the average offender, the health of the average offender, and the length of the average sentence.

And what does voting have to do with any of those points?

Very little. Although this discussion has moved on a bit since the OP.

I think voting would certainly erode public confidence in the second point, though.

My original point was more to do with self-serving levels of bureaucracy that aren’t needed, actually.

The term ‘moral majority’ has become a term of derision – something to throw at people who are conservative (with a small ‘c’). I actually think it is the key concept in how societies can function without becoming a kleptocratic nightmare vision.

I think voting would certainly erode public confidence in the second point, though.

If you spend your time reading/believing rabidly right-wing tabloids then perhaps it might.

My original point was more to do with self-serving levels of bureaucracy that aren’t needed, actually.

Yes, you had a big rant complaining about the EU, which has precisely nothing to do with the European Convention on Human RIghts, or prisoners’ voting rights.

Admittedly, my OP was disjointed and did betray some lack of understanding about the relationships between various European bodies.

I don’t think the core issue is diluted by admitting my mistakes, however.

I’m leaving it now – it’s much more fun posting about bikes anyway.

dannyh – Member

I know that environmental/societal factors are a massive the only contributing factor in why people commit some all types of crime,

FTFY. Unless you believe in original sin, or think that some people are more genetically disposed to crime?

Thing is OP, if you mentioned that “If the likelihood of re-offending is reduced by allowing someone to get A-levels in prison, then I’m 100% behind it.”

So can you not see how encouraging an offender to vote and become part of the system might also be a way to re-integrate them into society and reduce re-offending?

Likewise denying them those rights just serves to alienate them further from the mainstream.

i think its more than that graham, i assume (with no proof) your average crim doesnt vote at all, if he starts in prison maybe he will become better engaged with society and a better person upon leaving

Can Badgers vote? I reckon they’d have a thing or two to say about present policies. There’s loads of the buggers too, apparently

Can Badgers vote? I reckon they’d have a thing or two to say about present policies. There’s loads of the buggers too, apparently

You can’t let badgers vote unless it is a simple black and white issue.

You can’t let badgers vote unless it is a simple black and white issue.

😆

You can’t let badgers vote unless it is a simple black and white issue.

I can’t argue with you any more after that 😀

“That’s a different argument altogether, I’m afraid. If they have not been correctly convicted and imprisoned, they have the right of appeal.“

But not the right to vote in the meantime – however long that may be? Anyway, AFAIK none of the people in question have successfully appealed, so the fact of the matter is that someone is – “correctly”, according to the system – imprisoned for a dumb T-shirt and the question is therefore should they or should they not be entitled to vote. It’s absolutely anything but “a different argument altogether”.

“Unless you … think that some people are more genetically disposed to crime?“

Of course. Why would you think they’re not? Even taking the most basic approach to this, some people are by nature more attracted to risk than others, and many crimes can be viewed through simple risk analysis; and everyone’s morals are abitrary, after all.

Let’s take a slightly obtuse example; until not that long ago homosexuality was illegal; yet hopefully we can all agree that homosexuality is not a matter of whimsical choice and environment…?

There’s loads of the buggers too, apparently

I believe the jails are full of buggers – all sorts, not just the ones destined to be manly shaving brushes

philconsequence – Member
we let dumb people vote, so why not prisoners?

You think it’s wrong that law abiding people who are thick have the right to vote but right that imprisoned criminals (of varying intelligence) should get to vote.

And you slate Daily-Mail readers….Hmmmmmm 😕

patriotpro – Member

“philconsequence – Member
we let dumb people vote, so why not prisoners?”

You think it’s wrong that law abiding people who are thick have the right to vote but right that imprisoned criminals (of varying intelligence) should get to vote.

And you slate Daily-Mail readers….Hmmmmmm

Show your working.

Thing is, I dare say that some of those prisoners are politically better informed than many of us, as most of their outside contact comes from reading newspapers, watching the news and listening to the radio (I heard once that Radio 4 is very popular in prison!).

Though obviously the may not have access to YouTube for the real news. 😉

They should get the vote, the vote on which rock to break next. No abstentions or spoiled ballot papers. Now hand me a copy of the Daily Mail I need to be more outraged.

I would like to raise an issue with the premise that reading newspapers results in being politically better informed.

is that all newspapers?

Aaah, but they do. Simply read The Sun to better understand the mindset of the dribbling masses and the way the political wind is blowing 😀

Then follow up with the Sunday Sport to see what’s new in celebrity underwear.

Have you read the Holme Valley Courier?

Of course. Why would you think they’re not? Even taking the most basic approach to this, some people are by nature more attracted to risk than others, and many crimes can be viewed through simple risk analysis; and everyone’s morals are abitrary, after all.

Let’s take a slightly obtuse example; until not that long ago homosexuality was illegal; yet hopefully we can all agree that homosexuality is not a matter of whimsical choice and environment…?

Oooh, only just noticed this. Sort of relates to some of our work stuff so I actually know a bit about it.

Sensation seeking (which kind of relates to risk taking and is behind much of the genetic link that you’re talking about) is strongly genetic. But what this analysis misses out though is the massive social factors which affect what outlet people’s sensation seeking behaviour takes. And further to that the punishment for their sensation seeking behaviour is. If you have tons of money and decide to go hang gliding, no one puts you in jail for it. Whereas if you have no money and decide to deal crack, you’re pretty likely to end up arrested. Even taking the same thing – if I smoke dope, I’m way less likely to end up in jail than someone poor.

Sensation seeking is fascinating – strongly genetic, not massively affected by home environment; but it isn’t anywhere as strong a factor on things like criminal tendencies as poverty etc.

I score quite highly on the sensation seeking scales in some ways, but I’ve got my kicks from various things over the years, everything from long swims in very cold water, to endurance events, to extremely hard rock concerts, dressing outrageously, being a bit of a slag, live performance, and the obvious drink etc. I’m middle class, so it was relatively easy for me to do all these things. If I wasn’t, the opportunities for my sensation seeking tendencies might have been far more likely to be illegal (or the kind of illegal where I was likely to get caught and done for it).

I thought we use them as spare parts as payment for pain they done to others.