MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12233938
Why should prisoners get the right to vote. I learnt about rights/responsibilies in school.
It seems to me that if someone ignores their responsibility to society and violates the laws of it, they lose their right to decide who runs it.
Sorry if this is trolling just wanted to see where my moral compass was ponting.
To encourage social inclusion, as part of a process of reintegration into society rather than perpetual exclusion, hopefully leading to a reduction in our colossal re-offending rates?
I think it's the French who have a clever idea on this. If I'm right, in their system the judge can add a "lose the right to vote" clause to the sentence if it is deemed appropriate to the offender/crime. This could be a rather clever way of defining which prisoners retain the right/privilege to vote and which lose it.
Apologies if it's not France, my knowledge of international sentencing guidelines isn't what it was and what it was was very limited!
Simple solution - we give them the right to exercise their vote... all they have to do is break out of their cell, climb over the wall, evade the dogs, walk to the polling booth and bobs your mothers brother, they can vote 😀
what about half a vote? either that or i get to have 2 votes to make up for the fact i'm twice the person the convicted criminal is 😆
Why should prisoners get the right to vote. I learnt about rights/responsibilies in school.
Because they need to learn about their responsibilities.
I think they should get a cheese board each. A good selection to chose from.
No quite simply. Why should someone who has broken the laws of society get a say in how society is run? If you cant do the time - dont do the crime.
To encourage social inclusion, as part of a process of reintegration into society rather than perpetual exclusion, hopefully leading to a reduction in our colossal re-offending rates
I just dont see how giving them the vote is going to encourage "social inclusion".
It devalues the electoral process. If someone wins an election by the slimmest of majorities, voters will wonder if the outcome would have been different without some sociopath being taught about their responsibilities.
If you cant do the time - dont do the crime.
How does voting affect the time you spend in prison ?
......or couldn't you stop yourself from coming out with a completely irrelevant redneck slogan ?
I just dont see how giving them the vote is going to encourage "social inclusion".
Well, by voting, one is participating in a positive way in society, surely? That person then hopefully feels more included in the society they live, they have another fragment of investment in it.
Another half baked idea from some political "brilliance" who have too much time on their hands.
There is a reason for locking those criminal up so keep it simple. They are criminal so lock them up and throw the key away. Simple.
🙄
p/s: they are already included in a society ... their society of crimes.
They are criminal so lock them up and throw the key away. Simple.
Yes, you certainly are
Why shouldn't prisoners have the right to vote?
It seems absurd to me. Even if someone has committed a crime they are still a citizen of the country. What about people who get declared bankrupt through their own financial mismanagement, or lose their driving license but aren't imprisioned? etc
I cannot believe that we allow this kind of censorship to occur
Yossarian,
Broadmoor
Where does this idea that criminals shouldn't be allowed to vote come from. Folks seem to be saying, that if you break the laws of society, you shouldn't be allowed to take part in it. Does that mean you don't see prisons as part of our society?
Why should someone who has broken the laws of society get a say in how society is run?
Why shouldn't they? We start with the idea of every adult having the right to vote, you need to explain why taking it away is justified. Saying 'because they are criminals' has no logical progression. Can you explain more clearly please?
Why should prisoners get the right to vote.
er............ wasn't it because someone took the UK to the EU courts & won a ruling to the effect that they should be given the right?
If you cant do the time - dont do the crime.
a completely irrelevant redneck slogan ?
Irrelevant to the current discussion, yes, but still the basis of the penal system.
Whilst I don't think prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote, I don't see how letting them vote will make them less likely to re-offend.
So a society elects people who create laws. Some people break these laws so we then deny them the right to vote on who the people who make the laws of the land are- seem unfair.
Everyone has a right to decide who runs the country /what the laws are even those who break the law. They still live here dont they - actually we do let people who dont live here vote which seems more unfair.
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
As our cheeky furry friend suggests "Simples".
So all people who speed should lose the right to vote or those that drop litter or that spit on pavements or ride fixies with no brakes.
That sounds like a fine fantasy world as I'd make the rules and get elected every time. Zimbabwe here i come.
It wouldn't be such an issue with PR, but with our current electoral system a prison could easily swing a constituency. With nothing else to do in prison, could the turn-out be so high that a candidate from the (hypothetical) "Ex-prisoners for prisoners" party could win?
It wouldn't be such an issue with PR, but with our current electoral system a prison could easily swing a constituency
I thought it was suggested they got a vote in their hometown constituency rather than where the slammer is located
drop litter or that spit on pavements
Do you get locked up for that?
ride fixies with no brakes.
They deserve locking up.
Dropping litter is an offence as is spitting....
ergo - no voting rights.
Dropping litter is an offence as is spitting....
ergo - no voting rights.
It is an offence yes, but they are talking about giving prisoners rights, not offenders!
Surely at the point you enter prison you are no longer part of scoiety from the time you are imprisoned.
Why should some one who has broken the law of the land and been taken out of society for their actions then be allowed to vote?
Yes once some one comes out of prison they should be allowed to vote but not whilst they are inside.
Then again its a whole bigger debate. Should they be given TV's, Playstations, etc etc. Prison is or punishment, not just a free house.
No votes for prisoners. They should only earn their right to vote on serving their sentence in the same way that not reoffending and staying out of prison ensures they have learnt their lesson and are now willing to intrigate back into normal society and in doing so have the same benefits as the law abiding citizens.
isnt being allowed allowed to vote, no matter who you are or what you've done, a cornerstone of democracy?
what else should we deny the prison population?
Surely at the point you enter prison you are no longer part of scoiety from the time you are imprisoned.
Why do you say prison is not part of society?
Why should some one who has broken the law of the land and been taken out of society for their actions then be allowed to vote
so a society can imprison you but you can have no say on who runs that society - that strikles you as fair does it? - Like the way China imprisons pro democracy people but no one can vote that sort of thing?
They have not been taken out of society - they are very much a part of society and the the state apparatus and can feel it's weight upon their everyday life far more than non incarcerated society members
Imagine you are imprisoned for a political crime like not paying the poll tax for example
Does anyone actually think that your average inmate is remotely interested whether or not they can vote?
isnt being allowed allowed to vote, no matter who you are or what you've done, a cornerstone of democracy?what else should we deny the prison population?
Oh, I dunno, Liberty, freedom of association, alcohol, drugs - you know, the normal stuff that we accept gets denied to someone in prison 🙄
Does anyone actually think that your average inmate is remotely interested whether or not they can vote?
Maybe some don't care, but it is not a reason to deny them the right to is it?
The can vote once they are out. Simple!
🙄
A person is sent to prison for breaking our laws. As such they have chosen to break them. We take away their liberty and restrict what they can or can't do. We chose to not allow them to vote until they have served their punishment.
The ECHR has said that the right to vote is a human right. Personally I challenge that but that is the reason why we have reached this impasse. Personally I think the easiest approach is to 'add' a no voting right to prison sentences which is imposed by the judge. Should solve the problem.
We chose to not allow them to vote until they have served their punishment.
But is still doesn't explain why.
But is still doesn't explain why.
we also exclude the likes of Phil Woolas from voting for a few years
Then again its a whole bigger debate. Should they be given TV's, Playstations, etc etc. Prison is or punishment, not just a free house.
Because of course voting is such a fun and exhilarating experience.
Throughout the world voting is seen as a responsibility, not an earned right.
They would be voting for a bunch of crooks anyway so they may be better to judge.
Why are they not part of society?
Because society is all about common held beleifs, morales, values etc etc.
People in jail make the concious decision to remove them selves from Society when they commit a crime.
You could argue that Prison inmates are a Society in themselves as they quite clearly hold different views of what is right or wrong compared to the general population.
If you are even trying to imply that people in prison are of equal standing to those out side of prison, why do we lock them up in the first place?
Now there's an interesting dilemma. Which would you rather give up, your voting rights or your ownership of games consoles?
The ECHR has said that the right to vote is a human right.
I think this is very important and absolutely correct. If voting were a priviledge rather than a right then abuse becomes much much easier.
You've got to remember that other countries in the EU may not have the same governance in place and therefore more likely to abuse voting rights if it wasn't enshrined in European Law, and once it's a right then everyone gets it, even convicted criminals.
games consoles as I use it less than my vote.
Chewkw try and exlain your position not just state it - it helps the debate if you give a reason rather than just a position SIMPLE
Dunc I am not saying that everyone who votes is of equal standing - some of them dont know the first thing about politics or what the parties represent but that is not the issue as they can still vote - eeven the mentally ill and those with Learning Difficulties can vote. It is a universal right and it should be applied universally.
.
Ok fair enough if EU law says its a human right to vote then you can't do anything about it.
Surely though by murdering some one that goes against British Law/EU Law and other peoples human rights?
Its all how far you go with legislation, and at what point some ones rights on not theres to decide.
How can locking some one up in a prison in the first place not be against their human rights? Some one some where has decided that is ok, but stopping them from voting is not ok.
For me if you break a law then you get punished and if under UK law which I assume is ratified by EU law that means you go to jail, then that should also mean you loose your vote.
i just like the idea of MPs havingh to go down and canvas for support in prisons
imagine gideon at everthorpe prison trying to win votes!
still it might make mps think more about the causes of crime rather than just reactionary tabloid pleasing tubthumping
Junkyard - Membergames consoles as I use it less than my vote.
Chewkw try and exlain your position not just state it - it helps the debate if you give a reason rather than just a position SIMPLE
Crikey, my head hurts. Why make things so complicated? Aren't we already living in complicated enough society with the current economical mess? Bloody politicians trying to score useless points again.
The reason is simple. They are being locked up because they have committed crimes and found guilty of by the rules of the land so naturally their rights have been taken away regardless of what they are. The only rights that have not been taken away is their rights to breath or to live. Living for them does not equate the liberty bestow upon those in the normal society. They are in effect incorporated into their own "society" where freedom or liberty is at the expense of the law. i.e. we as a society decided that they should live in a separated society to undergo some sort of rehabilitation while in jail until such time as deem fit to return to our society.
So by giving them the rights to vote is essentially saying that they are still part of our society complying to the rules of the land, which in fact they are clearly not as they have been incarcerated, while the rest of us comply with the rules as we should be.
Therefore, by giving them the rights or vote or whatever shite they are entitled to are merely saying they are still part of a normal society which they are clearly not. In addition, if they are given the rights to vote then the society has reversed the common sense approach in dealing with matter that is out of societal norm. i.e. criminals that decided they have more rights than us by going against the rules of the land.
So until mankind or maggots (not the insect kind maggots btw) come to a realisation that living in a society means complying with a set of rules or morality, there will always be those that feel the need to encroach on others. Their excuse? "Because I cannot help it or because I can or because I want to".
Simple.
🙄
so a society can imprison you but you can have no say on who runs that society
Of course you get a say - before you do the thing society thinks is wrong, and after you've learnt the error of your ways. You change things from inside (which is outside from the prison frame of reference).
FTFY - strawmen don't get a vote either.[s]Like[/s]Completely unlike the way China imprisons pro democracy people but no one can vote that sort of thing?
[i]Therefore, by giving them the rights or vote or whatever shite they are entitled to are merely saying they are still part of a normal society which they are clearly not[/i]
Ah, you mean like anyone who sits in the House of Lords.
They're not allowed to vote either 🙂
IanMunro - MemberTherefore, by giving them the rights or vote or whatever shite they are entitled to are merely saying they are still part of a normal society which they are clearly not
Ah, you mean like anyone who sits in the House of Lords.
They're not allowed to vote either
No one force them to join the House of Lords. Do you mean they have been force to join? Or view it another way they volunteer to be in House of Lords. They have the rights not to.
Honestly don't understand why it's something to get worked up over. What's the downside to giving them a vote? None, other than that some folks on here will get riled about it and start ranting about human rights. And they'd find something else to rant about anyway.
luked2 - Member
"It devalues the electoral process. If someone wins an election by the slimmest of majorities, voters will wonder if the outcome would have been different without some sociopath being taught about their responsibilities."
Will they[i] really[/i]? How bizarre.
much better chewkw thanks but I still dont agree
aracrer I liked your dancing around saying correct that they cannot vot ewhilst in prison - I think we all know/agree free people are allowed to vote. It is a fair point re China
Clearly imprisoned people give up certain rights - say freedom but we would not deny them healthcare so why deny them the right to pass judgement on those who have judged them ?
FunkyDunc - Member
Then again its a whole bigger debate. Should they be given TV's, Playstations, etc etc. Prison is or punishment, not just a free house.
Have you ever been inside a prison? I guess not or you would not say such ridiculous thing
FunkyDunc - MemberOk fair enough if EU law says its a human right to vote then you can't do anything about it.
Its UK law that incorporates the ECHR that states voting is a right. Nowt to do with teh EU at all.
Surely prisoners will vote via post in the constituency they live(d). Lifers would be a slightly different issue.
I love the suggestion that prisoners could decide the outcome of an election 😀
For a prisoner's "preferred choice" to win general election would require somewhere in the region of another 10 million people agreeing with him, or her.
Personally I quite like the idea of a prisoner's preferred choice being supported by another 10 million law-abiding citizens ........ it suggests fairly responsible voting on the part of the prisoner 8)
D'oh! Double post.
Junkyard - Membermuch better chewkw thanks but I still dont agree
aracrer I liked your dancing around saying correct that they cannot vot ewhilst in prison - I think we all know/agree free people are allowed to vote. It is a fair point re China
Clearly imprisoned people give up certain rights - say freedom but we would not deny them healthcare so why deny them the right to pass judgement on those who have judged them ?
You don't have to agree as that is my views.
Healthcare and voting rights are entirely different matter. Poor health means you might die or rot whichever comes first but voting rights? Since there is no death penalty they are entitled to live out their sentence as that's the right given to them. Being sentenced.
Yeah right ... they will hang themselves if we don't give them the voting rights.
Yes, they have been put in jail for the crimes that they committed according to the law, but since we can't abuse or torture them we might as well accord them with the health care they need as basic human compassion. So as much as I want to apply Henry VIII "head off" ruling to them I see healthcare as being part of giving the convicts the basic right.
Voting rights ... WTF! Are they being nosey or what?
🙄
If you cant do the time - dont do the crime
How about...
[i]If you can't do the crime, then you don't do the time?[/i]
Or..
[i]If you can't time the crime, then do the do?[/i]
Or...
[i]If you do crime all the time, you're in deep do-do?[/i]
I have absolutely nothing else of any value whatsoever to add to this thread, and apologise for such crass and irreverent behaviour. 😳
why deny them the right to pass judgement on those who have judged them
Uh perhaps because its unlikely that their vote will be impartial? Somehow I dont see a prisoner voting for an increase in prison sentencing or an increase in police powers or such like ('cos thats a long list..) After all turkeys dont vote for Christmas hey.
Bottom line is why should you have the right to vote on societies laws & direction when by your actions you have clearly demonstrated your contempt for it.
Oh & Eddie no need for the insults yeah? Rather pointless & somewhat childish. You may not like that particular cliche but it is rather apt for this scenario.
Oooh CAn i add,
[i]It's a crime, Betty Boo doin' the do[/i]
mrlebowski - Member
"Uh perhaps because its unlikely that their vote will be impartial? Somehow I dont see a prisoner voting for an increase in prison sentencing or an increase in police powers or such like ('cos thats a long list..) After all turkeys dont vote for Christmas hey."
Heh, yes, because I remember all those parties running on a pro-crime, low-sentencing ticket in the last election 😕
Heh, yes, because I remember all those parties running on a pro-crime, low-sentencing ticket in the last election
Silly - that was clearly because prisoners didn't have the vote. Just you see how the manifestos change when they're angling for the votes of all those crims.
The Tories want us to withdraw from the European Human Rights Act.
Just saying "Let's ditch human rights" would be a PR disaster.
So instead they'll make a big play about this prisoner's rights issue. They'll probably attempt to defy the ruling, using lots of emotive talk about "not wanting to give rapists, murderers and terrorists the vote". Then there'll be a fine from the EU and payouts to thousands of prisoners suing them.
Then they'll use that debacle to say "Hey guys" (concerned face, sleeves rolled up) "The Human Rights act goes too far. They gave rapists and paedos the vote and now they are stealing our money, the money of honest Britons, when we're already skint".
The resulting backlash will then give them a lot of leverage to drop the act.
Simples.
Just saying "Let's ditch human rights" would be a PR disaster.
Which is why they've never said that.
Instead, they've said, "Let's scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights".
I don't think seeking a confrontation with the EU over the matter would be a wise move.
They would be better off relying on the constant drip drip of hostility from a compliant billionaire owned press, fed by to a large extent by the politically correct rantings of pseudo-lefties/ultra lefties, and finally, the Liberal Democrats completely abandoning anything which might still be left of the principles they once had.
I think they might pull it off.
At the moment the right to vote is only withheld from prisoners, not convicted criminals. Two people can commit the same crime, but due to mitigating circumstances one might be imprisoned and the other might get a non-custodial sentence. One can vote, the other can't. Neither, based on their previous actions, is more or less deserving of a vote.
Its an accident that prisoners can't vote, its not a specific part of their sentence. Its just an anacronism that needs to be corrected and nothing for politicians to showboat about. The prison population is so small, in the scheme of things, that with a vote or without one they have no influence democratically.
So, reading some actual facts, it seems that all the UK needs to comply is for judges to decide as part of sentencing in each case, rather than a blanket ban.
Which would be fine by me (although the government doubtless won't ask my opinion).
The prison population is so small, in the scheme of things, that with a vote or without one they have no influence democratically.
Prisoners wouldn't be allowed to vote in margerine constituencies then?
GrahamS - MemberThe Tories want us to withdraw from the European Human Rights Act.
Which they don't have the power to do in Scotland.
Anyway - you can't withdraw from an act of the UK parliament. YOu can repeal it
Teh European convention of human rights is not an EU institution. It was done in the 50s to draw up what should be our rights and agreed by a whole load of countries. It was incorporated into UK law in the 90s - the difference this made was you could seek redress under it in teh UK courts without having to go to the European court of human rights.
Repealing the acts that incorporated the european convention on human rights into UK law would only take us back to the situation that existed pre the incorporation into UK law.
IN Scotland the Convention was adopted into law as a part of the Scotland act that set up devolution. This act cannot be altered without the consent of both parliaments and there is simply no way on earth holyrood will agree.
On this subject like many others Cameron is talking utter bobbins -he is either lying or too thick to know he is talking utter bobbins. He simply cannot withdraw from a binding commitment made 50 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
Two people can commit the same crime, but due to mitigating circumstances one might be imprisoned and the other might get a non-custodial sentence. One can vote, the other can't. Neither, based on their previous actions, is more or less deserving of a vote.
Er, don't you notice the contradiction in what you wrote there? There's clearly a reason why one gets locked up and the other doesn't - presumably directly based upon their previous actions - it's not just an accident, you've admitted so yourself.
There's clearly a reason why one gets locked up and the other doesn't - presumably directly based upon their previous actions
Whilst not being an expert, I'm fairly sure other considerations are taken into account, eg, the effect of imprisonment on the individual - the ghastly experience it would represent for an Eton educated hereditary peer (or ex-copper) and the effects on dependants - a mother with children, etc. So the same crimes can lead to different sentences, something which we should be pleased with btw - mandatory sentences are usually best avoided.
When you hear about people in prison I often think "there, but for the grace of god, go I"..
Any one of us could find ourselves there, people make bad call's, it really is a fine line. (lets wait for the slipperY slope fallacy to rear its ugly head) . All those who have never been to prison find it easy to take the lofty high ground as if they are some kind of pious goody goody, just watch your step, you never knwo what little mistake you make may lead you behind bars.
I think everyone should have the right to vote, it's as crucial as the right to not be abused, tortured or killed. Boting is about choosing who control's your life, as we have control foisted upon us at least we can try and direct it.
I personally favour a two-tier system: if the time left to serve is longer than the life of the current parliament you don't have a right to vote. As and when the remainder of your sentence falls below this limit you regain the right. I think it would be unfair for a prisoner due for release the day after a general election to be unable to vote in it.
It's not something I feel too strongly about it: I have a lot of sympathy for the argument that once locked up you should lose the right to vote, although on balance I don't fully agree with it.
On this subject like many others Cameron is talking utter bobbins -he is either lying or too thick to know he is talking utter bobbins. He simply cannot withdraw from a binding commitment made 50 years ago
Cameron has had it in for the HRA for a long time...
[url= http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/74819/Cameron-Scrap-the-Human-Rights-Act ]CAMERON: SCRAP THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT (Express Dec 2008)[/URL]
[URL= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560975/David-Cameron-Scrap-the-Human-Rights-Act.html ]David Cameron: Scrap the Human Rights Act (Telegraph Aug 2007)[/URL]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5114102.stm ]Cameron 'could scrap' rights act (BBC, June 2006)[/url]
He's had plenty of time to plan how to publically undermine it. I expect lots more "It's Human Rights gone mad" type stories over the next year or two to shift public opinion, ideally involving rapists, paedos, terrorists and other bogeymen that clearly are not human and don't deserve rights.
Graham - but he does not have the power to do anything about the Scotland act which incorporates the ECHR in Scottish law - and he cannot withdraw from the declaration made in the 50s.
His stance on this is totally mendacious
But it was a manifesto promise TJ. Surely you're not suggesting the government would renege on an election promise? 😉
I'm sure you're right. I don't know enough about the law, but it's pretty clear Cameron has it in for the HRA as it's far liberal/lefty for the Tories.
I can't help reading the thread title as ' prisoner vomiting rights'! Sorry.
Graham - but he does not have the power to do anything about the Scotland act which incorporates the ECHR in Scottish law - and he cannot withdraw from the declaration made in the 50s.
Well he could if he wanted to. He could start off by scrapping Scotland's devolved powers.
ernie - he cannot. The scotland act that set up devolution can only be amended withthe agreement of both westminster and holyrood.
Cameron has no power to do anything to the devolved powers nor to remove teh incorporation of teh ECHR into scottish law.
can only be amended with the agreement of both westminster and holyrood.
I'm not talking about amending anything, I'm talking about scrapping it and having direct rule from Westminster. No sovereign nation is obliged to grant devolved power.
He cannot do that - Read what I wrote. He does not have the power to scrap devolution because of the way it was set up. This was done deliberately to prevent a power grab from Westminster. Any alteration to the devolved powers including scrapping Holyrood altogether needs to agreement of Holyrood. This is enshrined in the Scotland act
TJ, this government is quite capable of introducing any legislation it so wishes, that right is not a privilege restricted to New Labour. The UK is an independent sovereign nation which can choose its own laws and constitution. I think you are getting "doesn't want to" confused with "can't" 💡