[Closed] Prisoner Voting rights

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 - Member

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

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

[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 - Member

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

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 - Member

Ok 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 - Member

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 ?

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

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 - Member

The 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.

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" 💡

Erenie - I suggest you read up on this. The UK is a union . Westminster does not have the ability to make legislation on devolved matters. Westminster does not have the authority to alter the devolution settlement at all without the consent of Holyrood.

Remember the judiciary is independent and Scotland has its own judiciary anyway.

Wetminster can pass any law it wants - its irrelevant to holyrood. Holyrood is not subordinate to Wetminster.

This was very carefully done as a part of the devolution settlement

Such a move would be an act of (civil) war: and we all know the government never engages in illegal wars...

The UK is a union

I don't dispute that - I am not suggesting that Scotland submits to the will of England. The fact that the government of the United Kingdom meets in the Westminster district of London is quite irrelevant. Scotland is not an independent sovereign state - the United Kingdom is. A fact which is internationally recognised including by, the United Nations. Scotland might well have the ability to pass laws, but so do LAs.

Changing the constitution of the UK is remarkably easy and just requires a simple parliamentary majority (see reforms of the House of Lords, Devolution, Supreme Court, arrest/detention, etc) Without a written constitution, it just requires nothing more than a majority of one.

I'm not good on the Scotland Act by any means, but if TJ is correct (no reason to doubt it) then the act represents a very large deviation from the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as it has been understood for a long time. The argument that parliament did not have the power to pass the act so as to operate as TJ describes would be quite a strong one. But the question would surely be basically one of politics and legitimacy anyway rather than strict legality. Presumably the government doesn't [i]really[/i] want a tedious neo-colonial war on the northern border of Conservative-held territory. 🙂

if TJ is correct (no reason to doubt it) then the act represents a very large deviation from the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as it has been understood for a long time.

Yep, that is why I don't believe he is correct.

Whilst I fully accept that under [i]existing[/i] legislation, any change in the powers of the Scottish parliament might require agreement by both the Scottish and UK parliaments, I do not accept that the UK parliament lacks the lawful means to repeal any previous acts.

Quote :

[i]"As devolution does not affect the sovereignty of Westminster Parliament, there are no legal guarantees as to the existence of the Scottish Parliament"[/i]

And :

[i]"The United Kingdom is a single legal entity. Parliament delegates power to local authorities, devolved governments and to ministers of the crown in order to make secondary legislation, known as Statutory Instruments. However, Parliament could at any time take all these powers back by passing legislation; for example: devolved government in Scotland would be abolished by the repeal of the Scotland Act 1998"[/i]

Again I repeat, I think TJ is getting "doesn't want to" confused with "can't".

you are correct that they could repeal the original act. However what would then happen if Scotland chose to ignore it ? They could just declare independence at holyrood then what? The non Scottish parliament [uk one]would trump the Scottish one in International Law ?- I very much doubt this - dont know for sure tbh and I doubt the Union could be upheld legally.

Having looked further into it its not as clear as I thought -Westminster cannot alter the scotland act without holyroods consent - but the Westminster parliament could attempt to pass a bill to supercede the Scotland act - ultimately it would be down to the courts to decide is my reading.

However what would then happen if Scotland chose to ignore it ?

That would be illegal.

Maybe you need an expansion of the first quote :

[i]"the doctrine of legislative supremacy only connotes the absence of legal limitations to Westminster Parliament. This clearly does not involve the absence of political obstructions to the repeal of the Scotland Act 1998"[/i]

I am working on the assumption that all suggestions on this thread is based on what is lawful.

BTW, I am not suggesting that extra-parliamentary activity and insurrection isn't necessarily justified, but I didn't think that the option of revolution was what was being discussed here.

Presumably but what would happen if there was a Scottish referendum - done by Holyrood- for independence as the act was repealed?
Would the UK invade and impose it's will despite the clear wishes of the people of Scotland? Would this be legal under international Law - is the right to self determination not enshrined ?
I honestly dont know and very much doubt the scenario will ever happen.