Should prisoners have the right to vote?

[8ace]

They have it so cushy inside I doubt they give a f*** either way.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I don't think completely disenfranchising individuals who have committed a crime by removing their right to vote is the best way to look to having a reform-based prison system. So, of course they should have a right to vote no matter the crime or their length of sentence.
I fear mostly that the BNP will be visiting prisons monthly to gain more support whilst other parties mayn't want to be associated with prisoners on their electoral list.

 

[Brovion]

Not missing that point - its two entirely different discussions. I'm answering the one posed in the thread title.

True, true, I guess I was just focussing on the bit that was pissing me off. As I said earlier on the actual 'should prisoners be allowed to vote?' issue I have no opinion either way.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But then, in certain extreme cases, I'd consider removing the voting rights of some people whose prison sentences have been served and spent as well.

Out of interest what would these "extreme cases" be ?

Some good arguments as to whether prisoners should vote or not, but I think most of you are now missing the point: should an outside body have the authority to tell us whether to give 'em the vote or not?

To the barricades people!

Absolutely not - I'd rather we'd have told the ECHR to bugger off.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

That's a very silly extrapolation.
One are denied the vote because they are considered incapable of sufficient mental capacity. The other are denied it as part of an exclusion from society, incurred as a punishment. Totally different, and utterly no reason why one should lead to the other.

It has already happened in Hungary.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Well it looks like the government have told the ECHR to bugger off - good decision.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I'm undecided on this one.

You wonder whether it's possible a candidate representing something like a 'Prison Party' might actually influence policy decisions.

I can see that if a candidate stands on the issue of the plight of criminals, the judicial systems, inequality in society they would not only get significant votes from prisoners but also former inmates, sympathetic family and friends and disaffected voters. A f***ed up economy and a weak Labour Party have created something of a vacuum.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

No because once prisoners get the right to vote , the next campaign on human rights grounds will be patients in psychiatric hospitals and persons with severe mental health issues.

Disagree, because there are far more cogent non-human rights related issues there, like the ability to make an informed decision.

If Mr Cameron is seriously meaning what he said the other day in his speech about law and order and the need to work harder at making sure that people do not reoffend, I think not allowing prisoners to vote might actually go against that.

 

[Was not Was]

Some good arguments as to whether prisoners should vote or not, but I think most of you are now missing the point: should an outside body have the authority to tell us whether to give 'em the vote or not?

To the barricades people!

I agree that the bigger (and more interesting) issue is over who should decide this. Unlike you, though, I like the idea that stuff like this (which is serious) can be decided in a pretty objective way with reference to some absolute standards, rather than through electoral whim. Human rights, in my view, are too important to be misapplied or frittered away based on party political whim.

I'm sure I won't change your mind, but I reckon that Cameron today was evidence of why we're better off not trusting our politicians on fundamental stuff. This needs a considered view, and "No prisoner will get the vote while I'm PM", without giving any clear rationale, is not a considered view.

 

[happypig]

This is part of the government (and the previous one) trying to be "tough on crime" and refusing to give the vote to serving prisoners is a zero-cost way of being tough, it's also popular with those who are anti-europe as it's seen as "faceless bureaucrats" meddling in the UK's affairs. However, if the government really wants to be tough, they should change policy so that a sentence passed by a court is actually served, rather than the prisoner being released halfway through and make the credit for an early guilty plea be at the absolute discretion of the court.
Personally I'd let prisoners serving short sentences (less than 12 months) have a vote as it might help them feel more engaged with society, after all, part of the purpose of a prison sentence is rehabilitation.

 

[Seasidesage]

This is part of the government (and the previous one) trying to be "tough on crime" and refusing to give the vote to serving prisoners is a zero-cost way of being tough, it's also popular with those who are anti-europe as it's seen as "faceless bureaucrats" meddling in the UK's affairs. However, if the government really wants to be tough, they should change policy so that a sentence passed by a court is actually served, rather than the prisoner being released halfway through and make the credit for an early guilty plea be at the absolute discretion of the court.
Personally I'd let prisoners serving short sentences (less than 12 months) have a vote as it might help them feel more engaged with society, after all, part of the purpose of a prison sentence is rehabilitation.

My thoughts entirely, except that I would let all prisoners with a release date vote. If you want them to become part of society you have to engage as well as punish...

 

[TrickyOne]

No ..End of !

correct!

 

[catfish]

They have it so cushy inside I doubt they give a f*** either way.

They don't according to that lad who was posting on here a few months ago. Anyway I don't think they should have the right to vote.

 

[Dandyman]

interesting how this has been (mis)reported. As I understand it the court ruling was not that all prisoners had the right to vote but that a blanket ban that decreed that no convict could vote was illegal. Therefore (unless I've got it hopelessly wrong) the government could decide that only those serving less than x months could vote but those with longer sentences could not.

 

[El Sid]

I would deny paedos a vote along with their bollox

 

[8ace]

They don't according to that lad who was posting on here a few months ago. Anyway I don't think they should have the right to vote.

The people I know who've been in stir reckon differently.

 

[Brovion]

I agree that the bigger (and more interesting) issue is over who should decide this. Unlike you, though, I like the idea that stuff like this (which is serious) can be decided in a pretty objective way with reference to some absolute standards, rather than through electoral whim. Human rights, in my view, are too important to be misapplied or frittered away based on party political whim.

I'm sure I won't change your mind, but I reckon that Cameron today was evidence of why we're better off not trusting our politicians on fundamental stuff. This needs a considered view, and "No prisoner will get the vote while I'm PM", without giving any clear rationale, is not a considered view.

I would disagree that it is 'fundamental', I see this as right at the peripheral edges of Human Rights, indeed I would go as far as to say it isn't a human rights issue at all. Also I am miffed that with all the real human rights abuses that are going on in the world (or even just in Europe if you want to count the western former provinces of the USSR) the ECHR can decide that this minor little speck of an issue is important. Of course the reason why they are making a big thing of it is because usually we are a compliant nation who respect our international obligations (no matter how stupid or out-of-date) and consequently they think this is something they can force us to accept. That in turn will help justify their existence and they will feel they have 'done something'.

My ire is admittedly stoked by the fact that at the moment I'm virulently opposed to any organisation with the word 'European' in it's title, but I am pleased that there is a cross-party consensus about this. The issue first appeared when Labour where in power and they fought it too.

And likewise I don't expect to change your mind!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

interesting how this has been (mis)reported. As I understand it the court ruling was not that all prisoners had the right to vote but that a blanket ban that decreed that no convict could vote was illegal. Therefore (unless I've got it hopelessly wrong) the government could decide that only those serving less than x months could vote but those with longer sentences could not.

That is indeed the case. If I were the government I'd just say any prisoner serving longer than 7 DAYS loses the right to vote. ECHR ruling all sorted and everyone's happy.

 

[Perkino]

Nope, but my own view is that if someone has broken the law then are choosing not to have human rights. The severity of their crime dictating what rights they have chosen to abandon.

How can a burglar complain that they have been assaulted or injured when they are somewhere that they shouldn't be.
Drunk and disorderly complaining that they were poorly treated by the police

Prisoners should be charged for their keep and they can undertake roles inside to help repay the state such as gardening, cleaning laundry. Their time inside should be used to help them adjust to society to reduce the likelyhood of re-offending

 

[Questions]

As far as I am concerned they are mostly scum of the highest order. Thieves, con artists, fraudsters and worst.
Why would any prisoners want to vote for any of them.