Should prisoners have the right to vote?

[Kaiser_Soze]

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.

Interesting point. I agree with you about the prisoner vote issue being used to appear tough on crime and also raise anti EU feelings. Disagree about prisoners serving short sentences feeling more engaged if they are able to vote. The rate of reoffending is highest amongst prisoners who serve short sentences. Mainly because they are "lifestyle" offences. Petty theft, burglary and such like. The reoffending rate for those who commit serious offences tend to be much lower, even if you do take out those who serve whole life terms.

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.

Spot on. That is probably what the government will do. The X will probably be years rather than months though.

I personally believe that you should have your voting right removed on entry to prison. You can then apply for a postal voting form IF your release date falls inside the period of government which will be decided at said election. If somebody will have served their time and will have to live in a society governed by that government, they should have a say in which government that is.

 

[cunning fergus]

On the actual issue of prisoners voting I don't care either way. Prison curtails people's liberties, should that curtailment also include removing their right to vote in a free and democratic election? Don't know, don't care, it really is a minor issue.

What I DO care about is that the decision is ours and ours alone to make; no supra-national authority should have any say in the minutiae of our judicial and penal system. We're not some country on probation because of past or ongoing violation of basic human rights, we're a mature democracy who can handle these things in a fair and just manner ourselves. If a British political party wants to include prisoners' right to vote as a manifesto pledge then fair enough - that's how we change laws here. Well it should be how we change laws here.

Absolutely right.

For those that think the EU and ECHR are completely seperate and distinct entities should reflect on the fact that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe is a certain Thagbjorn Jagland.

He is also the chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, who as Norwegian PM actively supported membership of the EU against the wishes of the Norwegian electorate.

Whilst the EU and ECHR are separate in a legal context, in practice the head of these institutions do not act in independent vacums uninfluenced by the heads of other pan European institutions.

If those who support the ECHR didn't want the general public to get the ECHR confused with the EU then they should not (for example) use the EU flag and imagery so gratuitously in their livery......but they do, it is literally everywhere.

They wont though, because with people like Mr Jagland in control the aim of a European Federal superstate is completely aligned with those in control of the EU.........democracy and the wishes of a sovereign state's electorate do not matter.

 

[catfish]

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

I wouldn't know myself, thankfully!

 

[BensGrandad]

I think that anybody whose sentence, as given not with parole etc, finishes before the end of the term of office of the government should have a vote as they will be affected when released. Others should not be permitted to vote in an election.

 

[GT49er]

Just mollify the fkcing ECHR - give 'em the vote (but not a postal option) but don't let 'em out of prison to go to a polling booth! Job done!

 

[The Birdman]

No they should not have the right to a vote while they are in jail once they re enter society from prison they can have the vote back as simple as that.

 

[SeagullSongs]

Removal of liberty ought to mean removal of certain, if not most, rights.

Voting, while an under-appreciated (and often under-used) right in our society, ought to be a right removed from those in prison.

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.

Once they're out of prison, they've served their time, right? Why should they be punished or penalised further?

 

[HovaGirl]

People go to prison to be removed from society and to be punished for their crime. Part of that punishment and removal is to be denied the vote, as they are no longer considered part of society. If you give prisoners the vote, then you may as well give them their liberty and remove their punishment as that could also be construed to be against their human rights.

 

[Seagull Stew]

I think that anybody whose sentence, as given not with parole etc, finishes before the end of the term of office of the government should have a vote as they will be affected when released. Others should not be permitted to vote in an election.

In that case, should a minor be allowed the vote if they are due to turn 18 years old before the end of the term of the incoming Government?

I understand the point though, as it does seem a little unfair if someone is sentenced of a couple of weeks prison term during election time not being able to vote as opposed to someone having just been freed from a 10 year sentence being able to vote.

Still, I guess it's a consequence of breaking the law which is known about and if you're that bothered, don't break the law!

How does it work for people awaiting trial in custody, are they allowed to vote?

 

[JCrooks]

I am not really sure about the matter. But, yes i think prisoners should have right to vote. Because ultimately they would also be a part of social life, so they must have the right to vote. We can't give them a social death.

 

[happypig]

How does it work for people awaiting trial in custody, are they allowed to vote?

Yes, remand prisoners are allowed to vote as they have not been imprisoned for commiting a crime.

 

[The Rivet]

Consider this. Advisor to Cameron......
'If we are seen to fight Europe on this issue then we can say we are agreeing with the publics 'anti-Eu' feelings about interference from Brussels and look very good. Because it's a minor issue we can leave the major issues until after the next election and avoid big problems with Brussels.'
Meanwhile the British public will be paying fines to Europe (your money not prisoners) for disobeying the order. More finacial pain for us because the coalition want to 'look tough' on Europe' If the UK wants to take issue with Brussels we should be doing so on far more important issues. How is a prisoner voting going to affect me I ask myself. Well it isn't! if they are denied it will cost me money in more taxes (in whatever guise). Too many self righteous stances on what is in reality a VERY minor issue.

 

[looney]

Why are we still answerable to these insufferable clowns at the ECHR?

These are the jokers who declared the shootings of the IRA men in Gibralter as criminal by 4 votes to 3 along the lines of what religions their countries were.


As for the OP's question, from the period that they are able to apply for parrol then yes, otherwise no.

 

[Was not Was]

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!

I don't think 'they' go around looking for problems - surely it's only a thing right now because some UK prisoners wanted to vote and reckoned it was a human right, so applied to EHCR ... I can see why you're not impressed if you don't think voting is a Human Rights issue - I just reckon that a bit of pfaff on things that aren't at the heart of human rights is a price worth paying for having developed nations all signed up to some absolute standards, and being held to account, rather than them being at the whim of politicians doing some cheap vote-winning. This applies to the UK no more or less than any other nation, it's just that we live here, so this is the one we're most bothered about.

 

[Brovion]

I don't think 'they' go around looking for problems - surely it's only a thing right now because some UK prisoners wanted to vote and reckoned it was a human right, so applied to EHCR ... I can see why you're not impressed if you don't think voting is a Human Rights issue - I just reckon that a bit of pfaff on things that aren't at the heart of human rights is a price worth paying for having developed nations all signed up to some absolute standards, and being held to account, rather than them being at the whim of politicians doing some cheap vote-winning. This applies to the UK no more or less than any other nation, it's just that we live here, so this is the one we're most bothered about.

You're twisting my words now, I didn't say voting WASN'T a human rights issue, just that we decide who can and can't vote in our free elections. Currently I believe we bar minors, (devolution referendum notwithstanding), prisoners, lunatics and peers of the realm. I do not see that in any way shape or form to be an infringement of any basic human rights.

And the ECHR, like all these bodies has to justify its existence and we are a soft target. Telling Britain what to do is far easier, and has far more chance of success, than telling Russia for example.

 

[Justice]

Nope.

If its murder. manslaughter, paedo etc then they should lose all human rights for life. End Of.

Really?, so if you murdered someone to protect yourself or your family would you still think the same?

 

[Was not Was]

You're twisting my words now, I didn't say voting WASN'T a human rights issue, just that we decide who can and can't vote in our free elections. Currently I believe we bar minors, (devolution referendum notwithstanding), prisoners, lunatics and peers of the realm. I do not see that in any way shape or form to be an infringement of any basic human rights.

And the ECHR, like all these bodies has to justify its existence and we are a soft target. Telling Britain what to do is far easier, and has far more chance of success, than telling Russia for example.

I think I was trying to find out where we (dis)agree. I reckon we agree that prisoner voting isn't one of the core human rights issues, like the right to a fair trial, free speech and universal suffrage (is it still called that??). We seem to disagree on how good/useful it is for the UK to defer to another body on human rights issues - ie to pool some of our sovereignty with other nations. You think we're a 'soft target' and the EHCR is justifying its existence; I just don't see the evidence for that: some UK prisoners applied to it, and it considered the case, didn't it? They're not like Ofsted inspectors doing a random spot check and 'picking on' the nations who are least likely to tell them to bugger off. Or are they?

 

[Brovion]

I think I was trying to find out where we (dis)agree. I reckon we agree that prisoner voting isn't one of the core human rights issues, like the right to a fair trial, free speech and universal suffrage (is it still called that??). We seem to disagree on how good/useful it is for the UK to defer to another body on human rights issues - ie to pool some of our sovereignty with other nations. You think we're a 'soft target' and the EHCR is justifying its existence; I just don't see the evidence for that: some UK prisoners applied to it, and it considered the case, didn't it? They're not like Ofsted inspectors doing a random spot check and 'picking on' the nations who are least likely to tell them to bugger off. Or are they?

Ok, I think where we disagree is that you think it's 'good' that an organisation such as ECHR can have jurisdiction over such trivial (my choice of term) issues, and I don't. I believe it should be a British political/constitutional issue only and you don't. I also believe the job of the ECHR should be to address real HR issues. They can't do it so they pick on soft targets.

 

[Was not Was]

Ok, I think where we disagree is that you think it's 'good' that an organisation such as ECHR can have jurisdiction over such trivial (my choice of term) issues, and I don't. I believe it should be a British political/constitutional issue only and you don't. I also believe the job of the ECHR should be to address real HR issues. They can't do it so they pick on soft targets.

That's about it.

 

[Dover]

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.

Jeffery Archer and a couple of his Tory friends come to mind.