Prisoner Voting

[pickledseal]

What do we think?

I think the majority of prisoners should be allowed to vote. Yes they should be punished, but ultimately these people need rehabilitation and reintegrated. By not allowing them the vote we are further distancing them from society. It's something I've believed quite a while after reading about Billy Bragg and his Guitar Doors charity.

However there is a whole other issue clouding it, the one of Euro intervention....

 

[Pubey]

Absolutely yes they should have the right to vote.

 

[the_forgotten_man]

Of course they shouldn't have the vote. These are people who deserve their punishment (and often a deal more) - part of that is being denied rights that the well behaved in society take for granted. To those who suggest they should have the vote, why? Why allow them that 'right', but not the right to say, freedom? Why should we trust people who have proved they have dubious character and judgement by breaking this country's law to vote for its leaders (Insert joke about the dubious character and judgement of our leaders)?

Rehabilitation is one purpose for imprisonment. The others, vastly more important in nature, are retribution, punishment, deterrent, and in certain cases to remove danger from the streets. These should be the main aims of imprisonment, and it is through the successful implementation of these aspects that re-offence levels will drop - not the vague idea that we should reform these people who have wronged others, and the law.

 

[Mad Cyril]

I'd never vote for Jeffrey Archer so this is all a waste of time.

 

[Gt Yarmouth Shrimper]

Absolutely yes they should have the right to vote.

What's your reasoning behind this?

 

[* ORM *]

European Court of Human Sheites needs to concentrate on real issues. Convicted prisoners have no rights and it's about time we were tougher on the scum that live a life of relative luxury. **** rehabilitation. I'd pay 5% more tax to build more prisons and give them harsher conditions. Do a crime, do your time and currently sentencing is nowhere near tough enough. ****ing lefties get on my TITS !

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Tend to agree with the Lib/Dems on this one.There should be some sort of sentence and type of crime limit however.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Quite simply no, while I agree that prison should help in reforming, retraining blah blah, how many criminals are repeat offenders? In my view if a person is imprisoned they've forfeited the right to vote along with the way they've forfeited their right to freedom.

There is another issue here about the ECHR and as far as I am concerned all sovereign countries have the right to determine their own laws, and not have the decisons of their elected government (whether you like them or not) overturned / overruled by a gang of judges in Strasbourg.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Why not? The British populace are so incredibly apathetic when it comes to voting for anything that doesn't include a Z-List sleb eating a cockroach's anus why should Johnny Prisoner be any different?

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

I say that they should have the right to vote.

Say, for example, a law is passed by party A that makes something trivial illegal. In addition, opposition party B is against this new law. Now, if this law puts people in prison, how are they fairly going to get it overturned if they can't then vote for Party B? Whether we like it or not, we're a part of a democracy, and therefore we shouldn't be able to pick and choose who votes. I can't say I like the idea of prisoners getting a vote, but that's the way democracy is supposed to work

 

[osymandus]

Should also point out its not the EU , its the international Human right court which the UK was active and very passionate about in setting up after WWII (yes that was us) . It's also about the line of our country our rules grr yeah , bloody prisoners , scum arnt all of them , none of them deserve help , look they just repeat offend (oh wait is that because the y can't get anything else or are rehabilitated to the point of being socially useful therefore remain as scum who can only continue in crime)

Because people who have stolen billions of tax payers money and then received more in subsidies to continue in the life that they are accustom to are just the lowest of the low . Mocking us with their continued existence , OK people mob rule lets go and hang teh buggers (heads off to Canaray Wharf and RBS) (read in the voice of Charlie Booker for more fun)

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

I say that they should have the right to vote.

Say, for example, a law is passed by party A that makes something trivial illegal. In addition, opposition party B is against this new law. Now, if this law puts people in prison, how are they fairly going to get it overturned if they can't then vote for Party B? Whether we like it or not, we're a part of a democracy, and therefore we shouldn't be able to pick and choose who votes. I can't say I like the idea of prisoners getting a vote, but that's the way democracy is supposed to work

This is a very interesting point. I am pretty torn on this subject, I can see the reasoning why they should be allowed to vote and your post makes the point particularly well. However, I do also feel that prison is meant to be a punishment and a restriction of the freedoms that a criminal has denied their victims. And as one of the freedoms we have in this country is the right to vote should that not be denied? Would denying the right to vote for certain crimes be appropriate? Things like murder and rape, terrorism etc are not trivial crimes after all...

European Court of Human Sheites needs to concentrate on real issues. Convicted prisoners have no rights and it's about time we were tougher on the scum that live a life of relative luxury. **** rehabilitation. I'd pay 5% more tax to build more prisons and give them harsher conditions. Do a crime, do your time and currently sentencing is nowhere near tough enough. ****ing lefties get on my TITS !

Sorry ORM, it's not you in particular, but I'm sick and tired of this attitude. I am a liberal/lefty but I also believe prison is too soft at present. Things like tv, computer games, pool, access to the internet etc should absolutely removed from prison. Prison is supposed to be a punishment for crimes commited.

However I do disagree, another essential part of prison is to reform the prisoner so they do not offend again. If you punish without reforming then prisoners will just have a greater resentment for authority and no skills with which to become a useful member of society. If a prisoner learns whilst inside they will have skills with which they can work and not fall back into criminal habits.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

We can avoid the issue by bringing back the rope for most offences.

 

[Pubey]

What's your reasoning behind this?

Because I believe it's a key right for all citizens, convicts or not.

 

[osymandus]

Here in lies a problem , people advocate a more simplistic existence in jail (the last of which we had i believe was in the 1960's) more slop buckets exercise yards etc . Further back turn of the 18-19C we had the massive exercise wheels that were used to break physically the likes of Oscar Wilde who were sent to prison , As Rusty said we had teh rope before and other capital punishments . The point here is none of them did work as a deter-ant , crime wasn't wiped out , it was not reduced , it eventually bred tougher gangs , criminals become inventive ones .

The Mafia's we have today were founded in environments that were constant battlefields or death on every corner (Yakuza, Italian and Russian mafias) . The situation needs to exists to destabilise the rewards or benefits of commuting these acts , not just a temporary removal of the individual who can perform it .

 

[steveo]

No they shouldn’t. If they can’t live within the laws of society why they have a say in who makes those laws. In fact, I would go further and say if someone has ever served a custodial sentence, they should lose their vote forever.

 

[Onion_Bag_Dave]

Completely against prisoners getting the vote.

If somebody committed a crime that directly affected your family relating to death/beatings/drugs/rape/verbal abuse/insert more crimes here.
Would you want them to vote? No you wouldn't!
Would you want the local Neo Nazi voting from inside prison? No you wouldn't.

Simple as that!

 

[osymandus]

Completely against prisoners getting the vote.

If somebody committed a crime that directly affected your family relating to death/beatings/drugs/rape/verbal abuse/insert more crimes here.
Would you want them to vote? No you wouldn't!
Would you want the local Neo Nazi voting from inside prison? No you wouldn't.

Simple as that!

But the local Neo-Nazi can vote who hasn't committed a crime ? Do we then my extension of your logic ban them ?
And yet 87 year old Nerris Tweed sent to prison for 3 weeks for non payment of council tax due to protesting loses her right to vote ?
Btw anyone on here actually looked at teh variations across Europe (and indeed over here) as to how only non serious crimes can be included and length of sentence is dictated by the countries ?

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Completely against prisoners getting the vote.

If somebody committed a crime that directly affected your family relating to death/beatings/drugs/rape/verbal abuse/insert more crimes here.
Would you want them to vote? No you wouldn't!
Would you want the local Neo Nazi voting from inside prison? No you wouldn't.

Simple as that!

Not quite as simple as that, what if someone was inside for a few weeks for a minor non antisocial case? What if someone was inside for something that half the country felt should be legal?

The Neo Nazi's a good example. You wouldn't want a Neo Nazi voting, why? Because his views differ from yours? However repugnant his views may be, they're still his views and if you wish to live in a democracy he should still have a right to his views, and an opportunity to change things through voting.

It doesn't have to be Neo Nazis, it could be someone arrested for smoking pot. If a sizeable majority want it legalised, but they end up in prison, then you could argue that it's a non democratic process

 

[Onion_Bag_Dave]

But the local Neo-Nazi can vote who hasn't committed a crime ? Do we then my extension of your logic ban them ?
And yet 87 year old Nerris Tweed sent to prison for 3 weeks for non payment of council tax due to protesting loses her right to vote ?
Btw anyone on here actually looked at teh variations across Europe (and indeed over here) as to how only non serious crimes can be included and length of sentence is dictated by the countries ?

The local Neo-Nazi can vote yes because he isn't in prison, he probably shouldn't be allowed the vote, but theres nothing stopping him.
Depending on the type of crime it should affect who votes and who doesn't.