Prisoner Voting

[Rob Noxious]

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

Only for the most particularly heinous of crimes, eg. possessing the Phil Collins back catalogue. :smiles:

 

[osymandus]

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.

Which is the detail of teh act they want to bring in . HEnce why people should stop listing to the media and read the act for themselves

 

[Neil_F]

I found John Hirst, the axe murderer who filed the original case, complaining about the infringement on his human rights pretty loathsome. What about the human rights of his landlord, who he hacked to death?

I also don't understand the position of the ECHR on it either. We are instructed to look at it again but it seems alright that some prisoners get the vote and others don't, depending upon sentence length and crime committed. Surely they all get to vote or none of them do?

Another thing I don't understand is why it is within their human rights to vote in some elections but not others. For example, in local elections they could field some prison candidates (though not actually in prision) and elect them given their numbers. There would also be the travesty of the prison voting in their choice of elected police commissioner. Surely though, if denying prisoners the right to vote is a breach of their human rights it is a breach for every election?

I personally don't think they should be entitled to vote. I am also in favour of ignoring the ECHR ruling and when the compensation cases come in not spending a penny on a defence and not paying out the compensation at all. What are they going to do about it?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Would you want the local Neo Nazi voting from inside prison?

He would probably vote for a party of which I approve, so yes.

 

[osymandus]

I found John Hirst, the axe murderer who filed the original case, complaining about the infringement on his human rights pretty loathsome. What about the human rights of his landlord, who he hacked to death?

I also don't understand the position of the ECHR on it either. We are instructed to look at it again but it seems alright that some prisoners get the vote and others don't, depending upon sentence length and crime committed. Surely they all get to vote or none of them do?

Another thing I don't understand is why it is within their human rights to vote in some elections but not others. For example, in local elections they could field some prison candidates (though not actually in prision) and elect them given their numbers. There would also be the travesty of the prison voting in their choice of elected police commissioner. Surely though, if denying prisoners the right to vote is a breach of their human rights it is a breach for every election?

I personally don't think they should be entitled to vote. I am also in favour of ignoring the ECHR ruling and when the compensation cases come in not spending a penny on a defence and not paying out the compensation at all. What are they going to do about it?

The Law courts would inforce it and we would have to ignore and destroy our own legal system . See here is the issue . While agree with you on the axe murderer who brought it , up , the law's are not utteryly black and white with out precedence or debate . Or we wouldn't have judges we would just have a law , a quick check list and bang that's it (btw that works even worse before anyone points it out ).

The reason its not applied blanket across everything is simply because ... that's stupid, a right grants you the ability to perform an action it does not however except you from its consequences nor to ensure you act responsibly within the right given or the law's governing it .

 

[steveo]

But the local Neo-Nazi can vote who hasn't committed a crime ?

Why not? He should have the same right as the "British" muslim extremists who have yet to plant their bombs.

 

[osymandus]

Why not? He should have the same right as the "British" muslim extremists who have yet to plant their bombs.

That was the point.

 

[canveyshrimper]

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)

Sorry but not so. The UNCHR was indeed set up on the formation of the UN after WWII. The debate here is the ECHR which is enshrined in the EU, which the Major government refused to sign up to. But as soon as Blair was elected in 1997 he signed us up to, considering his wife is a specialist lawyer in Human Rights law that was hardly surprising.

 

[canveyshrimper]

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 .

Capital punishment worked fine, the ****ers didn't reoffend at least.

 

[steveo]

Capital punishment worked fine, the ****ers didn't reoffend at least.

Or vote......

 

[the_forgotten_man]

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

So's freedom, is it not? And what about under 18s? And lunatics? And Lords? Why don't they get this 'key right for all citizens'? Universal suffrage has never been part of our constitution. Limits have always and hopefully will always, be placed on our democracy, because absolute democracy isn't the ideal.

In response to KoB's point about governments making something trivial illegal: If the majority of people don't want something to be illegal then all it takes is a party to stand opposing it, and in theory it should get overturned. Can you really think of an example that would imprison so many people as to impact upon election results? We live in a representative democracy, and accepting that certain laws will be passed that aren't in accordance with the majority viewpoint is part of that. We elect people to make decisions to the best of their abilities, having listened to them and their parties prior to the election. Something that has appalled me since the election last year is the repetition of 'We didn't vote for this!'. Well obviously, by the very nature of elections there will be a lot of people who didn't vote for the outcome. Get over it.

The implication that governments would make something illegal in order to imprison opposition supporters is all very well if we're living in 1950s Yugoslavia, but the fact is we live in a mature democracy, with a free media. Look at the power the Telegraph has imposed over MPs regarding expenses. If there was any sniff of foul play, and to this degree of seriousness, it would be immediately reported.

 

[Neil_F]

The Law courts would inforce it

Which court would enforce it? The ECHR has at its disposal something called Protocol 14, which is essentially a further hearing where one the parties fails to implement a ruling. If the ECHR rules against the state in the subsequent hearing then they can impose sanctions. These can be financial (but then I would suggest we just don't pay that either - what are they going to do, have another hearing?) or political (such as expulsion from the Coucil of Europe).

I think a lot of Conservative MPs are hoping that this event is the starting gun: a sovereignty issue where a European court seeks to supercede the judgement of Parliament and imposes sanctions for not implementing a ruling, especially on such a deeply unpopular measure (from memory the polling shows 9% in favour). It wouldn't be hard to envisage a full review of our EU membership in such circumstances would it???

 

[canveyshrimper]

Just an aside on this, reading the papers and listening/watching news programmes they're saying this is a landslide vote, well yes in terms of the 256 MP's who actually voted, but where the hell were the other 390 odd?

 

[Pubey]

Just an aside on this, reading the papers and listening/watching news programmes they're saying this is a landslide vote, well yes in terms of the 256 MP's who actually voted, but where the hell were the other 390 odd?

juicing their secretaries in their second homes?

 

[osymandus]

Which court would enforce it? The ECHR has at its disposal something called Protocol 14, which is essentially a further hearing where one the parties fails to implement a ruling. If the ECHR rules against the state in the subsequent hearing then they can impose sanctions. These can be financial (but then I would suggest we just don't pay that either - what are they going to do, have another hearing?) or political (such as expulsion from the Coucil of Europe).

I think a lot of Conservative MPs are hoping that this event is the starting gun: a sovereignty issue where a European court seeks to supercede the judgement of Parliament and imposes sanctions for not implementing a ruling, especially on such a deeply unpopular measure (from memory the polling shows 9% in favour). It wouldn't be hard to envisage a full review of our EU membership in such circumstances would it???

Our's with regards to the suing of the government by the prisoners denied the rights . £70,000 has already been spent , legal precedents are set .

Yes they may do and it shows their narrow minded short sighted ideology . They believe in their ideas over what is both relaistic and practical.

 

[Neil_F]

Do you have a link to the court precedent? As I said before, even if they do and the court awards compensation why pay it?

I always like the "ideological" attack. Are you not committed to any ideological yet impractical notions?

Picking a fight with the EU to precipitate an in-out referendum is hardly unrealistic (I think there is a very real possibility and the leader of the party you support has openly called for one), nor is it impractical (we're having a referendum in May so they can actually take place).

 

[osymandus]

Do you have a link to the court precedent? As I said before, even if they do and the court awards compensation why pay it?

I always like the "ideological" attack. Are you not committed to any ideological yet impractical notions?

Picking a fight with the EU to precipitate an in-out referendum is hardly unrealistic (I think there is a very real possibility and the leader of the party you support has openly called for one), nor is it impractical (we're having a referendum in May so they can actually take place).

My self personally, no , because i consider the notions and even my "spiritual" beliefs have a practical edge for purposes of living and interaction with others (i may believe in Pooh bear but just because i do no one else has to ;)). And I tend to find that people will not shift their ideology sometimes even if a better solution presents itself , which is currently against their beliefs.
Not to had but The Wright Stuff quoted the figure this Morning that £70,000 had already been paid out and it is believe at least £1000,000 more would be paid out . Ah heres the transcript of the Pilot case from 2010 July it state where there is a violation of section 3 and the two men claiming were awarded 5000 Euro's (each to be converted to pounds) in this case it was costs and expenses.http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1826.html
Why not ignore any law's the government doesn't feel like adhering to ... oh wait we can't its a democratic system, built on a foundaiton of a legal system open to debate and evidence not a dictatorship where the governments implements its whims.

Fighting them isn't , this one is as they are fully aware of the implications of their (like UKIP ) insular mentality and their hoping that if they do in teh long term withdrawn the notion of turning the UK into a tax haven would attached business that would otherwise side step us (which is another thing they are more worried about by the EU as the EU are forcing tax law's to be fair and in accordance with making sure they do not restrict the populaces ability for wealth generation and social mobility)

 

[osymandus]

also a good piece here aruging why prisoners have human rights and why we can't really compalin we are being dictated to as we not only support the EUHRC but help run and control it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/04/prisoner-voting-convicts-human-beings

 

[pickledseal]

I'm annoyed. I spent ages writing a long response to a load of these posts and lost it due to our crappy internet login thing at work. GRRR

Summary:

• Ozzy you've made some great points!
• This thread has got as muddled as the argument in the press - is the issue prisoner votes/lack of MPs voting/EUHRC intervention/bowing down to EU?!
• Prisoners do have rights, but not all prisoners have all rights
• Rehabilitation must be ultimately the most important aim, or we are simply discarding human beings although I agree the other aims of protection, deterring others, vindication, retribtuion etc are all important too.
• Check out - http://www.jailguitardoors.org.uk/ for an excellent project with prisoners - I think Tom McRae's account is quite good of his experiences - http://mcraetheism.blogspot.com/2009/11/jail-guitar-doors.html

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Only for the most particularly heinous of crimes, eg. possessing the Phil Collins back catalogue. :smiles:

Stevie Gerrard would probably be found guilty of that.:winking: