No vote for prisoners
Discussion
ExChrispy Porker said:
Anyone care to speculate how many prisoners would actually bother to vote ?
It's only a small proportion of the electorate at the best of times. I cannot see prisoners being more likely to vote than the rest of us.
Which is one of the points that Derek Smith and I keep banging on about. I estimated an average of 65 per constituency, Derek estimated an average of 4 (yes four)It's only a small proportion of the electorate at the best of times. I cannot see prisoners being more likely to vote than the rest of us.
The whole thing is just such a complete non-story, and why it has got the publicity and reaction it has is completely beyond me.
Unless the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum
ExChrispy Porker said:
Anyone care to speculate how many prisoners would actually bother to vote ?
It's only a small proportion of the electorate at the best of times. I cannot see prisoners being more likely to vote than the rest of us.
It's only a small proportion of the electorate who commit murder, but we still have laws about it...It's only a small proportion of the electorate at the best of times. I cannot see prisoners being more likely to vote than the rest of us.
It's hardly a question of impact. It's a point of principle. As I've asked repeatedly without getting an answer, why on earth would someone who has acted against society in manner serious enough to warrant imprisonment be given a say in the way that society is run, especially during their period of punishment? It's sheer madness. Just because a bunch of lentil eaters decided that voting was a fundamental human right (what crap), that view is parrotted by otherwise reasonable people, who take this as gospel and whisper about the terrible danger of depriving people of their rights. We already know that the 'rights' of young offenders include having free use of Playstations, LCD TVs, top quality gyms and luxury accommodation, so maybe these should be deemed 'essential human rights' too and introduced into all prisons.
k off on a regular basis, people only have power when other people give it to them...Elroy Blue said:
It's not about how many will vote.
It's about how many, with the aid of blood sucking, morally corrupt lawyers, see it as an opportunity to make a few quid by submitting compo claims.
Which is what I effectively said back on page 2.It's about how many, with the aid of blood sucking, morally corrupt lawyers, see it as an opportunity to make a few quid by submitting compo claims.
This thread is getting circular, and nobody on either side of the argument is likely to convince anybody on the other side of the error of their ways
carmonk said:
As I've asked repeatedly without getting an answer, why on earth would someone who has acted against society in manner serious enough to warrant imprisonment be given a say in the way that society is run, especially during their period of punishment?
Because:- being imprisoned is the punishment
- their crime might be political¹
- we should take care not to trample on more rights than absolutely necessary
¹Homosexuality then, drug use now
fluffnik said:
carmonk said:
As I've asked repeatedly without getting an answer, why on earth would someone who has acted against society in manner serious enough to warrant imprisonment be given a say in the way that society is run, especially during their period of punishment?
Because:- being imprisoned is the punishment
- their crime might be political¹
- we should take care not to trample on more rights than absolutely necessary
¹Homosexuality then, drug use now
2) It might be, but whether you agree with something being a crime does not alter the fact it is, and therefore is seen as being contrary to society.
3) Notwithstanding that the majority of the public believe it is absolutely necessary to prevent prisoners from voting, I have to ask the question, "Why?"
carmonk said:
1) Who says? Who says that imprisonment is the sum total of the punishment? For many criminals it's seen as an occupational hazard and in some cases not even a hazard, simply something that happens. On that basis we should allow prisoners phones, alcohol, employment opportunities with equal pay, the right to protest in jail, the right to have their family come and go as they please, etc.
2) It might be, but whether you agree with something being a crime does not alter the fact it is, and therefore is seen as being contrary to society.
3) Notwithstanding that the majority of the public believe it is absolutely necessary to prevent prisoners from voting, I have to ask the question, "Why?"
Being able to vote is a 'right' in this country, given to all citizens apart from those seriously ill mentally or, I think, those who have a seat in the lords.2) It might be, but whether you agree with something being a crime does not alter the fact it is, and therefore is seen as being contrary to society.
3) Notwithstanding that the majority of the public believe it is absolutely necessary to prevent prisoners from voting, I have to ask the question, "Why?"
So the question is not why they should have the vote, that has already been decided, but why it should be removed.
When the law came into force the vast, the overwhelming majority of this country did not have the vote. It wasn't until 1918 that there was anything approaching universal suffrage and even then women under the age of 30 were unable to vote. So there is a considerable difference between then and now.
So why should there be the additional punishment of the removal of the right to vote?
The idea of imprisonment is to protect the public and to punish. There is also the hope that it will change them to an extent, to stop them re-offending.
So as it is an additional punishment, the question is why. We could, as many on here have said, is that if you commit am offence serious enough to make prison a punishment then they should lose all civil rights.
But a right is a right. If it is removed then there must be a valid reason. What can be the reason for removing just the one additional one: the right to vote? If one is removing a right then there must be a reason.
You ask who says that imprisonment is the only punishment: the law does. A punishment should be something the judge decides on, the limits of which are decided by parliament.
You say that any offence is against society. I think you are right. But using that logic we can say that any offender against the peace should lose their right to vote, such as those who assault people, burglars and those who break the speed limit.
If you wish the limit to be one of imprisonment then one has to ask why choose that one? It does not necessarily denote a more serious offence than one that has a fine, probation or other form of punishment.
Withdrawing a right is a serious matter. It should be discussed fully in parliament and the decision made there. When this law was brought it the situation was entirely different.
Derek Smith said:
carmonk said:
1) Who says? Who says that imprisonment is the sum total of the punishment? For many criminals it's seen as an occupational hazard and in some cases not even a hazard, simply something that happens. On that basis we should allow prisoners phones, alcohol, employment opportunities with equal pay, the right to protest in jail, the right to have their family come and go as they please, etc.
2) It might be, but whether you agree with something being a crime does not alter the fact it is, and therefore is seen as being contrary to society.
3) Notwithstanding that the majority of the public believe it is absolutely necessary to prevent prisoners from voting, I have to ask the question, "Why?"
Being able to vote is a 'right' in this country, given to all citizens apart from those seriously ill mentally or, I think, those who have a seat in the lords.2) It might be, but whether you agree with something being a crime does not alter the fact it is, and therefore is seen as being contrary to society.
3) Notwithstanding that the majority of the public believe it is absolutely necessary to prevent prisoners from voting, I have to ask the question, "Why?"
So the question is not why they should have the vote, that has already been decided, but why it should be removed.
When the law came into force the vast, the overwhelming majority of this country did not have the vote. It wasn't until 1918 that there was anything approaching universal suffrage and even then women under the age of 30 were unable to vote. So there is a considerable difference between then and now.
So why should there be the additional punishment of the removal of the right to vote?
Derek Smith said:
The idea of imprisonment is to protect the public and to punish. There is also the hope that it will change them to an extent, to stop them re-offending.
So as it is an additional punishment, the question is why. We could, as many on here have said, is that if you commit am offence serious enough to make prison a punishment then they should lose all civil rights.
As I say, it's only an additional punishment if you state that being in jail is the only punishment that imprisonment imparts. This is clearly not the case and I have given many examples in this thread.So as it is an additional punishment, the question is why. We could, as many on here have said, is that if you commit am offence serious enough to make prison a punishment then they should lose all civil rights.
Derek Smith said:
But a right is a right. If it is removed then there must be a valid reason. What can be the reason for removing just the one additional one: the right to vote? If one is removing a right then there must be a reason.
I've given the reason, they have acted against society and part of their punishment is being removed from the decision making process for a period of time. It will not impact them individually, it is a point of principle. It's punishment only in that it makes them aware that they cannot participate in society if they commit acts such as the ones that got them there in the first place.Derek Smith said:
You ask who says that imprisonment is the only punishment: the law does.
I think you'll find it doesn't say that. Prison is more than simply having your freedom of movement restricted.Derek Smith said:
You say that any offence is against society. I think you are right. But using that logic we can say that any offender against the peace should lose their right to vote, such as those who assault people, burglars and those who break the speed limit.
Breaking the speed limit is not a crime. Remove the vote for non-custodial but serious offences, for a period of time... I'm all for it. Great idea.Derek Smith said:
If you wish the limit to be one of imprisonment then one has to ask why choose that one? It does not necessarily denote a more serious offence than one that has a fine, probation or other form of punishment.
Not necessarily, but generally. As I say, roll it out across the board. Why on earth would anybody want people actively indulging in serious criminal behaviour to have a say in who runs the country?Derek Smith said:
Withdrawing a right is a serious matter. It should be discussed fully in parliament and the decision made there. When this law was brought it the situation was entirely different.
Yes, I'm discussing it. It has implications but by far the greater implication is that if criminals are granted more and more rights, contrary to public opinion and indeed common sense, there will come a time when even their right to free movement will be upheld (edited for wrong word), and it will be decreed that imprisonment itself is illegal. You think I'm joking? Watch this space.carmonk said:
This notion of 'additional punishment' is flawed. There is nowhere that says going to jail shall constitute the scope of the punishment in its entirity.
Imprisonment is a massive insult to the rights of the imprisoned justified only by necessary protection of the rights of the many.There is no justification for any further insult to the rights of the prisoner.
fluffnik said:
carmonk said:
This notion of 'additional punishment' is flawed. There is nowhere that says going to jail shall constitute the scope of the punishment in its entirity.
Imprisonment is a massive insult to the rights of the imprisoned justified only by necessary protection of the rights of the many.fluffnik said:
There is no justification for any further insult to the rights of the prisoner.
Says you. I say there is.
carmonk said:
fluffnik said:
Imprisonment is a massive insult to the rights of the imprisoned justified only by necessary protection of the rights of the many.
And a few other things like reform, crime reduction, crime prevention, deterrence and punishment. And as I've explained, it's not a 'massive insult' to a significant proportion of prisoners, it's an occupational hazard.It remains a massive insult to their rights even if the are conditioned to it.
fluffnik said:
There is no justification for any further insult to the rights of the prisoner.
Says you. I say there is.fluffnik said:
carmonk said:
fluffnik said:
Imprisonment is a massive insult to the rights of the imprisoned justified only by necessary protection of the rights of the many.
And a few other things like reform, crime reduction, crime prevention, deterrence and punishment. And as I've explained, it's not a 'massive insult' to a significant proportion of prisoners, it's an occupational hazard.fluffnik said:
There is no justification for any further insult to the rights of the prisoner.
Says you. I say there is.carmonk said:
It seems clear to me that protection of society involves disallowing someone who has acted against society in a manner serious enough to warrant imprisonment from influencing society further through their vote.
At least, until their sentence has finished. And the punishment part should be to impress this fact upon them.Also, remember that the debate is not about removing a right, it's about granting one. If the voting right is such a big deal, how come I see no previous threads on here demanding prisoners be granted that right. It's only now, when the EC demands it that anyone has taken any interest in the topic.
Edited for quotes
Edited by carmonk on Saturday 12th February 22:26
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff