No vote for prisoners
Discussion
carmonk said:
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.Didn't used to be like this.
'Rights' has become a ruddy joke in Ol' Blighty because those that don't deserve them, get them!
And talking of imprisonment, ponder this: who is really in prison, them or us?
Who has the real freedom? For the majority of 'them', prison is now second nature, it's their life, it's their home, for 'them' there is no punishment.
If I was young again, perhaps in this dopey 'rights' orientated society, a criminal life might not be a bad start to a promising career?
Pack it in halfway, and then become an 'expert' on TV and radio.
'Now, here to talk with some real experience on burglary, is newly reformed ex-jailbird, conman and burglar, Dandarez'. Then grab my fee, and onto the next show!
This country has sunk to a low where common sense has been blown out of the window.
Edited by dandarez on Saturday 12th February 22:54
carmonk said:
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.You don't have to hang out here long to realise that there is no agreement as to what constitutes just imprisonment. Why compound potential injustice.
carmonk said:
Also, remember that the debate is not about removing a right, it's about granting one.
No, it's about restoring a right which was wrongly removed.fluffnik said:
carmonk said:
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.You don't have to hang out here long to realise that there is no agreement as to what constitutes just imprisonment. Why compound potential injustice.
carmonk said:
Also, remember that the debate is not about removing a right, it's about granting one.
No, it's about restoring a right which was wrongly removed.dandarez said:
This country has sunk to a low where common sense has been blown out of the window.
I couldn't agree with you more when you say that common sense has been blown out of the window in many areas of life in this country.I probably couldn't agree with you less with reference to this debate.
We have already established earlier in the thread that the true effect of giving prisoners the vote is sod all. We have estimates on this thread showing that including prisoners within the electorate will result in an average increase of between 4 and 65 voters per constituency. Whilst there are sometimes a very few MPs with majorities of less than 100, the inclusion of voting prisoners will in reality make no difference whatsoever to any single election result, one way or the other.
We also know that, as the law currently stands, the UK holds itself open to compensation claims from prisoners for denying their "human right" of being allowed to vote. We can also be pretty certain that the vast majority, if not all, of the prisoners who will make those compensation claims would not have voted anyway even if they had been permitted to.
We also know that disenfranchaisment only happens when someone is locked up. So someone who has committed exactly the same offence but who is "outside" (ie. those who haven't been caught yet and those who have already served their sentences) do have the right to vote, whilst someone who is "inside" doesn't. Some people are locked up temporarily on remand and do not have the right to vote under the present law, but if they are subsequently found not guilty and walk free from court then there is no question that they have been unjustifiably denied the right to vote because a court has found them innocent of the charge against them.
We also know that, often depending on past record but also sometimes depending on the demeanour of the judge, some might be sent down for a certain offence whilst others committing the same offence would get a non-custodial sentence.
Now apply your "test of common sense" to that lot. Giving prisoners the vote will make no difference whatsoever to any election result. The current system is inconsistent because it only deprives villians of the vote when they are inside, not when they are outside for whatever reason. The current system is also inconsistent because people held on remand cannot vote but they might be found not guilty. Add to all that the fact that the present arrangements allow those deprived of the right to vote to claim compensation for that deprivation.
The case is overwhelming, isn't it? You can come to no other conclusion that the present arrangements are illogical, if not plain daft, and fly in the face of common sense.
But just hold on there a minute, buddy. Now lets add in a bit of "principle." "Jailbirds should not get the vote. Period. Full stop. End of story." And that's where we appear to be in the debate on this at the moment. Stuck on a stupid point of principle that has no foundation in your beloved "common sense."
Give me strength
whoami said:
fluffnik said:
whoami said:
Wrongly remove by the "law" that you are so keen on adhering to?
You'll not find me defending our state or advocating deference toward it...I care greatly about liberty and not much less about law, particularly its over use. I am very happy when our state's more unpleasantly totalitarian actions are stomped upon...
Edited by fluffnik on Sunday 13th February 00:54
[bungingthecatintothepigeoncoopmode]
The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that those supporting the denial of the vote to prisoners are acting very similarly to those in the pro-MMGW camp.
"We know what conclusion we want, now lets dig around for any spurious bit of evidence we can find that might support it. If nobody examines it too closely ..."
[/bungingthecatintothepigeoncoopmode]
The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that those supporting the denial of the vote to prisoners are acting very similarly to those in the pro-MMGW camp.
"We know what conclusion we want, now lets dig around for any spurious bit of evidence we can find that might support it. If nobody examines it too closely ..."
[/bungingthecatintothepigeoncoopmode]
MX7 said:
fluffnik said:
Comparison need not lead to the conclusion of equality.
But that's exactly what rs1952 suggested."We're in pretty good democratic company with that lot, aren't we"
Fluffnik can speak for himself as regards what he meant with his remark, although I see it as self-explanatory. By linking his statement to mine, however, you sought to widen the scope of what I said. So let me explain.
By making the remark: "we're in pretty good democratic company with that lot" I was referring to the position over rights for prisoners. In isolation. Nevertheless, the question is then begged, would the UK really want to be seen as having any views in common with that bunch, when the overwhelming majority of civilised countries in Europe hold the completely opposite view on the matter in question?
So, to bring fluffnik's phrase back in and annotate it with my views:
"Comparison (of one aspect of national policy ie votes for prisoners) need not lead to the conclusion of equality (of everything)"
Personally I do not think that it shows up the UK's position on votes for prisoners in a very good light at all if the only countries that happen to agree with us are of the calibre of that crowd.
fluffnik said:
carmonk said:
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.fluffnik said:
You don't have to hang out here long to realise that there is no agreement as to what constitutes just imprisonment. Why compound potential injustice.
That's not relevant. Prisoners exist as a group in law and that is not incumbent on what Pistonheads forum members think.fluffnik said:
carmonk said:
Also, remember that the debate is not about removing a right, it's about granting one.
No, it's about restoring a right which was wrongly removed.And also I'd like an answer to the final question I posed. If this is so critically important, how come that neither you nor rs1952 nor anyone else has raised this matter before the EC brought it to your attention. Surely such a pressing matter would be deserving of at least one thread?
rs1952 said:
dandarez said:
This country has sunk to a low where common sense has been blown out of the window.
I couldn't agree with you more when you say that common sense has been blown out of the window in many areas of life in this country.I probably couldn't agree with you less with reference to this debate.
We have already established earlier in the thread that the true effect of giving prisoners the vote is sod all. We have estimates on this thread showing that including prisoners within the electorate will result in an average increase of between 4 and 65 voters per constituency. Whilst there are sometimes a very few MPs with majorities of less than 100, the inclusion of voting prisoners will in reality make no difference whatsoever to any single election result, one way or the other.
We also know that, as the law currently stands, the UK holds itself open to compensation claims from prisoners for denying their "human right" of being allowed to vote. We can also be pretty certain that the vast majority, if not all, of the prisoners who will make those compensation claims would not have voted anyway even if they had been permitted to.
rs1952 said:
We also know that disenfranchaisment only happens when someone is locked up. So someone who has committed exactly the same offence but who is "outside" (ie. those who haven't been caught yet and those who have already served their sentences) do have the right to vote, whilst someone who is "inside" doesn't. Some people are locked up temporarily on remand and do not have the right to vote under the present law, but if they are subsequently found not guilty and walk free from court then there is no question that they have been unjustifiably denied the right to vote because a court has found them innocent of the charge against them.
Why are you quoting special cases to prove your point? Every ruling has issues that need to be overcome. Every ruling might not seem fair from every perspective. The law is not entirely fair and neither are any of the processes within it. So?rs1952 said:
We also know that, often depending on past record but also sometimes depending on the demeanour of the judge, some might be sent down for a certain offence whilst others committing the same offence would get a non-custodial sentence.
Oh please, come off it. That has no relevance. The injustice, if there is one, is already there, it has nothing to do with voting.rs1952 said:
Now apply your "test of common sense" to that lot. Giving prisoners the vote will make no difference whatsoever to any election result. The current system is inconsistent because it only deprives villians of the vote when they are inside, not when they are outside for whatever reason.
I find your logic incredible, and not in a good way. You suggest we shouldn't remove a right from known villians because unknown villains might exist? Is that really what you're saying? By that logic we shouldn't imprison a criminal at all on the grounds there might be another criminal out there who hasn't been caught. What nonsense.rs1952 said:
The case is overwhelming, isn't it? You can come to no other conclusion that the present arrangements are illogical, if not plain daft, and fly in the face of common sense.
Sorry to disappoint you there.rs1952 said:
But just hold on there a minute, buddy. Now lets add in a bit of "principle." "Jailbirds should not get the vote. Period. Full stop. End of story." And that's where we appear to be in the debate on this at the moment. Stuck on a stupid point of principle that has no foundation in your beloved "common sense."
Give me strength
As I say I've explained my position at great length, it's just you and fluffnik have decided to completely ignore that in favour of failed logic, irrelevances and endless repetition of unjustified one-liners.Give me strength
To carmonk (not going to quote all that lot):
A reasoned post, well argued except in one or two places where you have taken what I said and extended it (eg. I was not using special cases to prove my point, I was giving you an example of an unreasonable withdrawal of the right to vote, no matter which side of the argument your sympathies might lie, because you are withholding that right from someone who is found innocent - if simply being inside is the criteria then perhaps we ought to withdraw the right from warders).
As you almost said in one of your replies (so I shall paraphrase) it makes no difference what members of the PH forums think. This is true. We can argue the toss here for all we are worth but, except for perhaps entertaining, supporting or annoying each other, its not going to make one jot of difference in the great scheme of things.
You are not going to convince me of the correctness of your line of reasoning any more than I am going to convince you of the correctness of mine.
A reasoned post, well argued except in one or two places where you have taken what I said and extended it (eg. I was not using special cases to prove my point, I was giving you an example of an unreasonable withdrawal of the right to vote, no matter which side of the argument your sympathies might lie, because you are withholding that right from someone who is found innocent - if simply being inside is the criteria then perhaps we ought to withdraw the right from warders).
As you almost said in one of your replies (so I shall paraphrase) it makes no difference what members of the PH forums think. This is true. We can argue the toss here for all we are worth but, except for perhaps entertaining, supporting or annoying each other, its not going to make one jot of difference in the great scheme of things.
You are not going to convince me of the correctness of your line of reasoning any more than I am going to convince you of the correctness of mine.
rs1952 said:
To carmonk (not going to quote all that lot):
A reasoned post, well argued except in one or two places where you have taken what I said and extended it (eg. I was not using special cases to prove my point, I was giving you an example of an unreasonable withdrawal of the right to vote, no matter which side of the argument your sympathies might lie, because you are withholding that right from someone who is found innocent - if simply being inside is the criteria then perhaps we ought to withdraw the right from warders).
As you almost said in one of your replies (so I shall paraphrase) it makes no difference what members of the PH forums think. This is true. We can argue the toss here for all we are worth but, except for perhaps entertaining, supporting or annoying each other, its not going to make one jot of difference in the great scheme of things.
You are not going to convince me of the correctness of your line of reasoning any more than I am going to convince you of the correctness of mine.
Fair enough A reasoned post, well argued except in one or two places where you have taken what I said and extended it (eg. I was not using special cases to prove my point, I was giving you an example of an unreasonable withdrawal of the right to vote, no matter which side of the argument your sympathies might lie, because you are withholding that right from someone who is found innocent - if simply being inside is the criteria then perhaps we ought to withdraw the right from warders).
As you almost said in one of your replies (so I shall paraphrase) it makes no difference what members of the PH forums think. This is true. We can argue the toss here for all we are worth but, except for perhaps entertaining, supporting or annoying each other, its not going to make one jot of difference in the great scheme of things.
You are not going to convince me of the correctness of your line of reasoning any more than I am going to convince you of the correctness of mine.
carmonk said:
fluffnik said:
I don't see you justifying that viewpoint, merely stating it.
No, I've justified it. I've explained it, I've detailed my thinking and I've given examples. I'm afraid it's you who has literally no justification whatsoever for your argument, hence your succession of one-liners.I do not see what protection society derives from denying prisoners the vote and you have not described any mechanism to show how it might.
carmonk said:
fluffnik said:
You don't have to hang out here long to realise that there is no agreement as to what constitutes just imprisonment. Why compound potential injustice.
That's not relevant. Prisoners exist as a group in law and that is not incumbent on what Pistonheads forum members think.It's entirely relevant because there is not that much rhyme or reason as to who happens to be in jail on election day...
carmonk said:
fluffnik said:
No, it's about restoring a right which was wrongly removed.
There has never been a point in history when all prisoners could vote. That aside, are there any more pre-1870 laws you'd like to resurrect while you're at it?carmonk said:
And also I'd like an answer to the final question I posed. If this is so critically important, how come that neither you nor rs1952 nor anyone else has raised this matter before the EC brought it to your attention. Surely such a pressing matter would be deserving of at least one thread?
I don't see this as a particularly pressing matter, but since it is topical I'd prefer my Government to do the Right Thing...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff