PDA

View Full Version : Should prisoners have a right to vote? [ENDS 10/06/2012]



Grig
30-05-2012, 10:43 AM
Should prisoners have a right to vote?
Ends: 10/06/2012

An interesting topic, propping up between the UK and Europe recently. Although recently the European Court of Human Rights declared that governments can decide, its previous stance was very different. The Court said that under European law prisoners should have a right to vote- as basic human right for anyone.

However, the UK ignored such laws and continued to disallow this right to prisoners. Their claim was that if one had convicted a crime, some rights should be removed, including the right to vote.

Tensions over this law still continue with a conflict over the law and there may be a major constitutional clash in the near future.

Now it's up to decide. Should prisoners in the UK or any other country for that matter have this right or not. Debate away!

Logandyer45
30-05-2012, 05:54 PM
No, Because, if they can't stay out of trouble, then they should not be able to vote.

Sublayer
30-05-2012, 06:18 PM
But it may influence them, if you have a politician who wants stricter laws they will want their opinions heard.

GommeInc
30-05-2012, 06:21 PM
Voting isn't a human right, it's a legal right. The EU forgets its place and often mistakes trivial things as serious things. Prisoners should not be given the right to vote, they relinquished any such right when they broke the law and therefore removed the right of another. Voting is the last thing that is on their mind, and their views do not "mimic or represent to view of honest and reasonable people" - something British Criminal Law is based on. Just because half of Europe uses dreadful civil law doesn't mean the UK should follow through with it too, when our legal system is probably more fairer than theirs.

Having the right to vote does not effect a prisoner as a human being, it doesn't hinder their right to live which is the basic foundation of human rights, things that directly effect you as a human.

It's such a mute argument that keeps being dragged up by the ECHR, when prisoners have never needed to vote and never will. When they are either acquitted or released and free then they can be allowed to vote, because they are then seen as reasonable, honest people and may have views to reflect such basic demands of a voter or citizen. Until then they deserve such a miniscule punishment on their heads - the right to vote taken away from them. It's not a human right, and never will be - like this stupid belief that the internet should become a human right.


But it may influence them, if you have a politician who wants stricter laws they will want their opinions heard.
I'd rather hear from an ex-convict who has served their time and can better reflect the thoughts of prisoners. Ex-convicts can and should always be allowed to vote, they can what should be fair for a prisoner and have probably learnt from their time in prison.

Chippiewill
30-05-2012, 07:13 PM
No, Because, if they can't stay out of trouble, then they should not be able to vote.
Hypothetically the government puts 99% of the population in jail for no reason, who gets to vote them out of office?

Special
30-05-2012, 08:13 PM
nope they lost their rights when they committed the crime

Chippiewill
30-05-2012, 10:14 PM
People keep saying they lose their right when they commit the crime but no-one has actually explained why.

Conspiracy.
30-05-2012, 11:10 PM
If they can't abide by the laws and be a productive member of society then I don't see why they should have the right to change the country.

They pissed away their right to vote when they done whatever they did.

lawrawrrr
30-05-2012, 11:16 PM
What about the people in jail for minor offences then? What about political activists who are put in for opposing the government (albeit in an illegal fashion).


Although I do think that many laws should not include the right for prisoners to vote, when it comes to more minor ones (especially concerning prison or the way crimes are dealt with), prisoners should perhaps have MORE of a right to vote as they have been through that system.

-:Undertaker:-
30-05-2012, 11:35 PM
People keep saying they lose their right when they commit the crime but no-one has actually explained why.

Punishment, as I stated in the other thread and which I will reply to soon. The problem is, you keep confusing prison as a holding cell as opposed to a place of punishment, the loss of your voting rights is one method used in this country to punish criminals. If somebody does something considered to be evil or disruptive to others liberty or property then you must have a system in place to punish those who step out of line so that they fear doing so again - that is what punishment entails.

On the more general issue - we should be out the ECHR.


Hypothetically the government puts 99% of the population in jail for no reason, who gets to vote them out of office?

A government such as that would be de facto dictatorial anyway by putting nearly everybody in prison, so even if we could vote - they'd simply rig it.

Logandyer45
31-05-2012, 12:16 AM
There is not right on the voting, but if they can't stay out of trouble, they shouldn't be able to vote.

Shockwave.2CC
31-05-2012, 02:01 PM
tbh I think they should be allowed to vote, I know they've done wrong and they shouldn't but I think if prisoners can vote then the little parties, like the green Party, BNP and UKIP might have a chance in winning or coming close

Just my opinion

lawrawrrr
31-05-2012, 02:02 PM
But then, by a lot of your arguments, ex-cons shouldn't have the right to vote either?

Logandyer45
31-05-2012, 04:01 PM
Ex-Cons? Is that something with the UK voting system?

Andii
31-05-2012, 04:44 PM
No, Because, if they can't stay out of trouble, then they should not be able to vote.

wrong

THEY SHOULD BECAUSE VOTING IS THE WAY OF LIFE :)

lawrawrrr
31-05-2012, 04:48 PM
Ex-Cons? Is that something with the UK voting system?

ex cons is an abbreviation for ex convict, as in people who committed a crime and did their time in jail and have been released (and it's a worldwide term lol)

Logandyer45
31-05-2012, 06:47 PM
wrong

THEY SHOULD BECAUSE VOTING IS THE WAY OF LIFE :)
Wrong... Voting is not a way of the life. I don't think the people give a crap if you vote or not.

ex cons is an abbreviation for ex convict, as in people who committed a crime and did their time in jail and have been released (and it's a worldwide term lol)
Ex-Cons get to vote since they can accutally go to the voting poll.

lawrawrrr
31-05-2012, 06:50 PM
Wrong... Voting is not a way of the life. I don't think the people give a crap if you vote or not.

Ex-Cons get to vote since they can accutally go to the voting poll.


I know that... but what my original point was: if everyone's saying that convicts don't have the right to vote because they broke the law, why should ex cons have different rules? They still broke the law!

Andii
31-05-2012, 09:04 PM
Wrong... Voting is not a way of the life. I don't think the people give a crap if you vote or not.

Ex-Cons get to vote since they can accutally go to the voting poll.


well say you got put in prison for something you didn't do and you did care about voting how would that make you feel??? it's wrong to not let people who are in and have been in jail not to vote

everyone should have their own say thats what most campaigns are about

MKR&*42
31-05-2012, 09:15 PM
Once you break the law, you don't deserve to have a say in anything to do with the law IMO. You've given up all your legal rights by committing the act, so you deserve punishment. Your human rights need to remain but legal rights don't - so you should not have any say in voting at all. As for ex-cons, they've served their punishment so they have every right to vote again.

As for the cases of people unfairly put in prison, it's just an unfortunate occurrence. I'd imagine it be highly unlikely though.

+ Yes, even minor crimes should mean you do not get the right to vote. You have still broken the law, so you don't deserve any say in it.

Chippiewill
31-05-2012, 09:20 PM
Punishment, as I stated in the other thread and which I will reply to soon. The problem is, you keep confusing prison as a holding cell as opposed to a place of punishment, the loss of your voting rights is one method used in this country to punish criminals. If somebody does something considered to be evil or disruptive to others liberty or property then you must have a system in place to punish those who step out of line so that they fear doing so again - that is what punishment entails.

Yet more words that don't explain why. Punishment is a meaningless concept.

GommeInc
31-05-2012, 11:41 PM
People keep saying they lose their right when they commit the crime but no-one has actually explained why.
They lose many fundamental human rights like freedom of expression, liberty, belief (incl. freedom of thought) when in prison. Considering voting is a legal right and not a human right, it is safe to say they can live without voting when they do not need it to live a fulfilled and safe life. That's a short-hard explanation.

Imprisonment breaches many obvious human rights that something as small and meaningless to a convict like voting is something they can do without and do not require when in prison. Besides, if the Government want those who have been through the prison system to vote, then it's best to ask ex-convicts and get their vote in the elections when they are free to live their human rights, rather than get a false represenation from someone in prison who hasn't acted in accordance with honest, reasonable people - the basic principles of being a decent human being in criminal law.

-:Undertaker:-
01-06-2012, 01:08 AM
Yet more words that don't explain why. Punishment is a meaningless concept.

Then you completely surrender to evil and bad people in relation to crime even to school discipline. If you do not believe a child should be punished (ie, something bad occurs to them to teach them not to do that again) then you condemn yourself and your fellow subjects to anarchy much in the same way that you claim that a thief ought to not be punished (ie, something bad occurs to them to teach them not to do it again) when he commits a crime.

If you claim punishment does not exist, as I have given numerous examples - then frankly you're talking drivel. To sit there and simply dismiss punishment as 'a meaningless concept' shows to me you think we ought to completely give up on the notion of law and order in society, in which any case why even continue in a debate which is built around to punish or not to punish?


They lose many fundamental human rights like freedom of expression, liberty, belief (incl. freedom of thought) when in prison. Considering voting is a legal right and not a human right, it is safe to say they can live without voting when they do not need it to live a fulfilled and safe life. That's a short-hard explanation.

It is meaningless to even attempt to address his concerns, he states above he does not believe in the concept of punishment which you correctly explain in depth providing examples of legal punishments - i'm afraid he is engaged in a school of 'thought' which comes across to me as having roots in sociology and which consquentley holds as much intellectual weight as I would if I claimed I no longer believed in the existence of the sun, the stars or the moon.

Indeed, in a previous debate he simply labelled punishment as 'revenge' from what I recall - perhaps it is 'revenge' from the point of view of the criminal, but then it would be wouldn't it? the rest of the civilised world takes the right view, that when you do something wrong you are punished (and quite rightly) for it.

Logandyer45
01-06-2012, 02:26 AM
I know that... but what my original point was: if everyone's saying that convicts don't have the right to vote because they broke the law, why should ex cons have different rules? They still broke the law!
Correct the broke the law, but they have did their debt to society. Therefore, they have all the rights a normal person would have.

well say you got put in prison for something you didn't do and you did care about voting how would that make you feel??? it's wrong to not let people who are in and have been in jail not to vote
That's why they run you thru court. If you know you didn't do what you are accused of, fight it thru the court of law. Hire the best attorney money can get.
everyone should have their own say thats what most campaigns are about


Once you break the law, you don't deserve to have a say in anything to do with the law IMO. You've given up all your legal rights by committing the act, so you deserve punishment. Your human rights need to remain but legal rights don't - so you should not have any say in voting at all. As for ex-cons, they've served their punishment so they have every right to vote again.

As for the cases of people unfairly put in prison, it's just an unfortunate occurrence. I'd imagine it be highly unlikely though.

+ Yes, even minor crimes should mean you do not get the right to vote. You have still broken the law, so you don't deserve any say in it.
You are 100% correct. Once you give up your rights, there is no getting them back until you did your time.

Andii
01-06-2012, 09:27 AM
Once you break the law, you don't deserve to have a say in anything to do with the law IMO. You've given up all your legal rights by committing the act, so you deserve punishment. Your human rights need to remain but legal rights don't - so you should not have any say in voting at all. As for ex-cons, they've served their punishment so they have every right to vote again.

As for the cases of people unfairly put in prison, it's just an unfortunate occurrence. I'd imagine it be highly unlikely though.

+ Yes, even minor crimes should mean you do not get the right to vote. You have still broken the law, so you don't deserve any say in it.


well thank god your not in charge of anything lol.

That's one of the most stupidest thing's ive heard in my life even i haven't said anything as stupid as that lol. People who think like that are little minded. Everyone deserves to have their say no matter what. well by WHAT YOUR SAYING people who comit a crime should have their tongues cut out or even just killed because they mean nothing to the country no more????

MKR&*42
01-06-2012, 09:36 AM
well thank god your not in charge of anything lol.

That's one of the most stupidest thing's ive heard in my life even i haven't said anything as stupid as that lol. People who think like that are little minded. Everyone deserves to have their say no matter what. well by WHAT YOUR SAYING people who comit a crime should have their tongues cut out or even just killed because they mean nothing to the country no more????

I did clearly state they still have "human rights", so of course I'm not supporting the idea of their tongues being cut out or what ever. And at this moment, I don't know where I stand in regards to the death penalty.

Under the eyes of the law their say in anything legal (e.g. Voting) should ultimately be removed. Why do they deserve a chance to have a say in who runs a country when they don't even follow the rules themselves?

It's not "little minded", I suspect it is what the large majority of people think in regards to prisoners voting.

Just thank God you're not in control of this country, if you think "everyone" deserves a chance to vote, then I'd imagine you'd stupidly let 6 year children with no clear grasp on society vote for who they want.

Andii
01-06-2012, 09:49 AM
everyone over 18 obviously. and people who live here have the right to say what goes on no matter what they did. even if someone blew up half the world they should still have their vote. theres no big deal with it just tick boxes on who you voted for and no one else knows who you voted for anyway. Why should that matter???

MKR&*42
01-06-2012, 09:59 AM
everyone over 18 obviously. and people who live here have the right to say what goes on no matter what they did. even if someone blew up half the world they should still have their vote. theres no big deal with it just tick boxes on who you voted for and no one else knows who you voted for anyway. Why should that matter???

Bold = Oh my days. If someone blew up half the world they should absolutely not get a say because they cannot OBEY THE RULES THEIR GOVERNMENT AND THE UN SET. Refusal to obide by the law = disobeying what the government has set = they're not going to obey any other political party are they? There's no point in them voting if their actions aren't going to be any different under another political party. Besides, due to the UK not actually having a life-long prison sentence (life is only like 20 years here I believe), there is a likelihood they will be able to vote once they've served their time.

And it may not seem a big deal to you "ticking a box", but for the large majority of people it is. I'm pretty sure the lib-con coalition was a "big deal" to quite a large number of people.

Andii
01-06-2012, 12:34 PM
Well if it is such a big deal for them and they reall care a lot about the country ten they should be looking to know the thoughts of everyone in the country not just people who are outside of prison. Even people in prison care about people they live. They should have the right to vote for the government to make sure that their family is well looked after. People do crimes for different reasons. To help friends save their family or just because they want to. So everyone defo has the right to vote no question about it

Red
01-06-2012, 01:11 PM
I feel that you give up any claim to your legal rights when you commit the act, and that their loss should be part of the punishment. Once your sentance is over, I see no reason why you can't have your voting rights back again. Saying that, I have a bit of a problem with convicted terrorists being allowed to represent my country in government. Why should (ex)IRA men be allowed that privillege :S

Andii
01-06-2012, 07:07 PM
I feel that you give up any claim to your legal rights when you commit the act, and that their loss should be part of the punishment. Once your sentance is over, I see no reason why you can't have your voting rights back again. Saying that, I have a bit of a problem with convicted terrorists being allowed to represent my country in government. Why should (ex)IRA men be allowed that privillege :S


ehh because they live here lol. Just because they did wrong and have to spend time away from people they love in a cell and if they drop soap they could be hurt :) doesnt mean they should lose their vote. A vote can change the way of the country and since it's part of the system. Everyone SHOULD BE entitled to their own say no matter what they done. tbh this whole thread is stupid and pointless

Red
01-06-2012, 07:16 PM
So your telling me you would be happy with the likes of Colin Duffy or someone being elected into government? lol At the most I would accept only giving the vote to those who have committed minor crimes but I don't really think murderers/rapists should be allowed any say in the way the country is run.

Chippiewill
01-06-2012, 07:23 PM
ie, something bad occurs to them to teach them not to do it again) when he commits a crime.
And now you just admitted something which you did not in the other thread which is simply that Punishment is actually just rewording of rehabilitation which you denied even existed in prison.

In which case removing the right to vote certainly does provide a means to rehabilitate them so they do not re-offend however I do not believe that quite justifies removing that very important right to decide who is responsible for your life - even in prison.

Andii
01-06-2012, 08:44 PM
So your telling me you would be happy with the likes of Colin Duffy or someone being elected into government? lol At the most I would accept only giving the vote to those who have committed minor crimes but I don't really think murderers/rapists should be allowed any say in the way the country is run.

lmao i mean to vote not to be voted for. . . WAIT WHAT IS THE POINT IN THIS THREAD??? IS IT TO BE VOTED FOR OR TO BE ABLE TO VOTE JUST

GommeInc
01-06-2012, 10:32 PM
And now you just admitted something which you did not in the other thread which is simply that Punishment is actually just rewording of rehabilitation which you denied even existed in prison.

In which case removing the right to vote certainly does provide a means to rehabilitate them so they do not re-offend however I do not believe that quite justifies removing that very important right to decide who is responsible for your life - even in prison.
It's not an important right, if it was they would already have it and desire it so much it would be inhuman for them not to have it. But as it's just some legal right plastered into the fabric of the Human Rights Act 1998, it isn't a basic human right. It's interesting it's mentioned in the Act of Parliament, but is never acted upon. That said, their care will always be looked after no matter who is in office. If they are punished, tortured or harmed in prison then their actual human rights will be breached, therefore the law would be broken and the Government would be committing a criminal act.

Saying they need the right to vote without evidence as to why is just as bad as saying they should not be allowed without explanation.


lmao i mean to vote not to be voted for. . . WAIT WHAT IS THE POINT IN THIS THREAD??? IS IT TO BE VOTED FOR OR TO BE ABLE TO VOTE JUST
The right to vote :P I'm not sure on the specifics, but I think people who have been in prison can be voted into office. If they manage to get votes then there must be some public confidence so a law would seem unnecessary.

Chippiewill
01-06-2012, 10:38 PM
It's not an important right, if it was they would already have it
Clearly Women should never have been given the right to vote and people who are black should be slaves because if they should have proper rights then they'd already have them.

GommeInc
01-06-2012, 10:52 PM
Clearly Women should never have been given the right to vote and people who are black should be slaves because if they should have proper rights then they'd already have them.
The joys of social change :P Though you could argue that women and minorities could probably of not been given such rights, which is what you're suggesting with what I said, your argument falls flat when there is a huge difference between prisoners and discrimination. Women prior to attempting to vote are innocent and honest people in the eyes of the law, they have not broken the law until they have tried to vote. However, prisoners are completely different - they are in prison for committing a guilty offense (and having a guilty mind) hence their imprisonment, so they should not be given the right to vote because they do not look at society with the eyes of honest, reasonable people - otherwise they would of been found guilty of whatever crime they had committed.

The "right to vote" isn't a human right in the same way as liberty, expression, religion/belief or any other important right, considering more important rights like freedom to express yourself and liberty are taken away when you are in prison.

-:Undertaker:-
02-06-2012, 12:30 PM
And now you just admitted something which you did not in the other thread which is simply that Punishment is actually just rewording of rehabilitation which you denied even existed in prison.

In which case removing the right to vote certainly does provide a means to rehabilitate them so they do not re-offend however I do not believe that quite justifies removing that very important right to decide who is responsible for your life - even in prison.

That isn't rehabilitation - rehabilitation is the aim to change somebody (which has proven to be impossible) whereas punishment is the aim to scare somebody enough in order to prevent them from doing something bad again - with punishment they haven't changed but they do not act upon their desires/thoughts because they fear the consquences if they do. For example, a naughty child is taught not to punch other children when another child finally turns around and smacks him back - because the child then knows that if he does so again he will be hurt and humiliated. Rehabilitation on the other hand would be the teacher trying to change the actions of the child through talking with him.

Another example would be when regimes crack down on uprisings. When the regime forces everybody (through fear) back into their homes, they still think the same thoughts of the regime - but they don't act upon those thoughts out of fear. Now, would you claim those people are 'rehabilitated'? of course not because they are still the same.

Punishment works, rehabilitation doesn't.

FlyingJesus
02-06-2012, 01:15 PM
Ex-Cons get to vote since they can accutally go to the voting poll.

Interesting point that no-one seems to have picked up on - say that prisoners can vote if they can get to the polling stations. Since most prisoners have no freedom of movement this would cut a lot of them out of the voting while allowing lesser criminals (those in open prisons) to retain some sense of society, as is the point of open prisons anyway. It would also satisfy the EU's daft demand that voting be seen as a human right when it's clearly anything but.


Clearly Women should never have been given the right to vote and people who are black should be slaves because if they should have proper rights then they'd already have them.

While I'm somewhat divided myself on the idea of prisoners voting, this isn't a valid point since criminals have actually done something to bring punishment (or rehabilitation as you put it) upon themselves rather than simply being born a certain way.


rehabilitation is the aim to change somebody (which has proven to be impossible)

Pretty sure that is entirely false unless you somehow don't believe in social conditioning and think we're all just *+*FoLLoWiiNG ouR DeSTiiNy*+*

Chippiewill
02-06-2012, 01:22 PM
That isn't rehabilitation - rehabilitation is the aim to change somebody (which has proven to be impossible) whereas punishment is the aim to scare somebody enough in order to prevent them from doing something bad again - with punishment they haven't changed but they do not act upon their desires/thoughts because they fear the consquences if they do. For example, a naughty child is taught not to punch other children when another child finally turns around and smacks him back - because the child then knows that if he does so again he will be hurt and humiliated. Rehabilitation on the other hand would be the teacher trying to change the actions of the child through talking with him.
Those are basically the same thing. Punishment just rehabilitates the people who didn't understand the consequences of their actions.

Aiden
02-06-2012, 01:33 PM
no........

Edited by Jordan (Forum Super Moderator): Please back up points made with an explanation!

Oleh
02-06-2012, 04:30 PM
If the prisoner can show a decent understanding of the policies and such, then go ahead, let them vote. Could probably be beneficial if they turn the decision to a more deserving party rather than just the opposite one.

Andii
02-06-2012, 05:49 PM
It's not an important right, if it was they would already have it and desire it so much it would be inhuman for them not to have it. But as it's just some legal right plastered into the fabric of the Human Rights Act 1998, it isn't a basic human right. It's interesting it's mentioned in the Act of Parliament, but is never acted upon. That said, their care will always be looked after no matter who is in office. If they are punished, tortured or harmed in prison then their actual human rights will be breached, therefore the law would be broken and the Government would be committing a criminal act.

Saying they need the right to vote without evidence as to why is just as bad as saying they should not be allowed without explanation.


The right to vote :P I'm not sure on the specifics, but I think people who have been in prison can be voted into office. If they manage to get votes then there must be some public confidence so a law would seem unnecessary.


well why are people saying about people in prison being voted in starting a new debate here lol.. .

MY VIEWS ARE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE IF THEY ARE IN PRISON

and if your in prison you never should get elected

GommeInc
02-06-2012, 06:03 PM
well why are people saying about people in prison being voted in starting a new debate here lol.. .

MY VIEWS ARE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE IF THEY ARE IN PRISON

and if your in prison you never should get elected
That's why we are debating :P There are reasons for and against, but no right answer :P

Why do you have these views? It's best to elaborate and contribute :) Besides, I think if an ex-prisoner is liked in the community and people want him to be elected then he should be. It's self-regulating. If a man stole a car, and after prison turned to great charity work and people liked him, then he will have a good public following. If a man murdered someone, it's unlikely he would ever be liked, because murder doesn't come up as a nice to see item :P

Logandyer45
02-06-2012, 07:31 PM
Interesting point that no-one seems to have picked up on - say that prisoners can vote if they can get to the polling stations. Since most prisoners have no freedom of movement this would cut a lot of them out of the voting while allowing lesser criminals (those in open prisons) to retain some sense of society, as is the point of open prisons anyway. It would also satisfy the EU's daft demand that voting be seen as a human right when it's clearly anything but.

Well, Ex-Cons have more rights then a normal prisoner would...

Richie
03-06-2012, 06:22 PM
No they shouldn't. I say bring back the olden days where prisoners were kept is rusty cells and were lucky to get out for a few hours. Nowadays they even have the access to xboxs and tvs

GommeInc
04-06-2012, 11:51 PM
No they shouldn't. I say bring back the olden days where prisoners were kept is rusty cells and were lucky to get out for a few hours. Nowadays they even have the access to xboxs and tvs
Agreed, it would make an example and act as a deterrent. It might work out a lot cheaper too :P

MissAlice
05-06-2012, 12:16 AM
My instant reaction was simply NO and then thought about some of the crimes that will have been committed by prisoners. I considered murderers and rapists, crimes that would normally carry a more severe length of sentence, and my conclusion was still NO. They lost their freedom and their liberties the day they were sentenced for breaking the law. When you lose your liberties you no longer can go where you like, you are unable to just pop to the shops, or go for a long stroll when you cant sleep. So why should they be allowed to go and vote if its not within reach? I realise booths and balloting boxes would be brought into prisons if they were allowed, and lets not forget this would cost. Does anyone know what electoral roll they appear on?

Giving prisoners the right to vote makes a mockery of the justice system. Although I do believe our justice system is in need of being reformed. Life should mean life, and quite a few of the luxuries they enjoy should be removed.

I also think those whose sentences are short could be allowed a postal vote, since their crimes are most likely to be petty crime.

GommeInc
05-06-2012, 12:21 AM
My instant reaction was simply NO and then thought about some of the crimes that will have been committed by prisoners. I considered murderers and rapists, crimes that would normally carry a more severe length of sentence, and my conclusion was still NO. They lost their freedom and their liberties the day they were sentenced for breaking the law. When you lose your liberties you no longer can go where you like, you are unable to just pop to the shops, or go for a long stroll when you can’t sleep. So why should they be allowed to go and vote if it’s not within reach? I realise booths and balloting boxes would be brought into prisons if they were allowed, and let’s not forget this would cost. Does anyone know what electoral roll they appear on?

Giving prisoners the right to vote makes a mockery of the justice system. Although I do believe our justice system is in need of being reformed. Life should mean life, and quite a few of the luxuries they enjoy should be removed.

I also think those whose sentences are short could be allowed a postal vote, since their crimes are most likely to be petty crime.
What's also interesting is the idea of giving those who have committed petty crimes the vote. Those who commit such offenses get such little time in prison (counted in months and not years) that it is simply not worth changing the system to allow them to vote. If they moan about wanting the vote then they clearly should of considered not committing the crime so close to the elections and/or the day of voting :P

It's such an easy punishment which directs the blame to the prisoner for making such poor decisions so close to the vote, while also committing the crime as well.

MissAlice
05-06-2012, 12:32 AM
What's also interesting is the idea of giving those who have committed petty crimes the vote. Those who commit such offenses get such little time in prison (counted in months and not years) that it is simply not worth changing the system to allow them to vote. If they moan about wanting the vote then they clearly should of considered not committing the crime so close to the elections and/or the day of voting :P

It's such an easy punishment which directs the blame to the prisoner for making such poor decisions so close to the vote, while also committing the crime as well.

I dont know enough about what is and isnt allowed in prison, could it be those still registered on the electoral roll and serving short sentences already use the postal vote?

GommeInc
05-06-2012, 12:34 AM
I don’t know enough about what is and isn’t allowed in prison, could it be those still registered on the electoral roll and serving short sentences already use the postal vote?
Hmm, not too sure. When it was talked about recently, the only suggestion was to allow prisoners who are in prison for a short amount of time for smaller crimes to be allowed to vote :/

I'll have to do some research :P

alede
05-06-2012, 12:40 AM
Why should they vote? They dont pay no Tax, they dont help in any way. My views on criminals they should do atleast 20 hours a week of community work. From picking up rubbish, to cleaning the chewing gums off the path.

Yes it can be done. All they have to do is put a necklace which is attatched to there necks and will shock them if they do something they shouldnt.

Yes will be putting the public at danger but why not make something so they cant escape.

They should have a credit system if they do so much good things they get something like vote, have a treat. Why should people like myself let them do nothing all day while i work hard to keep them in jail eating food that i would athe rbe spent on other things.


I say from the moment there in that cell lock them up and don't let them be involved in our country so no tv, no news paper. Make them read the bible.

Yhe money we pay on tax is so much and so much of the money is spent on keeping the criminals fed.


If youmread Holes or watched the film about the criminals in the dessert tat should be true in the uk. Send them off to a desert make them do something dig holes then next day fil
Them up. Dont let them live happy in prison with water and food on a plate to them. Voting is a no no. Bring back the electirc chair.

Milarz
05-06-2012, 09:45 PM
Is there any point in them voting? Jailed people would have more of a chance of voting that prisoners, but even that, if ur locked away... don't really see the point.

FlyingJesus
05-06-2012, 11:31 PM
My views on criminals they should do atleast 20 hours a week of community work. From picking up rubbish, to cleaning the chewing gums off the path.

Including those who are so dangerous that they would be required to have armed officers shadowing them, at a far higher cost than just paying for a street cleaner?


Yes it can be done. All they have to do is put a necklace which is attatched to there necks and will shock them if they do something they shouldnt.

Yeah shock collars that can actually read a situation totally exist


Yes will be putting the public at danger but why not make something so they cant escape.

Wait so... someone commits a crime, you then want them to be among the public knowing that it puts them in danger... yet also they will have idk some sort of magic cage that stops them going anywhere? How do you propose they do any work?


They should have a credit system if they do so much good things they get something like vote, have a treat. Why should people like myself let them do nothing all day while i work hard to keep them in jail eating food that i would athe rbe spent on other things.

So we've gone from discussing whether or not we ought to let prisoners have a non-essential legal right to taking away essential human rights such as food because you'd "rather not" have them fed. That is definitely fair treatment which every single criminal deserves, right?


I say from the moment there in that cell lock them up and don't let them be involved in our country so no tv, no news paper. Make them read the bible.

Again, does this apply to those serving a couple of months for tax evasion or something? You want to give permanent psychological damage through withdrawal to people who previously weren't at all dangerous to anyone?


If youmread Holes or watched the film about the criminals in the dessert tat should be true in the uk. Send them off to a desert make them do something dig holes then next day fil
Them up.

Yeah all those deserts we have in England. Human rights are for losers anyway right


Dont let them live happy in prison with water and food on a plate to them.

Been caught stealing clothes? DIE OF STARVATION AND THIRST! JUSTICE!


Voting is a no no. Bring back the electirc chair.

Wow multiple ways of murdering everyone who breaks every little crime, huh? We can't really "bring back" something we never used in this country but hey while we're at it let's just put them all in a pit with knives and let them sort it among themselves, that would be a fair and humane solution to all crime ever

MissAlice
06-06-2012, 05:15 PM
Hmm, not too sure. When it was talked about recently, the only suggestion was to allow prisoners who are in prison for a short amount of time for smaller crimes to be allowed to vote :/

I'll have to do some research :P

Well Ive done a little research. This applies to a general election, so unsure if it also applies to local etc.

Who is eligible to vote at a UK general election?

To vote in a UK general election a person must be registered to vote and also:
be 18 years of age or over on polling day
be resident in the UK
be a British citizen, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland
not be subject to any legal incapacity to vote

Additionally, the following cannot vote in a UK general election:
members of the House of Lords (although they can vote at elections to local authorities, devolved legislatures and the European Parliament)
EU citizens resident in the UK (although they can vote at elections to local authorities, devolved legislatures and the European Parliament)
anyone other than British, Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens
convicted persons detained in pursuance of their sentences (though remand prisoners, unconvicted prisoners and civil prisoners can vote if they are on the electoral register)
anyone found guilty within the previous five years of corrupt or illegal practices in connection with an election

Civil prisoners are people who are sent to prison for:

not paying maintenance money to look after their children
not paying money called fines or debts
not paying money they agreed to pay if someone they know was on bail and
did not turn up at court
not doing what the court has told them to do.
Civil prisoners may be allowed to vote if they have been sent to prison for contempt of
court or for not paying a fine.


So it looks like civil prisoners can vote, whilst those serving a short sentence probably can't.

FlyingJesus
06-06-2012, 07:08 PM
alede; you tell me that I didn't read your post "good enough" despite having actually replied to every single part of it except for the line about tax, would you care to actually post a rebuttal with some logical points factored in or are we going to hide behind that wonderful phrase: "ITZ MI OPINYON" which seems to not ever require reasonable backing?

GommeInc
06-06-2012, 11:28 PM
*snip*
How strange, I've never heard of a 'civil prisoner' but when you look up the definition it makes a lot of sense :P

Basically someone who is imprisoned under criminal law for not adhering to something he has done under civil law. It does make sense that these people would be allowed to vote, because their imprisonment was not to benefit society (the huge difference between civil and criminal law - civil = between two entities / criminal = an individual vs. the state).

I think the Government are going to allow short-term detainees to vote because they have to abide by the EU regulations, but not allow those who have committed serious offenses to vote. I think they're hesitant to do the former though, so that may never happen and it would be a victory for British politics and the legal system (and rightly so).

MissAlice
08-06-2012, 05:57 PM
How strange, I've never heard of a 'civil prisoner' but when you look up the definition it makes a lot of sense :P

Basically someone who is imprisoned under criminal law for not adhering to something he has done under civil law. It does make sense that these people would be allowed to vote, because their imprisonment was not to benefit society (the huge difference between civil and criminal law - civil = between two entities / criminal = an individual vs. the state).

I think the Government are going to allow short-term detainees to vote because they have to abide by the EU regulations, but not allow those who have committed serious offenses to vote. I think they're hesitant to do the former though, so that may never happen and it would be a victory for British politics and the legal system (and rightly so).

Yes, I had never heard of a civil prisoner, shows how much we don't know :P

In order to be eligible it's clear you must be on the electoral roll, which is common sense. I wonder just how many prisoners are registered? Somehow I don't think the majority would even vote if they could.

So I do agree with you, probably the short-term ones who are registered will be eligible to vote.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!