Criminals must get the vote by next year, demands Europe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ns-Europe.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/fi...12/eu-flag.jpg

Quote:

---

The European Court of Human Rights concluded in 2005 that a blanket voting ban for all prisoners was unlawful and breached their human rights. However, ministers are still to act on the judgment with the previous Government instead overseeing two separate consultations, including proposals to give prisoners serving terms of four years or less the vote. A ruling from the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers yesterday voiced "profound regret" that the blanket ban was not lifted in time for last month's general election.

And it indicated that it was ready to draw up a resolution for action at its next meeting in September, if Britain had not taken steps by that point to comply with the judgment in time for the elections to devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on May 5 2011. Britian could be the first country to fall foul of new powers which came into effect earlier this month allowing non-compliance proceedings in the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg court, with potential sanctions including suspension or expulsion from the Council of Europe – a separate body from the European Union. The failure to lift the ban in time for the General Election created "a substantial risk" of repeated appeals by prisoners to the European Court, the committee warned.

Campaigners for prisoner votes last night said the latest missive meant the Government has three months to act. Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: "The Committee of Ministers has given the coalition government a valuable opportunity to overturn this outdated and unlawful ban. "The ban should be swept away as part of the Government's drive for wider constitutional reform and its commitment to a 'rehabilitation revolution'." An MOJ spokesman said: "Until the approach is settled, it would not be appropriate to comment further."

---

These unelected (and unwanted) despots in Europe and its organisations (basically the European Union but seperated into differing names) need to back off, or somebody needs to at least tell them where to go just for once. We had an election around a month ago, to decide to democratically rules the United Kingdom and who creates its policies - the EU, ECJ, ECHR and CoE are not elected and we have never asked for them or their rules/legislation or regulations. I am all for freedom and civil rights but i'm afraid when you commit crimes you lose them rights in my mind. Imagine this, a prison in a consituency which is a swing seat area is allowed to vote - who do you think the majority of criminals are going to vote for? (think about that one, which party is the party of benefits, soft on crime and prison luxaxaries?).

Is David Cameron really the one incharge of this country?

Thoughts, should criminals be allowed to vote & should EU instiutions be allowed to demand what the British government does?

This actually makes me pretty angry, why should some idiot in Brussels be deciding what our country does about matters in our country? I agree with human rights, but I this is definitely taking it way too far. Is this saying ALL prisoners should get the vote, or only ones for in for shorter terms? Personally, I think a blanket ban on voting for all prisoners is right; if someone has comittied a crime, they have more than likely violated someone else's "human rights" in some shape or form, so they do not deserve the right to human rights.

This makes me laugh a lot:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/human-rights/index_en.htm

The European Union believes that democracy and human rights are universal values that should be vigorously promoted around the world

---

Democracy. Where is our say in this? Why do we have to suffer the effects of sanctions because we disagree with European ruling? Why does Europe feel they have the right to "vigorously promote" democracy when they're weakening it by pushing through legislation what we don't want?

You're doing a good job, I'm starting to like UKIP. Time to read their home affairs policies.

I think it depends on the reason they're in there. If they was in there for dealing cannabis, then in my eyes they should have the right to vote (But that's maybe because I'm all for making cannabis legal).

But if they're in there for murder, then they shouldn't have the right. Plus, in a prison they will have different views and we know what happens when convicts have different views!

personally in two minds on the matter. obviously there's the argument that breaking the law should remove your right to suffrage. i think it comes down to whether you view the right to vote as a luxury or a right. if it's a right, it should not be removed regardless of you breaking the law, as controversial as it may seem.

i know you're obviously euro-sceptic dan but i don't see the need to bring in the eu at every oppurtinity, even when it's got nothing to do with it? this is about the echr and coe. it's a bit tiring.

Depends on the sentence tbh. Someone in there for 25 years who's not going to feel the external effect of the next government (outside of prison policies) regardless of who they voted for shouldn't vote. Those that do (i.e. someone being released soon but not out yet) should. :)

I agree with prisoners getting the vote. Sure, they've committed a crime (and a certain degree of crime is beneficial isn't that right mike / preposterous / amber / anyone else doing a2 sociology). A criminals punishment is losing their freedom, which already happens. I think it's inhumane not to let people vote in the 21st Century regardless of them being a convicted criminal. Controversial I know, my view nonetheless.

LOL it certainly is, along with being a safety valve. who'd have thought? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattFr

This actually makes me pretty angry, why should some idiot in Brussels be deciding what our country does about matters in our country? I agree with human rights, but I this is definitely taking it way too far. Is this saying ALL prisoners should get the vote, or only ones for in for shorter terms? Personally, I think a blanket ban on voting for all prisoners is right; if someone has comittied a crime, they have more than likely violated someone else's "human rights" in some shape or form, so they do not deserve the right to human rights.

This makes me laugh a lot:

Democracy. Where is our say in this? Why do we have to suffer the effects of sanctions because we disagree with European ruling? Why does Europe feel they have the right to "vigorously promote" democracy when they're weakening it by pushing through legislation what we don't want?

You're doing a good job, I'm starting to like UKIP. Time to read their home affairs policies.

---

We dont have a say, the people of Europe arent worthy (or at least thats what the consultative EU parliament decided when they voted before the Irish referendum to ignore the result on the Lisbon Treaty). I believe one of the treaties actually had an opening which said something like 'for a long time now the people of Europe have been calling for more integration' - whether or not these people actually believe thats the case is another matter but thats the kind of thing we are dealing with here, they are nothing but despots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cod

personally in two minds on the matter. obviously there's the argument that breaking the law should remove your right to suffrage. i think it comes down to whether you view the right to vote as a luxury or a right. if it's a right, it should not be removed regardless of you breaking the law, as controversial as it may seem.

i know you're obviously euro-sceptic dan but i don't see the need to bring in the eu at every oppurtinity, even when it's got nothing to do with it? this is about the echr and coe. it's a bit tiring.

---

I said at the start that it may not be the European Union in name but all of these European insitutions work together for integration (whether we like it or not) and are the same in all but name - they even share the same flag. It is time people wake up to the reality which is that we are fast losing any sovereignty we have left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immense

I agree with prisoners getting the vote. Sure, they've committed a crime (and a certain degree of crime is beneficial isn't that right mike / preposterous / amber / anyone else doing a2 sociology). A criminals punishment is losing their freedom, which already happens. I think it's inhumane not to let people vote in the 21st Century regardless of them being a convicted criminal. Controversial I know, my view nonetheless.

---

Surely the right to vote is a fundemental part of freedom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Surely the right to vote is a fundemental part of freedom?

---

Surprised you don't agree with me :O

I meant freedom in the sense that they can't do what they want, as and when they want to do it because they're in prison and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immense

Surprised you don't agree with me :O

I meant freedom in the sense that they can't do what they want, as and when they want to do it because they're in prison and all that.

---

If you allow them the right to vote surely you are allowing them to vote for whom they wish which is part of freedom and democracy - we send people to prison as a punishment and to keep the general public safe. To add to that, they are not in 'society' so why should they influence how 'society' runs when they lost their right to be a part of that 'society' when they committed a crime?

Needless to say I agree with the EU.

The intention with prisoners should always be rehabilitation which comes hand in hand with responsibility, to rehabilitate them you need to give them responsibility such as the vote. For one reason or another these people have been taken out of society but they have every right to have a say in the society that they will one day return to and contribute towards. Also let us remember that the government will affect their daily lives as much as ours if not more so. The government has complete control over the prison system so why shouldn't they have an equal say to us in how its run?

To me voting is a fundamental human right. Crime or no crime you should NEVER infringe on these rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

Needless to say I agree with the EU.

The intention with prisoners should always be rehabilitation which comes hand in hand with responsibility, to rehabilitate them you need to give them responsibility such as the vote. For one reason or another these people have been taken out of society but they have every right to have a say in the society that they will one day return to and contribute towards. Also let us remember that the government will affect their daily lives as much as ours if not more so. The government has complete control over the prison system so why shouldn't they have an equal say to us in how its run?

To me voting is a fundamental human right. Crime or no crime you should NEVER infringe on these rights.

---

Because they are in prison because they have done something which is against the law of this country aka committed a crime/multiple crimes, not because they offered to go into prison and change it from the inside - you have worded it as though they are all little angels and have gone into prison in order to make the world a better place using their votes. Of course a government will affect their daily lives, they chose to go to prison by committing a crime therefore they knew their vote would be taken away along with their freedom. I simply do not see how the likes of Ian Huntley have the same rights in your eyes as the parents of murdered Jessica and Holly do. Do you really think a criminal is going to use his or her vote to change this country for the better?

You say its a human right, surely the right to be free is also a human right and by having prisons you are infringing on those rights - so what should we do there then? abolish prisons because it infringes on human rights?

If you commit a crime you knowingly sanction your rights and freedoms.

voting is a right. and rights shouldn't be taken away from people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

voting is a right. and rights shouldn't be taken away from people.

---

if someone murders another human, do they deserve any rights?

Those who vote should do so with the best interest of their friends, community and their country in mind. Criminals have proven that they do not share these interests. If you have the stupidity to take someone's life, the right to vote should be taken from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattFr

if someone murders another human, do they deserve any rights?

---

yes they do.

http://i49.tinypic.com/li0so.jpgx10

I'm not going to bother with a decent reply... it's not going to do anything, let's let the country decay and run into the ground so that mass chaos can run amock. Only then will people open their iron-eyelided eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

yes they do.

---

*REMOVED*

I'm not sure if you can even justify what you just said.

Edited by Bolt660 (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post images which contain inappropriate language or avoid the filter.

@MattFR - Warned for bad language soon so watch out (I got infracted yesterday for bad language)

Anyway I think it depends on the severity of the offense, say they stole something quite minor and happened to be in prison for a few months and the election takes place, I think that's fair but if they murdered then no, they can go **** themselves.

THIS COUNTRY SUCKS now tbh.

I'm quite surprised that you're all quite taking this like it's next to the act of the Nazis or something. As I've said in practically any thread in this section, this is very subjective. You have to take into account that people are released everyday from prison, not because they've served their term, but new evidence comes to light. Innocent people do get sent to prison, but that's not obviously to say they should get the vote.

I do believe that there must be some form of vote, but not for criminals, and I haven't got a clue how to explain it. I'd say that a percentage of the people who go in come out changed in a better form, rehabilitation and all that jazz, so I don't see why they can't vote.

Tell me if I'm wrong but, even after you've served your prison sentence, you still can't vote? Am I right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattFr

*REMOVED*

I'm not sure if you can even justify what you just said.

---

LOL.

This is ridiculous, they abandoned the right to vote when they committed the crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Selena Gomez

@MattFR - Warned for bad language soon so watch out (I got infracted yesterday for bad language)

---

scary prospect.

whatcha mean. people are people. no one deserves to die including murderers.

a right is something that should never be taken away. A privilege is something that can. prisoners should be able to vote - there's hardly any of them anyway. 84000 spread over the country. wow. It's not like half of them will be interested in voting anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

whatcha mean. people are people. no one deserves to die including murderers.

a right is something that should never be taken away. A privilege is something that can. prisoners should be able to vote - there's hardly any of them anyway.

---

this guy, along with mrpinkpanther speaks a hell of a lot of sense. my faith in the political views of users on this forum has been restored. NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE JORDY AND DAN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

whatcha mean. people are people. no one deserves to die including murderers.

a right is something that should never be taken away. A privilege is something that can. prisoners should be able to vote - there's hardly any of them anyway. 84000 spread over the country. wow. It's not like half of them will be interested in voting anyway.

---

So the freedom of movement shouldnt be taken away from suspected terrorists or murderers? In what you have just wrote, you have just stated that rights should never be infringed upon no matter what the circumstances. So what would you do with criminals if you arent prepared to lock them up, what would you do with suspected terrorists if you arent prepared to restrict their freedom of moment?

Alex is all for criminals having the vote but doesnt seem (from past debates) to think the British people deserve a vote on our membership of the European Union, what a strange mindset in which the criminal is placed higher than the victim/law-abiding majority when it comes down to democracy and whos got the right to vote and not vote. The same goes for the European Union itself and fellow insitutions, it doesnt think we have a right to vote on its existence but thinks criminals should be able to vote, so in short; they think more of criminals than they do of us (the vast majority).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immense

this guy, along with mrpinkpanther speaks a hell of a lot of sense. my faith in the political views of users on this forum has been restored. NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE JORDY AND DAN.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cod

personally in two minds on the matter. obviously there's the argument that breaking the law should remove your right to suffrage. i think it comes down to whether you view the right to vote as a luxury or a right. if it's a right, it should not be removed regardless of you breaking the law, as controversial as it may seem.

i know you're obviously euro-sceptic dan but i don't see the need to bring in the eu at every oppurtinity, even when it's got nothing to do with it? this is about the echr and coe. it's a bit tiring.

---

yes boizzzzzz

oh and btw not all criminals go to prison

Is it not reasonable to assume that a prisoner with a very long-term sentence won't be voting for the same things I would be voting for - i.e. they would be after policies that benefit criminals the most - and by definition I wouldn't want them voting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So the freedom of movement shouldnt be taken away from suspected terrorists or murderers? In what you have just wrote, you have just stated that rights should never be infringed upon no matter what the circumstances. So what would you do with criminals if you arent prepared to lock them up, what would you do with suspected terrorists if you arent prepared to restrict their freedom of moment?

Alex is all for criminals having the vote but doesnt seem (from past debates) to think the British people deserve a vote on our membership of the European Union, what a strange mindset in which the criminal is placed higher than the victim/law-abiding majority when it comes down to democracy and whos got the right to vote and not vote. The same goes for the European Union itself and fellow insitutions, it doesnt think we have a right to vote on its existence but thinks criminals should be able to vote, so in short; they think more of criminals than they do of us (the vast majority).

---

I'm not commenting on any european issue because i think we've already established my point of view.

Voting is a right, food is a right, water is a right, not being discriminated against is a right - but doing whatever the hell you want is not a right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immense

I agree with prisoners getting the vote. Sure, they've committed a crime (and a certain degree of crime is beneficial isn't that right mike / preposterous / amber / anyone else doing a2 sociology). A criminals punishment is losing their freedom, which already happens. I think it's inhumane not to let people vote in the 21st Century regardless of them being a convicted criminal. Controversial I know, my view nonetheless.

---

Sure, and I'm guessing people who work hard at school will succeed and ascribed status is a myth right? Some crime is needed for this society to work as it is supposed to (note, as it is supposed to =/= fairly) but that does not at all make it beneficial! Besides, in what way does that detract from their wrong-doing? I also disagree with criminals being allowed to vote, that is total rubbish. If the EU are worried about breaching human rights then they wouldn't detain people for upwards of a year with no evidence to charge them with, they wouldn't make it illegal to 'engage in activities that might inhibit the progression of the EU' (bye bye anti-eu supporters) and they wouldn't have the awful inquisitorial legal system where you are treated like a criminal with no evidence against you and worst of all they wouldn't keep trying to perpetuate the myth of multiculturalism. The EU don't give a **** about human rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

I'm not commenting on any european issue because i think we've already established my point of view.

Voting is a right, food is a right, water is a right, not being discriminated against is a right - but doing whatever the hell you want is not a right.

---

Of course we have established your point of view, and thats where I find the gaping flaw in your argument - you support criminals having a vote enforced by the European Union and its institutions but dont support the law abiding majority having a simple referendum on the European Union?

Wig also makes a damn good point on the European Arrest Warrant and the erosion of civil liberties by the European Union and its courts, proving that the European Union does not give a damn about rights (or rights and opinions of the majority).

I think the crime a person has committed will cloud their judgment and could ultimately change the way they vote, they'd be voting on the short-term changes of lenient prison sentences or softer laws, than looking at the bigger picture. Yes, they've lost the right to freedom, but they shouldn't be given the right to vote because the way they vote could change the way they were sentenced and any laws regarding prison sentencing, even if they are only in there for 4 or so years.