Criminals must get the vote by next year, demands Europe

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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Trust, said: "The Committee of Ministers has given the coalition government a valuable opportunity to overturn this outdated and unlawful ban.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?

[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:

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.

[Moh]

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!

[Bun]

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.

[Inseriousity.]

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.

[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.

[Inseriousity.]

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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.

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?

[immense]

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

Surprised you don't agree with me

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Surprised you don't agree with me

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?