Cross-party committee conclude that some prisoners 'should get the vote'

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti..._campaign=1490

Terrorists and murderers 'should get the vote...but only six months before release': Plans to protect 'human rights' of prisoners

- Inmates in final stage of sentence should get vote - regardless of crime
- 7,000 prisoners locked up for 12 months or less should get vote also
- Proposals by Ministry of Justice joint committee set to anger MPs and public wanting blanket ban to remain

Dilemma: Ministers are trying to find a solution to the 2005 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, in a case brought by the axe killer John Hirst, pictured, that the blanket ban is unlawful

Terrorists, murderers, rapists and paedophiles could be granted the vote under plans to protect the ‘human rights’ of prisoners.

A committee set up by the Government says the vote should be given to all inmates entering the final six months of their sentence, no matter how heinous the crime.

A further 7,000 criminals imprisoned for 12 months or less would also be allowed to take part in elections.

The proposals will anger many MPs who overwhelmingly want the current blanket ban to remain in place. Public opinion is also strongly against any change.

The plans also pose a dilemma for David Cameron who says the idea of prisoners having the vote makes him ‘physically ill’. Ministers are trying to find a solution to the 2005 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, in a case brought by the axe killer John Hirst, that the blanket ban is unlawful.

While some MPs will regard the committee’s proposals as a sensible compromise, others will argue that the UK is accepting that the European court has primacy over the British Parliament.

Mr Cameron was intending to ask MPs to vote on three different proposals – maintaining the status quo; giving anyone sentenced to six months or less the vote; or enfranchising anybody sentenced to less than four years.

The Ministry of Justice established a joint committee of peers and MPs to examine the three options and make recommendations. But in a report published today they have rejected all three, although the committee was split.

The panel says only one course of action is acceptable if Britain wants to appease the European court and avoid setting a bad example on human rights to the rest of the world.

This is to grant the vote to all inmates sentenced to 12 months or less, and anybody entering the last six months of their sentence. The second element took the Government by surprise. It would mean anybody nearing the end of their sentence, no matter what they had done, could vote in the constituency they were due to be released into.

I absolutely detest our politicians.

But you know, they are right in one thing - that remaining a member of the ECHR you have to abide by the judgements of the 'court' .... and of course, you cannot leave the ECHR unless you leave the European Union as to be a EU member state you have to be signed upto the ECHR.

So as i've said numerous times, nothing will change until we leave the EU. Whether it's this, housing shortages, immigration levels, poor agricultural and fishing policies, red tape and regulation on businesses...... it's now out of our hands as voters to change at election time as those powers have been passed to corrupt politicians and judges on the continent.

Different party logos, same policies.

Thoughts?

[Chippiewill]

Close but no cigar. All prisoners should be able to vote.

[Kardan]

Prisoners should be able to vote, it seems silly to say only a select few will be able to do so.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Close but no cigar. All prisoners should be able to vote.

Prisoners should be able to vote, it seems silly to say only a select few will be able to do so.

Instead of being able to vote, shouldn't criminals be punished for the crimes they commit?

Is the victim of John Hirst able to vote?

The 'everybody should be able to vote' argument simply doesn't stand up even on human rights grounds. It's deemed a human right surely to be free yet nobody here is arguing prison should be abolished on the grounds that it contradicts human rights are they? You know, it amazes me that even though prisons are already as soft as they are (and very hard to get into) .. we still have politicians, backed by you two, who want to make it an even easier experience for utter scum. It boggles the mind.

[Chippiewill]

Instead of being able to vote, shouldn't criminals be punished for the crimes they commit?

Criminals should not be punished for the crimes they committed. Criminals should be punished for treatment, deterrent and rehabilitation. Punishment for punishment's sake is revenge not justice.

[FlyingJesus]

idgi what's so special about the last 6 months that makes them not a prisoner any more?

As for not punishing criminals, yeah let's reward them with free housing and toys then call it rehab, that'll stop people committing crimes

[Chippiewill]

As for not punishing criminals, yeah let's reward them with free housing and toys then call it rehab, that'll stop people committing crimes

Never said they shouldn't be punished, they should be punished for the right reasons though.

[Kardan]

Instead of being able to vote, shouldn't criminals be punished for the crimes they commit?

Is the victim of John Hirst able to vote?

The 'everybody should be able to vote' argument simply doesn't stand up even on human rights grounds. It's deemed a human right surely to be free yet nobody here is arguing prison should be abolished on the grounds that it contradicts human rights are they? You know, it amazes me that even though prisons are already as soft as they are (and very hard to get into) .. we still have politicians, backed by you two, who want to make it an even easier experience for utter scum. It boggles the mind.

So you reckon that letting prisoners being able to vote means they're not being punished, but stopping them from voting means they are being punished?

What are the benefits from stopping prisoners to vote? Because I can't think of any?

[Charz777]

I'm sure I must be missing something here... As everyone thinks is okay to let prisoners vote...

If these people can't even abide by our laws, I think that shows they they shouldn't be given the responsibility to have an opinion about how the country is run... They should have that right reinstated once they've done their time, and not before.

[GommeInc]

Prisoners do not need to vote. They've lost their liberty because they're not fit to walk amongst civilised people so they should not be entitled to vote like one either. Voting isn't a human right anyway. You do not need to vote to live - for some reason the EU/ECHR are unaware of the rule of law which they were founded upon. It's as bad as saying having the internet is a human right, which was one debate many years ago. Having the internet and the right to vote are legal rights, they're not human rights.