Should prisoners have the right to vote?

[Bedders]

No-prisoners should not be able to vote end of.

 

So what if the rest of Europe let their prisoners vote! When they all adopt an NHS, Welfare state, stop throwing donkeys off towers, force feeding geece & ducks, torturing bulls with spikes in their backs & red capes....at that point I'll consider what Europe has to say on the matter of democracy!

 

Are we still on about the very same Europe that was communist run in Greece in the late 70s, & Spain from 1930s to 1980s, Fascist in Italy & Germany during the 30s & 40s. A Europe where in France the second biggest political party is the NF! If civil war, disagreement & quirkyness is where you want to look for examples... good luck to ya!

[Rupert_Baehr]

Maybe not but...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4316148.stm

 

Everyone has a right to free elections it seems which amounts to the same thing

 

Well, we'll have to see how that one goes. If the Lord Chancellor decides that the law should be changed, then no doubt he will bring the matter before Parliament and they will change the law if they see fit so to do. If they don't then no doubt they won't. - [The Queen in] Parliament is still the Sovereign Law Maker.

 

I note (with amusement) from the BBC article:

 

"Q: Will giving prisoners the right to vote make any difference?

 

Mr Hirst said if prisoners were also voters politicians would seek out their views when canvassing for votes.

 

"What this will do is force them to go knocking on people's doors inside - knocking on cell doors, asking them what they think, offering them incentives or privileges to try to get their vote.

 

There might just be a bit of a problem there. I wonder whether MPs could get away with such blatant vote buying?

[AJ sheffield]

Excuse my sense of humour but I now have to change me pants.

 

You're not AJ are you?

 

:hihi:

[Bedders]

Most prisoners have never had a chance in life, so their prison life should introduce them to equality.

 

It's that sort of 'Lefty' talk that has got this country in the mess it's in. I suppose you also advocate that they should spend more on prisoners meals per head (as they currently do) than law abiding NHS patients hospital meals? A nice fair country where prisoners get x-boxes / playstations/ LCD tv's....where NHS patients have to pay for it. What sort of message does that send out to people?

 

It's a joke! An utter joke!

[Rupert_Baehr]

... How difficult would it really be to imprison the part of society that stands in the way of a party gaining power within our system? This is an important question that needs to be kept in mind...

 

I suggest it would be very difficult indeed. - The prisons are already rather full. Where would you plan on putting a million or so dissidents?

 

Not long ago there was a big fiasco in Florida when it came out that many democrats had been prevented from voting because they had been falsely accused of having criminal records. It's important to learn from these events and this is a clear warning that political parties are at least capable of manipulating events if the ability to do so is there. It was Bush's own brother that was in charge of creating the voting list for Florida- this should never have been allowed to happen, but it could happen again.

 

What's that got to do with anything? - Florida is in the US, not the UK. American Law mandates that persons convicted of a felony (as opposed to a misdemeanour) lose the right to vote. Permanently.

 

UK law denies prisoners the right to vote - but once they get out, they get their voting rights back.

 

The vast majority of prisoners will be out of prison and back in society during the 4 year political term served and the basis of our justice system is that once the prison term is served justice has been done. Thus prisoners should have the right to say how they are governed when they are in society.

 

Indeed. Some of them will have been out, gone back to jail and come out yet again within 4 years. - The revolving doors seem to turn very quickly.

 

Few prisoners actually serve the prison term awarded to them. - A prisoner sentenced to 3 years will do about 18 months and will then be released 'on licence' - indeed, he or she may be released even sooner with a tag. Should that prisoner breach the terms of the licence, then he or she can be returned to prison to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence (without having to appear before a court. - The sentence had been awarded previously.)

 

Using the date on which the prison term is deemed to be served (the date on which the limitations of the release on licence expire) may not be in the interests of the prisoner.

[Solomo]

I think that prisoners should be allowed to run the prisons and lunatics be allowed to run assuylums and SF.

[Cavegirl]

Rupert- I see you ignored the main point of my statement completely, which is that it is dangerous to give governments and political parties the ability to prevent large parts of the population from voting if they so desire, particularly when we know they hold detailed records of our individual voting habits.

 

- "I suggest it would be very difficult indeed. - The prisons are already rather full. Where would you plan on putting a million or so dissidents?"

 

I wouldn't plan on putting them anywhere, I'm not the government. However, the fact that people can be placed under house arrest and the fact that the government recently opened two new superprisons in the UK tells you that it is a possibility.

 

- "What's that got to do with anything? - Florida is in the US, not the UK. American Law mandates that persons convicted of a felony (as opposed to a misdemeanour) lose the right to vote. Permanently.

 

It's a clear example of how a western democracy very similar to ours has been perverted- I think that makes it very relevant. I notice you don't try to deny that it happened- doesn't that wake you up to the possibility it could happen here?

 

- "UK law denies prisoners the right to vote - but once they get out, they get their voting rights back."

 

This just indicates that it would be very easy to subvert our system.

 

- "Indeed. Some of them will have been out, gone back to jail and come out yet again within 4 years. - The revolving doors seem to turn very quickly.

 

Few prisoners actually serve the prison term awarded to them. - A prisoner sentenced to 3 years will do about 18 months and will then be released 'on licence' - indeed, he or she may be released even sooner with a tag. Should that prisoner breach the terms of the licence, then he or she can be returned to prison to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence (without having to appear before a court. - The sentence had been awarded previously.)"

 

Using the date on which the prison term is deemed to be served (the date on which the limitations of the release on licence expire) may not be in the interests of the prisoner".

 

This is all irrelevent to what I was saying and adds nothing new to the discussion.

 

An interesting point to make is that without democracy we wouldn't actually need prisons.

 

It's only because we have a hierarchical perspective of wealth and status that there is such a thing as crime. An African tribal leader once rued the day that democracy was introduced to his tribe because he said the tribe suddenly had law, crime, poverty, a police force and prisons where previously none of this had existed. Without status and ownership there is no crime and without crime there is no need for governance or management.

[ukstudent]

You'll be suggesting next that they should have a sex life.

 

They already do in many countries

[thorphanger]

In a word definitely NO.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Rupert- I see you ignored the main point of my statement completely, which is that it is dangerous to give governments and political parties the ability to prevent large parts of the population from voting if they so desire..

 

Nobody has given 'governments and political parties in the UK the ability to prevent large parts of the population form voting'.

 

You appear to be suggesting that if this has not happened already, (and it has not) then it is likely to do so in the near future. What evidence can you give which would support that suggestion? Why are you concerned that politicians might wish to prevent large parts of the population from voting? Are your fears based on any facts?

 

 

I wouldn't plan on putting them anywhere, I'm not the government. However, the fact that people can be placed under house arrest and the fact that the government recently opened two new superprisons in the UK tells you that it is a possibility..

 

There are many things which are possible - though I doubt that imprisoning large numbers of political dissidents is on the list of possibilities. I suggest that the reason for new prisons is that the present prisons are seriously overcrowded. In August last year, 2/3 of UK Prisons were classed as 'overcrowded'.

 

'House Arrest' is not the same as imprisonment following conviction and AFAIK; house arrest is not ordinarily used in the UK - although some convicted prisoners who have been in jail may be released on licence with an electronic tag and are required to stay in their houses (or at another designated place, such as a hostel, during certain time periods.

 

You suggested that politicians might try to stop political dissidents from voting. The subject of the thread is the inability of prisoners to vote. If you were not implying that politicians are likely to imprison political dissidents, then how are you suggesting that politicians might prevent the dissidents from voting?

 

Prisoners do not - at the moment - have the right to vote. You asked: "... How difficult would it really be to imprison the part of society that stands in the way of a party gaining power within our system? This is an important question that needs to be kept in mind..."

 

Why should that question be 'kept in mind'? What makes you think it is likely to happen?

 

As I said in my previous post, it would be very difficult to imprison large numbers of political dissidents in the UK, because there are not enough prison places available.

 

 

It's a clear example of how a western democracy very similar to ours has been perverted- I think that makes it very relevant. I notice you don't try to deny that it happened- doesn't that wake you up to the possibility it could happen here?

 

I fail to see that 'it's a clear example' and you fail to give any reason why you think it is a clear example.

 

The United States is not 'a western democracy similar to ours' - It is a Federation of Sovereign States (each of which makes its own laws)

 

' The federal government has certain express powers (also called enumerated powers) which are powers spelled out in the Constitution, including the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In addition, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives the federal government the implied power to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers. Powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government or forbid to the states—the reserved powers—are reserved to the people or the states...'

 

That Federal Government has an Executive Branch (Headed by the elected President) a Judicial Branch and a Legislative Branch (The Congress, which is very different to Parliament. The persons who sit in the House of Commons are 'Members of Parliament' - they are not required to represent the people who sent them there. The persons who sit in the House of Representatives are just that and if they fail to represent the wishes of those who put them there, then they probably won't be there for long.

 

 

The fact that I didn't bother to deny your claim doesn't mean that I accepted it. - If you were to post that 'Michael Jackson is alive and living on the back of the moon with Elvis', I probably wouldn't bother to deny that, either.

 

If you would like to produce evidence (a credible link will do) that "... many democrats had been prevented from voting because they had been falsely accused of having criminal records.' or that 'It was Bush's own brother that was in charge of creating the voting list for Florida' then I - and perhaps others - would be interested to read it.

 

BTW: There are an estimated 10.2 - 10.4 million voters in Florida. How long do you think it would have taken 'Bush's own brother' (I take it you're talking about Jeb Bush, when he was governor of Florida) to sort through the list, identify the Democrats and make up (credible) accusations against each of them? (There were roughly 4.13 million Democrats; he would've been a busy boy, wouldn't he?)

 

 

This just indicates that it would be very easy to subvert our system.

 

No it does not. You have offered no evidence or argument to support that statement.