horribleblob Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Well I think it's completely irrelevant if someone 'chooses' not to vote. That's their perogative. However, if you lose your liberty and are incarserated at her majesty's pleasure, then you lose that choice. Like all the other choices you lose in being within the prison system. Makes sense to me! I guess it depends on whether you see prison purely as a punishment or as punishment combined with an opportunity to reintegrate someone into society. I bet Sam Hallam wished he'd had the vote in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I guess it depends on whether you see prison purely as a punishment or as punishment combined with an opportunity to reintegrate someone into society. I bet Sam Hallam wished he'd had the vote in jail. You'll have to forgive my ignorance...Who's Sam Hallam? Also, I don't see that whatever you consider prison to be. Punishment or preparation for reintergration into society makes the slightest difference. Victims of criminals would view prison as punishment. The PC brigade sees it as an opportunity to reform prisoners. Whatever your view. They have lost their liberty and all that, that encompasses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 My understanding is that the European Court on Human Rights has given the UK government six months to come up with legislation to end the blanket ban on prisoners voting. I don't really see this as a problem because, to comply, I believe the UK government would be allowed to set the bar as high as they wish as long as it's not a "blanket ban". Additionally, the ECHR is only asking the UK to comply with something that already exists in British common law, that being "Fettered Discretion" and which already applies to life sentences (ie, they are not fixed at actual life). Fettered Discretion: "An authority may not improperly fetter its undertaking, and it may not be stopped by its conduct from exercising its powers. It may be required to consider the exercise of discretion in each individual case and not by reference to an inflexible policy rule". Finally, I wonder how many of the people who object to prisoners voting, actually bother to vote themselves, and what do they fear would be the worst case scenario if lags were given the vote? Ex-cons who actually take an interest in politics, perhaps? That in itself (bold) implies that there is no legal basis for their decision doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 I guess it depends on whether you see prison purely as a punishment or as punishment combined with an opportunity to reintegrate someone into society. I bet Sam Hallam wished he'd had the vote in jail. I knew this would come up but to me that is an entirely separate issue, its akin to saying no-one should be locked up in case they are innocent. In that case the police involved should be sent to prison and should pay compensation to the guy. Nothing can make up for being sent to jail when you are innocent but the fact that, that could happen is not reason to stop locking dangerous people up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 I guess it depends on whether you see prison purely as a punishment or as punishment combined with an opportunity to reintegrate someone into society. I bet Sam Hallam wished he'd had the vote in jail. or ignored option number three, you lose the right to vote because you have proved you are too irreponsible to have a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horribleblob Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 ...Also, I don't see that whatever you consider prison to be. Punishment or preparation for reintergration into society makes the slightest difference... In fairness, I didn't actually say that, did I. It's not "punishmernt or...", but "punishment and...". ...Victims of criminals would view prison as punishment. The PC brigade sees it as an opportunity to reform prisoners. You've lost me. I don't see what the fabled "PC Brigade" has to do with it. I've not met anyone who thinks criminals shouldn't be punished, but a lot of people think it's also a good idea to turn criminals into ex-criminals. You don't favour recidivism do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horribleblob Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I knew this would come up but to me that is an entirely separate issue, its akin to saying no-one should be locked up in case they are innocent. In that case the police involved should be sent to prison and should pay compensation to the guy. Nothing can make up for being sent to jail when you are innocent but the fact that, that could happen is not reason to stop locking dangerous people up. Sorry, llamatron. My comment about Sam Hallam was just a rhetorical aside and not intended as a contribution to the discussion proper. I should have made that clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horribleblob Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 That in itself (bold) implies that there is no legal basis for their decision doesn't it? I just see it as dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 I just see it as dotting the i's and crossing the t's. so it is an expensive and controversial power struggle/waste of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horribleblob Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 so it is an expensive and controversial power struggle/waste of time? I think it's certainly created a storm in a teacup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.