to think that prisoners shouldn't have the right to vote?

[LadyOfTheManor]

Blah blah blah human rights. Surely they gave up their human rights when they committed anti-civilised/social crimes?

The EU courts are putting pressure on...I think it's ridiculous. They shouldn't have a say of how society is treated when they have been purposefully removed from it.

I say we make voting "legal" for them. But deny them the right to leave the prison in order to do it. Surely that would work?

If you break the law then why should you be entitled to make the law???
Sorry but with rights comes responsibilities, and if you can't be responsible then why should you have a say in the running of the country? I'm all for rehabilitation and the resumption of voting rights when the sentence has been served. But let them do their time and have their thinking space for goodness sake. Totally logical. Of course loos of liberty means loss of vote, because voting is a choice and therefore a part of liberty. Sorry Trina, but you are not being logical here.

(Hummmm, isn't it funny how wine can cause one to lose the ability to construct sentences and spell correctly? Sorry ).

Aitch:

so what if there is a military junta ....

Probably the first thing that'd happen is that there wouldn't be free and fair elections anyway, and even if at that point criminals could vote they'd be likely to exclude 'dangerous' political prisoners. So while its an interesting theoretical point, in practice changing the law now would be no safeguard at all against the scenario you envisage.

Anyway, to answer the OP - on balance I can't see any huge objection to giving prisoners the right to a postal vote. I doubt many would use it - this is a somewhat artificial issue stirred up by one or two people. If a prisoner is sufficiently engaged in politics to want to make the effort to vote, why not?

What really shouldn't be on the table is the notion of 'financial compensation'. WTF is the monetary value of a vote? You can't buy or sell a vote, how on earth does anyone come up with the idea that money compensates?

of course, grimma, which is why it's an ethical question, as i said before.

On the grounds that most people in prison haven't committed any crime, the Birmingham Four, the ? (early onset) Six, etc etc and the endless miscarriages of justice, it's hardly fair to take the vote away, quite apart from the fact it is irrelevant to punishment.

where i live they released the figures for the people in our prison and what they were in for and most were in for drug related offences possession etc...

why should people who have been caught with (mostly) personal usage of a drug not be allowed to vote?

most people arent in prison because they have murdered or committed sex crimes etc.. so we cant base a whole rule or law of the most extreme cases.

Of course they should be able to vote

to whoever said those who break the maw shouldnt be allowed to make the law.

what about if you dont agree with the law, because you have fallen fall of the law you dont agree with you shouldnt have the chance to change the party in charge? how will things ever progress?

(and re junta i was trying to describe in ever more dramatic and daily mailish terms so that the OP might finally understand a point i had made three times and that she had ignored.)

i agree with Pan, however. The OP isn't engaged with the issue at all, she's just exercising her right to squawk on a talkboard. i'm leaving her to it.

OP, just so you know, it is not the EU courts, but the European Court of Human Rights - which is different. And the Court was probably right in its ruling. Treating prisoners as human beings is a good thing.

Hullygully, I think that mentioning some examples of miscarriages of justice can hardly be used as evidence that 'most' people in prison are innocent.

'I'm sorry what makes me bigoted?'
The fact that you don't genuflect to the Labour Party and read the Guardian.

I think prisoners should have the right to vote.

O'n for prisoners having a vote. But the OP is bringing up good counter arguments.

'So you agree to a human being "caged up" or "behind bars" but you can't fathom the idea that they don't get a vote?'

Good point. She is cutting through the cant, and asking real questions. Did you see Mehdi on Question Time last night? He was in a frenzy about a shoplifter not having the vote, but it didn't seem to concern him as much that she was locked up for stealing a £10 item. Some of these people need to get some perspective.

It has increasingly become the case that you can end up in prison without even being accused of anything that is a crime in British Law. Under the ASBO system you can go to prison for making a nuisance of yourself to your neighbours, for playing loud music or making love noisily, for drinking in public, even for repeatedly and annoyingly trying to commit suicide. You can also end up in prison for failing to ensure that your teenagers attend school. Or for failing to pay your TV license.

And note that the new government do not have the attention of doing away with the ASBO system: all they seem to be planning is a name change.

Not sure how this changes my attitude towards prisoners' rights, but it's one more factor to add to the mix.

Good point. I'd like the liberals to start getting frenzied about some of the reasons people are sent to prison, instead of grandstanding about votes.

It really, really doesn't matter.

Just give them the vote, avoid the fine and go about your business.

It will make exactly no difference to anything at all.

just because civil liberties are being breached dousnt mean we shouldnt deal with the issue that prisonors cant vote aswell

I think prisoners should have the right to vote. To deny it undermines the very idea that we live in a democracy. Democracry means everybody gets a say, not just those we like.

I think people tend to get worked up over 'criminals' who have committed crimes against people, e.g. if someone has mugged someone, they are A Bad Sort who should be locked up, denied TV, fed gruel and preferably spat on occasionally. The fact is that prisoners and the reason they are in prison are much more complex than that. Having worked in a prison, I saw people who were there for non-payment of fines that had been issued in error, for defending themselves after years of domestic violence, debt/fraud that their partner ran up and then absconded, and as cory says all sorts of ASBO related reasons. This is not to mention people who are locked up for having done nothing at all.

Until we can be sure that everybody in prison has consciously decided to opt out of society by committing a heinous crime, then we have no business denying them the vote, IMO. If we decide that prison means no vote, then fine, but we cannot say we operate a democracy. Democracy means you don't get to choose who has a say. If we do, where does that end? In almost every example in history, where the right to vote has been denied, it has later been universally agreed that it was wrong to do so.

I also think it's a valid point about governments getting to choose what is a crime. The example of a military junta is very extreme, but again, there are far more nuanced examples of people being locked up for things that are 'frowned upon' by popular thought in certain countries at a certain period in history, which later or from the outside looks extremely barbaric.

D

Is there any possibility a large group of prisoners in a marginal constituency could use their votes to tip a seat one way or the other? Are we happy for a few thousand prisoners to have that sort of influence?

olderandwider - well there is no way to know what with a secret ballot and all that.

Maybe marginal constituencies already have blocs of votes manipulated by interest groups.

Oh, hang on what about Political Parties?

Is there any possibility a large group of prisoners in a marginal constituency could use their votes to tip a seat one way or the other? Are we happy for a few thousand prisoners to have that sort of influence?

They'd have to be registered for a postal vote wherever they came from, not wherever their nick happened to be. (I assume that's how it works for the Forces?)

So you wouldn't get a large block vote skewing things.

Prisoner Voting: A Simple Guide

Consequences of withholding the vote on:
Election results: None
Prisoner Behaviour: None
Prisoner Reoffending: None
Political Pressure: None
Government Finance: A Fine will be levied

Consequences of giving prisoners the vote on:
Election results: None
Prisoner Behaviour: None
Prisoner Reoffending: None
Political Pressure: None
Government Finance: None

This as an issue or total irrelevance being used for holier than thou political grandstanding.

apparently in canada they use postal votes that are sent via home address, so that would seem like the sensible plan.

agree totally coalitionneedsyou, this is cammo's mini-falklands, standing up for britain bullshit.

there's no reason why they shouldn't have the vote, of course, but the reason why this is being whipped up to look as if it is an important issue is transparently to make condems look strong in front of electorate.

Doesn't it also depend somewhat on how you see a prison. Is it simply for punishment or is it also rehabilitation? I believe many crimes are committed due to the perpetrators feeling let down by society or some how outside of society and all that entails. At some point most prisoners will be released back into society and expected to live within its rule. Surely by denying them to opportunity to vote and engage in our society and democracy we are only perpetuating their disassociation from it. How can that be a good thing?