Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that prisoners are people and citizens and SHOULD have the vote? And if we, as a nation, refuse to let them (illegally -hmmmmm) then WE are in the wrong?

126 replies

harpsichordcarrier · 19/02/2011 21:39

Really, I am genuinely interested.... Why should committing a crime (ANY crime) take away your human rights?

OP posts:
Original poster
harpsichordcarrier · 19/02/2011 22:09

curlymama Sat 19-Feb-11 22:05:55
But harpsi, our government, you know the one we kind of voted for, is saying that they shouldn't have the vote. It's the European court that is saying they should, and no body voted for them.

Well, no, not quite.
It is our LEGAL OBLIGATION to comply with this ruling. Whether or not we elected these judges (and by the way we don't vote for judges in this country anyway) we are LEGALLY bound by this ruling and no-one disagrees with that.
What Cameron is suggesting is that we ignore a legal ruling. Which is different to breaking the law in what way, precisely??

OP posts:
Spenguin · 19/02/2011 22:10

Also, how many of the prisoners would use their vote anyway? Voting rates in this country are awful. If people want to abstain to prove a political point then they should at least turn up and tick every box or something i.e. to give the effect that they attended and exercised their right, but their invalid ballot is their method of protest.

LittleWhiteWolf · 19/02/2011 22:10

Well, the laws that convicted prisoners break are decided in government as are the punishments alloted for said crimes, so with that in mind yes prisoners SHOULD have the vote. Not to mention that their families and friends outside the prison are also affected by what government is in power. Plus as has been stated prisoners are actually human beings (despite what people want to believe) and as such are legally given the right to vote.

Personally I say let them have the vote. However it should be down to each individual prisoner to arrange said voting, it shouldnt be organised for them. By which I mean those in open establishments (like the one I work at) should arrange their town visits and home leaves around voting times and those in closed estates should arrange postal voting. They should have the vote like every other person in the UK but likewise it is up to them to vote just like every other person in the UK IYSWIM?

Discussions at work on this subject have been interesting. My favourite comment was from a colleague who was adamant prisoners shouldnt vote, yet has never bothered to vote herself. Hmm

DaphneHeartsFred · 19/02/2011 22:11

Well if the law bothered to deal with paedophilesw properly no-one would be able to murder one.

KazBarTheFriendlyGhost · 19/02/2011 22:11

YABU - scumbags prisoners choose to murder/rape/abuse/steal etc etc

they have no right to vote in society.

they gave up that right when they committed the crime.

that's what is wrong with the world today - all justice is in the eyes of the perpetrators!

What about the fucking victims!

Sorry, I'm considering hiding this thread - it's got to be a joke

JamieLeeCurtis · 19/02/2011 22:11

harpsichord - I think that the argument boils down to whether you see voting as a Human Right. I don't think some people think it's that big a deal. It's not a basic HR is it?

When I think about individuals who have committed terrible crimes (such as Daphne mentioned), I do find it hard to give much of a shit. OTOH, there's a principle that I mentioned before about being able to influence your life. Prisoners don't have many advocates, and some of them could genuinely change their lives if given the right opportunities - such as having mental heath support, education and training. If you can't vote for a party that believes in these things then you can't help yourself.

Spenguin · 19/02/2011 22:11

PacificDogwood - being pedantic here, but...

democratic obviously comes from 'demos' - which relates to people. The criminal exerted their tyranny over 'the people' in the crime he or she committed. So, he/she isn't part of the democracy any more. His or her unilateral e.g. killing of another places that criminal on a different plane. They removed themselves from democracy...therefore, shouldn't be allowed to engage with or in it.

hardhatdonned · 19/02/2011 22:12

You can test the civility of a nation by how it treats its prisioners.

Saying that though to commit a crime you consciously remove yourself from society and as such absolve yourself from having access to any rights being a part of society brings. That includes the right to vote.

JamieLeeCurtis · 19/02/2011 22:12
bulby · 19/02/2011 22:13

It makes me' so angry that so much time and money has been wasted over the 'human rights' of people who chose not to have the chance not to vote by committing a crime. There are people in this world whose human rights really are been violated, it makes a mockery of the whole thing.

twinkytonk · 19/02/2011 22:13

harpsichordcarrier

Yes they are in power for 4 years and if they miss the vote because of being in prison then that's their fault. If they were in the wrong frame of mind to commit a crime and get sent down for it does that really mean they will be in the right frame of mind to vote while they are undergoing rehabilitation? I don't believe it does.

People have given up the right to have their freedom and I don't see why voting should be any different in this case.

Maybe the courts need a shake up!

morleylass · 19/02/2011 22:13

I think a disproportionate amount of time is expended on discussing the rights of people who have committed crimes against society, why?
I think we should put more effort into maintaining the human rights of the elderly, disabled etc who through no fault of their own seem to have lesser rights than the rest of society on many occasions.

Original poster
harpsichordcarrier · 19/02/2011 22:13

Magicmummy - the European Court of Human Rights decided by a huge majority that denying prisoners the right to vote was a breach of their human rights under the ECHR to which we are subject.
I think it's a breach of human rights because the highest possible authority has considered the matter carefully based on the law.
I honestly don't see that it could be any clearer than that.

OP posts:
JamieLeeCurtis · 19/02/2011 22:14

I see Spenguin has said some of what I argued

Spenguin · 19/02/2011 22:14

DearPrudence made a really interesting point re prisoners still being citizens. A characteristic of being a citizen (and thus allowed to vote) is surely baed on taxes. Does anyone know what/if any taxes (directly or indirectly) prisoners are liable to pay?

hardhatdonned · 19/02/2011 22:15

I also think the European Court of Humans rights should not over ride the laws of the land of any individiual consitiuent country within the EU. They should be there to set guidlines but not over rule laws.

magicmummy1 · 19/02/2011 22:15

Sorry, x post. I am not necessarily arguing that we should ignore the European Court of Human Rights ruling - I think that's veering into dangerous territory tbh.

I'm merely saying that I'm unconvinced that they have made the right judgement on this particular issue.

Spenguin · 19/02/2011 22:15

But then I suppose the tax they pay may have to cover what it costs to incarcerate them, IYSWIM?

PacificDogwood · 19/02/2011 22:16

See, I think there should be a duty to vote Grin. I really do.

The vast majority of ex-prisoners I deal with are small-time crooks who are too stupid limited in their life choices to not get caught. Yep, mugging a little old lady for £23 pounds sounds about right. They and their ilk tend to not vote even when they can. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed on the grounds of stupidity or ill-informedness?? Hmm

To try and get them to engage in society and appreciate that they have a stake in how things are run, I think it is crucial that they have the right to vote.

Doesn't mean that I don't also sometimes think, them having some alone time with some of their victims wouldn't be a good idea...

magicmummy1 · 19/02/2011 22:16

x post again!

I get that the ECHR has ruled that it is a human right. I just don't get why!

hardhatdonned · 19/02/2011 22:16

No one, other than a very high earner, will ever pay enough tax into the system to offset a decent length jail term.

Original poster
harpsichordcarrier · 19/02/2011 22:17

I do understand that individual anger against individual prisoners is justified and I don't seek to argue against it.
But anger against an individual prisoner, or about a particular crime, or class of criminals is not relevant when making decisions about ALL prisoners, is it? And it shouldn't override the law relating to human rights.

OP posts:
Spenguin · 19/02/2011 22:17

WHAT ABOUT ACQUITTALS?!

There are multiple instances of people being freed after 20+ years. If you denied them the vote, how much of an injustice was it for them? Hence, quasi-ultra vires blanket bans shouldn't be allowed...yet, who else will deal with the paper work of individually assessing prisoners?

hardhatdonned · 19/02/2011 22:17

Because the ECHR is full of muppets.

Seriously when the rights of the criminal over ride that of the victim society is doing something very wrong.

activate · 19/02/2011 22:18

because the judicial system of our country has judged them guilty of committing a crime that warrants freedom being revoked (incarceration)

the freedom to vote is included in that

I am delighted that prisoners are not allowed to vote