Convicted prisoners to get vote

[2shoes]

not sure what I think of this
should they be allowed to vote ??

Really sorry I haven't read all the thread, will go back and do so in a minute, but I've just seen a clip of an interview with a convicted murderer where he was talking about the prisoners having to be paid compensation for not being allowed to vote. Is this true?

I'm very uncomfortable with them being allowed to vote. Evidently not helped by the idiot in the clip I saw. Though as others have pointed out, some just as vile characters get to vote already (some even run in elections)

But I do feel that voting isn't necessarily a human right but a civil right. And while you can't deny anyone their human rights, I'm not so sure where I stand on the civil rights of murderers etc.

Kaloki - the EHCR and UN both say that it's a human right (the latter taken from the former) bit it is classed as an international human right

Ah ok, didn't realise that.

nottirednow - "you think being provided with free food, drink, a roof over your head, something to do and enough heat to avoid hypothermia is punishment? Go to Africa and tell them that and they'd laugh at you."

I don't understand this point - are you saying that if anyone anywhere is better off that a prisoner, the prisoner isn't being punished enough? 'Cause if so we really need to recruit some torturers STAT.

I don't know how you measure if you've protected the public EXCEPT by measuring offending rates. They are the only thing that matter. I don't have any problem with systems of priveleges or any of that kind of thing. What I have a problem with is being proscriptive about methods. Work out what works. Do it. Anything being done in the Criminal Justice system that doesn't reduce offending should be stopped, everything we can do to reduce offending should be done.

Prisoners haven't chosen not to be citizens, and remain citizens while they are in prison.

The issue of whether or not they vote though, is probably less important than literally everything else about the criminal justice system.

"Anything being done in the Criminal Justice system that doesn't reduce offending should be stopped" - yes, like prison sentences. With the additional benefit that more people will be able to vote like everyone else.

Pan - I don't know, I'd want to see some evidence that not sending anyone to prison would reduce offending.

It is not that they are not citizens once they are in prison more that society decided to exclude them from full participation and from certain privileges, as I understand it

I didn't say that Coal. In a way.. Am focusing on short trem prison sentences where the recidivism rate is approx 66% in the first two years post release. Prison = reduced re-offending is well out of date. Community-based sentences for alot of short term sentences are A LOT more effective. And people could still vote!!

Pan - I did wonder if you just needed to be more specific ;)

That's very accommodating of you. :-)

notirednow - No I understand your point. It's wrong - deprivation of liberty most certainly is a punishment. And a quite severe one.

You are not understanding MY point which is that the issue of punishment is utterly irrelevant unless it is serving a purpose. The Criminal Justice system should focus, and ONLY focus on reducing offending - whatever that takes. That will undoubtedly include prison, it will include rehabilitation, it will include community service, it will include making better laws and policing in better ways. It will include your issue of protecting the public as that is only a proxy for protecting the public anyway.

What it WON'T include is whether or nor prisoners have a vote. As that is an utter irrellevance.

Seeking to punish people for it's own sake without looking at whether that will increase or decrease offending is short sighted, selfish, sanctamonious and stupid.

I don't much like your definition of statehood. I don't OWE allegience to any idea as outmoded and abstract as a particular nation state. The state has an obligation to look after it's citizens - as that is all it is - it's citizens.

'Anyway, you go to jail you get fed, medical and dental treatment, tv, video games, courses to study, a gym etc'

Have you BEEN in a prison? I have and you are grossly mis-informed about what prisoners 'get'.

FWIW I am singing from Coal's hymn sheet. Not providing a vote to prisoners is irrelevant to the CJS.

The reactions to this notion is largely an emotional one. i.e. we don't like what you have done so we will punish you more than the sentencing options allow to make up for a perceived deficit in powers allowed to the court.

As I have indicated above, women get penalised more than men under the current arrangements. As do black people as a for instance. So, to deny the vote to prisoners is both racist AND sexist and so is a difficult one to defend on any grounds. AND lets not forget, the prisons are populated by working class people, so t odeny the prison incumbents a right to vote is also elitist too boot.

What prisoners 'get' varies wildly from prison to prison and from where they are re release, esp. for v. long term prisoners who will be released and so need a programme of re-integration allowed.
Generally, people in prison struggle v. badly. Again, women struggle more than their male counterparts.

I don't think they should vote.
What do many of them care about the rights of other humans?

The purpose of prisons is to protect the public and reduce re-offending. Their mission statement is -

"Holding prisoners securely
Reducing the risk of prisoners re-offending
Providing safe and well-ordered establishments in which we treat prisoners humanely, decently and lawfully."

Ssmeone who has committed an identical crime, but "putting them away" would adversely affect their family, so they get a community punishment, gets the vote, but some homeless guy does not, he gets community supervision. How is that right? They caused the same harm, they did the same crime, but one can vote and one cannot.

paisley - I am doubting you have read much of the thread so far??

Sorry - meant homeless guy gets custodial

norma - Homelessness status isn't taken into consideration re sentencing, but your point about differential consequences re sentencing on voting is well made, IMHO.

I get your point - but they will take into consideration the effect on the family (sometimes)

I have been reading the thread Pan and am just adding how I feel.

yep, they do take family into consdiration - the repeated concern is that women and children also serve a sentence thoug they have done nothing wrong.

sorry paisley - the rights of others had been thrashed out massively above. Tis all.

I had an argument recently with an immigrant friend about prison.

Friend: it's easy, they are allowed their own TVs now!

Me: no I really don't think prison is that easy and they are allowed Tv in their cells - you're misinformed, ect.

Went and did a little research and yes they can now have TV's in their cells. Wonder how much we really know of what goes on as it's constantly changing.

Some of the arguments above annoy me (ok, in some ways as I get older I'm getting less liberal minded and less dewy eyed about 'rehabilitation and so on). Saying that I view these kind of arguments and the people who make them as a necessary evil - we need people to protest, rebel, question etc but really they are a pain in the arse and sometimes feel so far removed from the reality of life with their usually liberal minded, middle class worthiness , but we need them, I guess the twats!