| mooghead 25.02.2010 15:10 |
In the UK current serving prisoners do NOT have the right to vote. It has been suggested that the European Court of Human Rights may declare any general election result null and void if prisoners (currently about 86,000 people) do not have the opportunity to vote in the next election, likely to be May this year. As someone who works in a prison I would be interested to know what you think. |
| Mr Mercury 25.02.2010 15:46 |
Terrorists, murderers, rapists and pedophiles definetely not. Those in for lesser crimes, I.e burglary or robbery where no serious harm came to anyone else, then maybe they could "earn" the right to vote back. |
| GratefulFan 25.02.2010 16:54 |
Yes, prisoners should have the right to vote. Most will someday be released back into society, and from a purely selfish and practical standpoint it is desirable to have prisoners engage given that they're there because the social contract broke down or never existed in their lives. I would expect that the subset of prisoners who would be shamed (and thus rehabilitated) by losing the right to vote would be far exceeded by those who would be assisted in rehabilitation through fully participating in a social responsibility that they were often disconnected from in their lives outside. Voting is unlikely to be a cure for criminality, but being informed and participating in debate and carrying out a civic duty can begin to change how at least some of these people think about themselves. |
| FriedChicken 25.02.2010 17:18 |
Yes, they should. |
| Micrówave 25.02.2010 17:22 |
As someone who works in a prison I would be interested to know what you think. Boy, that explains a lot!!!! Do you work 'on top' or 'on bottom'? |
| FriedChicken 25.02.2010 17:30 |
I think that depends on who drops the soap... |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 25.02.2010 19:15 |
personally I dont think they should be allowed to vote.they should lose all civil liberties like voting,tv's,internet and stuff like that once imprisoned.too many do-gooders in authority now looking after the villains making sure they dont lose their 'human rights' and not enough being done for the 'victims' of crime who dont get such luxuries as free meals and free internet and nice weekend breaks at the beach at the expense of the tax payer. |
| catqueen 25.02.2010 19:41 |
I agree with Grateful Fan on this. Excluding people from society is hardly likely to promote rehabilitation into society when they are back out. Also, they are citizens and are being represented by the government, so they need to have a say in that representation. The point of prison should not be to make people suffer - that is basically for the sake of the rest of society. We are angry, feel threatened, we want people locked up. If there was more rehabilitation work done and more work done to help people integrate back into society, there would be less re-offending, and possibly a higher chance of positive participation in society later. But i dont work in prison. :) |
| Micrówave 25.02.2010 21:24 |
I think they should be allowed to vote. But then I think you should collect all the prison ballots and burn them. I don't want a mass-murderer voting on issues like Health Care or Capital Punishment. Plus, they can't contribute political donations, so no incumbent would want them as constituents. |
| iron eagle 25.02.2010 21:34 |
nope they should not be allowed to vote they serve their sentence and probabtion and stay out of trouble for lets say 5 years i can see them earning the right to vote again they had the right to vote prior to prision and i bet 98.9% never did so they are not really missing anything nor do i think they care much.... just my 2 cents |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.02.2010 11:51 |
Fortunately, we have laws and binding international treaties, more and more of which are beginning to be implemented now, years or even decades after they were signed, that protect all citizens, regardless of their crimes, from arbitrary disfranchisement. But what does that mean, "arbitrary disfranchisement"? It means withholding the right to vote and hold office from anyone without specific orders from a court. Any crime for which the person sentences goes to prison automatically renders null and void the right to hold office (passive franchise) for the duration of the sentence. The right to vote, however, can only technically be withheld from prisoners if a judge has specifically included a provision for that in the sentence. This rarely happens, because it is a very heavy punishment. Think, for instance, of states with a district system. Since someone who has lost the vote is not technically represented by any district's representative, he (or she) has none to appeal to politically. There are many such difficulties, and for that reason, withholding the vote from someone who would otherwise be eligible is permissible only for a very small number of offenses, such as crimes against the peace (being responsible for the pursuit of illegal warfare under international law), and a number of others I do not know. |
| PauloPanucci 26.02.2010 15:01 |
no, they should not have the right to vote! |
| PauloPanucci 26.02.2010 15:01 |
no, they should not have the right to vote! |
| brENsKi 26.02.2010 17:45 |
mooghead, as someone else who works in the prison system, i too have wondered about this subject many times in my 30 yrs service. i came to this conclusion: 90,000 prisoners as a percentage of 40,000,000 million voters is less than 1% of the electorate. when all is considered:- less than 1% total impact if all vote most will vote with their backgrounds/traditional/habitual voting many will not vote anyhow no major party is likely to ever have a manifesto that favours criminals so i say, with the virtually unnoticeable affect the extra voters may have - give them the vote |
| john bodega 27.02.2010 06:17 |
They should have the right to vote, but they should not be allowed to the nearest ballot box. In my country, they'd get a fine for not turning up. Suits me. |
| pittrek 27.02.2010 06:33 |
No |
| mooghead 27.02.2010 11:03 |
Micrówave wrote:As someone who works in a prison I would be interested to know what you think.Boy, that explains a lot!!!! Do you work 'on top' or 'on bottom'? 'up bottom' actually. |
| ParisNair 28.02.2010 12:25 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: personally I dont think they should be allowed to vote.they should lose all civil liberties like voting,tv's,internet and stuff like that once imprisoned.too many do-gooders in authority now looking after the villains making sure they dont lose their 'human rights' and not enough being done for the 'victims' of crime who dont get such luxuries as free meals and free internet and nice weekend breaks at the beach at the expense of the tax payer. I agree with this. |
| mooghead 28.02.2010 18:11 |
Prisoners do not get internet access. When you hear about a prisoner updating his facebook page its because of an illegal mobile phone they have in their possession. |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.03.2010 13:58 |
ParisNair wrote:JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: personally I dont think they should be allowed to vote.they should lose all civil liberties like voting,tv's,internet and stuff like that once imprisoned.too many do-gooders in authority now looking after the villains making sure they dont lose their 'human rights' and not enough being done for the 'victims' of crime who dont get such luxuries as free meals and free internet and nice weekend breaks at the beach at the expense of the tax payer.I agree with this. Quite interesting, agreeing with something that isn't even half true to begin with. |
| ParisNair 01.03.2010 14:20 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:ParisNair wrote:Quite interesting, agreeing with something that isn't even half true to begin with.JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: personally I dont think they should be allowed to vote.they should lose all civil liberties like voting,tv's,internet and stuff like that once imprisoned.too many do-gooders in authority now looking after the villains making sure they dont lose their 'human rights' and not enough being done for the 'victims' of crime who dont get such luxuries as free meals and free internet and nice weekend breaks at the beach at the expense of the tax payer.I agree with this. I thought the prisoners in some countries actually got those facilties. For sure, not in my country. But I thought maybe they do in the UK, if Joxer says so. |
| brENsKi 01.03.2010 14:25 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: personally I dont think they should be allowed to vote.they should lose all civil liberties like voting,tv's,internet and stuff like that once imprisoned.too many do-gooders in authority now looking after the villains making sure they dont lose their 'human rights' and not enough being done for the 'victims' of crime who dont get such luxuries as free meals and free internet and nice weekend breaks at the beach at the expense of the tax payer. i don't know which of the 139 England/Wales prisons you have been working in, but certainly not any of the 120 i have been to/worked in during my 30 yrs service...... and the only "too many" that i am aware of is "too many Daily Mail readers, with vivid imaginations who believe everything their crazy rightwing comic tells them" |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.03.2010 14:34 |
ParisNair wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote:I thought the prisoners in some countries actually got those facilties. For sure, not in my country. But I thought maybe they do in the UK, if Joxer says so.ParisNair wrote:Quite interesting, agreeing with something that isn't even half true to begin with.JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: personally I dont think they should be allowed to vote.they should lose all civil liberties like voting,tv's,internet and stuff like that once imprisoned.too many do-gooders in authority now looking after the villains making sure they dont lose their 'human rights' and not enough being done for the 'victims' of crime who dont get such luxuries as free meals and free internet and nice weekend breaks at the beach at the expense of the tax payer.I agree with this. In *some* countries, *some* prisoners get *some* of these facilities. Never all facilities, and usually only under special conditions. Joxer makes it sound like every serial killer immediately gets a free jacuzzi after their third conviction. |
| catqueen 01.03.2010 18:55 |
mooghead wrote: Prisoners do not get internet access. When you hear about a prisoner updating his facebook page its because of an illegal mobile phone they have in their possession. Seriously? I thought i had a reasonably accurate view of prisons, and i had a vague idea that they had internet access. i dont know why i thot this though. I know most of what u hear abt the 'luxuary' (however its spelled!) of prison is not accurate, i dont know why i never questioned the internet thing. Even if htye had internet access tho, still wouldnt exactly be a pleasant experience... no freedom, no independance, not able to decide what u will do, wear etc... I was only in a prison twice, a choir i was in went to sing in one ( dont even ask!!!) it was a really really strange experience... changed my view of prisons forever. It was an American prison, and it was so bleak, so hopeless. And even tho i was with a large group of friends as well as staff, and we were only in the main part of it, like some big meeting place, i was still so relieved to get OUT after an hour or two. And there are rules a mile long, even for the visitors. Like even what u wear was regulated!!! No miniskirts etc. And all our stuff had to be left outside and scanned, we all had to be checked, i cant imagine the helplessness of being stuck there for years. I guess there will always be rumours abt what great benefits ppl have... like assylum seekers in Ireland supposedly all get handed a new car when they arrive... I'm sure all the assylum seekers would be only too happy if someone would tell them where these cars are, cos the reality is they get put anywhere in the country in hostels or shared houses, can be moved at any time, and have food supplied (but in many cases not enough food, and also not food they are used to) and they get the great sum of i think it is about E19 per week per adult. Not even enough to smoke! But ask anyone, and they will tell u about the supposed riches that assylum seekers are given. Ok that was a rant and a half! |
| Angeline 02.03.2010 00:32 |
This is a really complex and interesting issue if you take morals out of it, like 'good' people and 'bad' people'. It concerns logical coherence. Being incarcerated infringes the most fundamental rights, if we accept there is a hierarchy of rights at all - right to private and home life, right to privacy, right to free movement etc. When you consider this, voting is actually very far down the list. One of the purposes of incarceration is the deprivation of these liberties, from either a 'just desserts' perspective or from a preventative perspective or any other philosophy of punishment. Seems illogical to me to argue for the right to vote. I'm not making a moral judgment, i'm just talking about the logical coherence of the criminal justice framework. I don't even think incarceration is the best way in the first place bar those that are truly 'dangerous', a fraught concept in itself. |
| Angeline 02.03.2010 00:35 |
unless you see the right to vote as a civil/political right forming the essence of citizenship of a country. Therefore if you remove it you are denying the prisoner their status as a national citizen and the logical extension of this argument would be if they are denied the status of citizenship, the state shouldn't be allowed to imprison them at all: it would technically have no legal power to do so. |
| Micrówave 02.03.2010 01:35 |
Yes, an interesting dilemna, except ONE thing. Prisoners are not interested in politics, sports, or the outside world. ANY chance of doing something to break up the monotony of the day, they'll do it, push for it, demand it, etc. They have no interest in the actual act (voting) but if it gets them out of the cell for five extra minutes, they'll do it and try to make the most of it. As for internet access, I would think that would not be allowed, primarily because of how easy it would be to send/receive information PRIOR to screening it. Sure they could look at the computer after the inmate uses it, but what good is that? |
| Winter Land Man 04.03.2010 01:16 |
Ha. I've spent a total of six days in jail. Yeah, I think prisoners should have a right to vote. |
| Micrówave 05.03.2010 18:38 |
Mr. Britt wrote: Ha. I've spent a total of six days in jail. Interesting. Sodomy carries a much harsher sentence in my state. |
| catqueen 06.03.2010 20:13 |
Micrówave wrote: Prisoners are not interested in politics, sports, or the outside world. ANY chance of doing something to break up the monotony of the day, they'll do it, push for it, demand it, etc. They have no interest in the actual act (voting) but if it gets them out of the cell for five extra minutes, they'll do it and try to make the most of it. Prisoners are unfortunatly normal ppl like u and me... we tend to categorise ppl, think they are somehow different. I know there are a lot of socio-economic factors that may tend to make that many of the ppl in prison were already in a sub culture that did not encourage active citizenship... but i know a couple of guys i was friends with as a kid who ended up in prison for various things... one yes, prob would not be interested in voting, the other is def interested in sports and the outside world, and i think he would have a reasonable interest in politics, just stuff went v v badly wrong in his life and in his head. I found it rly interesting in sociology when studying deviance and the effect of labelling people to read abt the 'mods and rockers' study that was done a number of years ago. Basically there were two groups of young ppl in a school, the mods and the rockers, one was poor the otehr was rich (basically). Both groups engaged in similar levels of anti-social behaviour, yet the ppl in the poor group were invariably the ones caught. Despite the fact that they did no more, sometimes had done less then the wealthier group. They were not trusted by the police, and did not have sheltered places to hang out in so they were more visable. And when they grew up the wealthier group settled down, and basically looked back at the good old days when they were a bit wild, but many in the poor group went on to commit crimes as adults. Basically the study was saying that they were pushed into it by being treated as criminals and not trusted their whole lives. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.03.2010 08:39 |
so,here's a question for my fellow British citizens: do you think Jon Venables/peter Sutcliffe/Ian Brady/Myra Hindlay should get the right to vote for anything? |
| GratefulFan 23.03.2010 12:54 |
Micrówave wrote: Yes, an interesting dilemna, except ONE thing. Prisoners are not interested in politics, sports, or the outside world. ANY chance of doing something to break up the monotony of the day, they'll do it, push for it, demand it, etc. They have no interest in the actual act (voting) but if it gets them out of the cell for five extra minutes, they'll do it and try to make the most of it. Resurrecting this because you're wrong. WRONG! :) And because this is a music forum, and your wrongness in this instance ultimately has a music connection. Prisoners have the right to vote in Canada as a result of a Supreme Court decision known as Sauvé v. Canada 2002. Sauvé in this instance is Rick Sauvé, a man co-convicted of first degree murder in the late 1970's with fellow members of the Satan's Choice Motorcycle Club. Sauve became the first Canadian prisoner to earn a University degree behind bars and became active in prisoner's rights initiatives. He launched the challenge to the law preventing prisoners from voting while he was incarcerated and was ultimately successful almost 20 years later a few years after he was paroled. His words on why the challenge was important to him and other prisoners : http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/rights_freedoms/clips/9561/ The music connection is this: The victim in this case was a man who was shot to death in a bar in Port Hope, Ontario in 1978. Every member of the Satan's Choice club there that night was charged and convicted though the probable truth was that only one man was the shooter and there was no prior knowledge or conspiracy by the other men. A fantastic book was written by a man named Mick Lowe called 'Conspiracy of Brothers' that laid out a compelling case that the real conspiracy was the collusion of law enforcement against men innocent of the crime but vulnerable to societal and judicial prejudice because of who and what they were. Somehow alt country rocker Steve Earle got hold of the story and wrote a song called 'Justice in Ontario'. The song is bookended with historical references to an Ontario family that was murdered through vigilante justice early in Canada's history with the story of Rick Sauvé et al in the middle. If you decide to listen, I apologize for the shitty Karaoke version and the crap appended at the end. It was the only version I could find. |
| GratefulFan 23.03.2010 13:28 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: so,here's a question for my fellow British citizens: do you think Jon Venables/peter Sutcliffe/Ian Brady/Myra Hindlay should get the right to vote for anything? Canada's version of Ian Brady is a charming fellow named Paul Bernardo. I think Bernardo, who will be in prison until he dies, should have the right to vote along with a nice roomy cell, a comfy bed, a nice big TV and access to all manner of courses and programs and amusements over the next 40 years. He's an utter psychopath, as was Ian Brady. These people are wildly ill equipped to follow any social moral code because they're wholly incapable of empathy. They're like deadly snakes. You must handle them carefully at arms length and lock them away where they can't harm anyone else, but you don't kill or condemn a snake just for acting like a snake. As such, in my opinion, the terrible damage they do to the lives of others should be considered and amended separately from this, and society shouldn't look at long tortured empty days in prison as the least the justice system can do to punish these people. It's kind of like beating a three year old because she can't do trigonometry. |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.03.2010 14:20 |
Micrówave wrote: Yes, an interesting dilemna, except ONE thing. Prisoners are not interested in politics, sports, or the outside world. ANY chance of doing something to break up the monotony of the day, they'll do it, push for it, demand it, etc. They have no interest in the actual act (voting) but if it gets them out of the cell for five extra minutes, they'll do it and try to make the most of it. As for internet access, I would think that would not be allowed, primarily because of how easy it would be to send/receive information PRIOR to screening it. Sure they could look at the computer after the inmate uses it, but what good is that? Generalizations, generalizations. No wonder you vote GOP. |
| mooghead 23.03.2010 17:18 |
catqueen wrote:mooghead wrote: Prisoners do not get internet access. When you hear about a prisoner updating his facebook page its because of an illegal mobile phone they have in their possession.Seriously? I thought i had a reasonably accurate view of prisons, and i had a vague idea that they had internet access. If they have internet access its very limited access to very specific sites (educational stuff, jobcentre, benefits etc..) I am prison service staff and have extremely limited access to the internet other that Ministry of Justice/NOMS sites etc.. ie. work related things. They arent even allowed ps3's, DS's etc... or anything that is capable of connecting wirelessly. Those that are found with mobiles in most cases get time added on to their sentence (it is now a criminal act for a member of staff to take a phone in without written permission of the Governor) |
| Amazon 30.03.2010 14:26 |
IMO everyone should be allowed to vote, regardless of whom they are and what they've done. There are some terrible people out there, and that is why they are in prison. What makes it a punishment is the elimintion of liberty; to take away the right to vote, especially when politicians have an impact upon their life, is IMO needlessly cruel. |