If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Prisoners To Be Given the Vote
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4315348.stm
I am only surprised that they did not say prison was a breach of there human rights.
I am only surprised that they did not say prison was a breach of there human rights.
0
Comments
Care to explain why prisoners shouldn't be able to vote?
It's got my vote, if you'll excuse the pun.
"This is political correctness gone MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD"
I'm not sure loosing your right to vote goes against rehabilitation. In fact rehabilitation probably does require some form of punishment (the stick) as well as assistance to help people go straight (the carrot). i don't think one works without the other.
People who commit electoral fraud, however, should have the vote taken away from them.
Think about it.
Yes, because they're in jail
Yes, because they're not in jail
How do you work out which ones they are. The whole point of prison (rather than being on remand) is that the system has found you guilty. if it later transpires you're innocent you should get compensation (which should include some recompense for loosing your vote)
They do if they go to jail.
Indeed, and as the thread isn't about that aspect I haven't commented further.
It's not a priviledge, it's a right.
Do you think it is acceptable fora poor person who cannot pay his a fine to be denied his right to vote, but a rich person who can afforf it retains theirs, for example.
Or that the opportunity to vote can be a matter of when you case is heard, not the crime you committed. If someone was imprisoned in for a month in March this year then they would get the vote, if it was in May the didn't. Regardless of the crime they committed. Is that justice?]
The imprisonment, the loss of freedom is a punishment. The loss of a vote is a restriction of right.
I expect that people would now ask why community sentences should not attact this action. One reason: if you are on a community based sentence then your crime is not that serious, certainly not serious enough to warrant having your voice in society temporarily removed.
People who cannot pay their fines are not imprisoned. Fines are often paid at £1/week, and are often not that high anyway, maybe £200. People who will not pay their fines are imprisoned. And if you don't pay your fines then, quite frankly, you deserve everything you get.
If you end up in prison it is because you deserve to end up in prison. Even most remand prisoners probably deserve to be in prison, as most of them are unable to obey even the most simple bail conditions and commit offences whilst on bail. But remand prisoners should be allowed to vote.
If you pass the custody threshold then you should lose the right to vote until your debt to society has been paid.
Prisoners are, in the main, actually quite conservative (well right wing) and large voting blocks of prisons might upset the local balance to a big degree.
Fair enough.
Still doesn't explain why prisoners shouldn't vote though.
They may deserve to be in prison, but why isn't that punishment enough?
exatamundo, they can vote afterwards, after they've served their time
Bullshit, and you know it. If the university of lancaster can't think or feel for itself, neither can "society."
Jesus.
Unless the magistrate is "on crack", eh?
That's generosity for you.
Like that pensioner who refused on moral grounds you mean? How about someone who is innocent and won't submit? Fuck that.
This is some scary shit. Utter fucking tosh too.
Why should they? They are presumed innocent. Like that means anything. Why should anyone submit to the will of some crazed fanatic who believes in words more than people? Oh yeah, he can kidnap whoever he fancies, injure who the hell he likes, take what he wants. (Providing the paperwork has been done :rolleyes: )
They shouldn't be inside. End of story.
How do you pay a debt to what doesn't exist?
I consider it a priviledge, being allowed a say in the governence of ones country is not an unassailable right.
If it bothers you so much that the rich are allowed to walk free and the poor are imprisoned because of the system lacking the control systems to allow the poor to pay their fines (which they have commited a crime to have to pay one off), don't you think you should do something about that? If someone is refusing to participate in the system, if someone is imprisoned for they way they behave, then their priviledges should be suspended, freedom of movement, and the ability to vote.
I fail to see why you think that people who have commited crimes that are sufficient enough to merit prison should still have a say in the system. Those that commit relatively minor crimes are unlikely to miss any elections anyway, those that commit major crimes, like (sorry same old example) Ian Huntley, have violated the system so much that they should never have a say in it again.
I take it you have no problem with dictatorships then?
If someone if someone is imprisoned because they have broken the law, they should have no say in the running of the country, because they have rebelled against the country.
Last time I checked we were talking about the UK
You have a great habit of missing the point.
*although of course "rights" are a compex issue themselves - they have a particular economic and social context