Prisoners voting?

[nicholab]

Why do Europeans do not mind prisoners voting? This is after the human rights court ruling. I think it is total fair to have not have the vote unless you towards the end of your sentence and you are being normalised into society.

[localzuk]

I think it comes down to this - prisoners are only prisoners because of their actions in conjunction with the law. The law is not a fixed thing, as we know, and can and does change all the time. Prisoners should be able to vote, in order to have that avenue to get the law that lead to their own convictions removed from the statute books.

 

There aren't enough prisoners to be able to get something like murder removed from the statute books, but they might be able to influence laws which are unjust - as public opinion might be on their side also. There have been prisoners who have been released after the law itself was changed, for example.

 

Simply put - why shouldn't they have that ability? How does it harm society by letting them? They're still human.

[nikaso]

Simply put - why shouldn't they have that ability? How does it harm society by letting them? They're still human.

 

Because part of their punishment for violating the accepted laws of society is incarceration and denial of the normal freedoms enjoyed by those that obey the law. Voting is part of those freedoms.

[Sagima]

I think it comes down to this - prisoners are only prisoners because of their actions in conjunction with the law. The law is not a fixed thing, as we know, and can and does change all the time. Prisoners should be able to vote, in order to have that avenue to get the law that lead to their own convictions removed from the statute books.

 

There aren't enough prisoners to be able to get something like murder removed from the statute books, but they might be able to influence laws which are unjust - as public opinion might be on their side also. There have been prisoners who have been released after the law itself was changed, for example.

 

Simply put - why shouldn't they have that ability? How does it harm society by letting them? They're still human.

 

Completely agree

[localzuk]

Because part of their punishment for violating the accepted laws of society is incarceration and denial of the normal freedoms enjoyed by those that obey the law. Voting is part of those freedoms.

 

Only if we make it one of those freedoms.

 

That point begs the question - what is the purpose of incarceration in a prison? Punishment? Rehabilitation? Protection of society?

 

The countries that put the most emphasis on rehabilitation are the ones which have the lowest re-offender rates. Those that put an emphasis on restorative justice instead of prison have a much lower prison ratio also. Just look at Norway.

[Miscbrah]

I think it comes down to this - prisoners are only prisoners because of their actions in conjunction with the law. The law is not a fixed thing, as we know, and can and does change all the time. Prisoners should be able to vote, in order to have that avenue to get the law that lead to their own convictions removed from the statute books.

 

There aren't enough prisoners to be able to get something like murder removed from the statute books, but they might be able to influence laws which are unjust - as public opinion might be on their side also. There have been prisoners who have been released after the law itself was changed, for example.

 

Simply put - why shouldn't they have that ability? How does it harm society by letting them? They're still human.

 

Weelll... I broadly agree, or at least I agree in principle with the last part. I think engaging with the voting and political process, the implications of which have a HUGE impact on society, can't be a bad thing for people due (at some stage or another) to return to it. Or at least play a part in it, if edge cases serving life etc. Citizens are still citizens after all.

[win]

Also politicians will do anything for their vote.

 

Vote me in and i'll upgrade all your PS3's to PS4's!

[Miscbrah]

Also politicians will do anything for their vote.

 

Vote me in and i'll upgrade all your PS3's to PS4's!

 

Heh, yes I wouldn't put it past them, but I think the incarcerated population is barely more than 0.1% of the whole UK population.* Might as well appeal to Vauxhall Astra owners.

 

*And I'm betting not the sort of minority with oil money, huge property portfolios and who know the masonic handshake.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Miscbrah

[nikaso]

Only if we make it one of those freedoms.

 

That point begs the question - what is the purpose of incarceration in a prison? Punishment? Rehabilitation? Protection of society?

 

The countries that put the most emphasis on rehabilitation are the ones which have the lowest re-offender rates. Those that put an emphasis on restorative justice instead of prison have a much lower prison ratio also. Just look at Norway.

 

You can't really compare Norway to countries like the UK, their model of social welfare is entirely different to ours, they have a generally more wealthy population who pay high taxes and get extremely good public services in return. They also have quite a homogeneous population compared to the UK which seems to correlate to lower crime levels.

 

We don't have the money available to do rehabilitation in the same way and people do generally want to see perpetrators of crimes (particularly violent crimes) punished.

[localzuk]

You can't really compare Norway to countries like the UK, their model of social welfare is entirely different to ours, they have a generally more wealthy population who pay high taxes and get extremely good public services in return. They also have quite a homogeneous population compared to the UK which seems to correlate to lower crime levels.

 

We don't have the money available to do rehabilitation in the same way and people do generally want to see perpetrators of crimes (particularly violent crimes) punished.

 

Sorry but that is just a defeatist attitude. We can't compare ourselves to Norway simply because we don't act like them. If we did, we could. So, we can now - and accept that we need to change how we act!

 

We only don't have the money to do things because we obsess with austerity and reduced taxation. Increase taxation and we'd have more money to spend. Only thing is, people have to start understanding that taxation isn't a burden on your income, it is a necessity for a well run country with good services for its populace.

[sted]

You can't really compare Norway to countries like the UK, their model of social welfare is entirely different to ours, they have a generally more wealthy population who pay high taxes and get extremely good public services in return. They also have quite a homogeneous population compared to the UK which seems to correlate to lower crime levels.

 

We don't have the money available to do rehabilitation in the same way and people do generally want to see perpetrators of crimes (particularly violent crimes) punished.

surely long term a properly rehabilitated prisoner is cheaper than a reoffender though?

[nikaso]

Sorry but that is just a defeatist attitude. We can't compare ourselves to Norway simply because we don't act like them. If we did, we could. So, we can now - and accept that we need to change how we act!

 

We only don't have the money to do things because we obsess with austerity and reduced taxation. Increase taxation and we'd have more money to spend. Only thing is, people have to start understanding that taxation isn't a burden on your income, it is a necessity for a well run country with good services for its populace.

 

Well I'd argue it's realistic, Norway's average household net-adjusted (i.e. after taxes) disposable income per capita is over 20% higher than the UK. That is a huge difference and no amount of wishful thinking is going to transform the UK into a Scandinavian economy. I agree that increased taxes are necessary but I don't have the confidence any Government would spend this wisely and I do think we need to balance the books before we start looking at improving things.

[SteveT]

I queried this some time ago and was informed that legally it was connected to the fact that we are not "citizens" but "subjects". Our "right" to vote is not actually a "right" but a "courtesy" from the monarch who can legally withdraw the right at will. The government/parliament acts on behalf of the monarch and has decided to withdraw the privilege from those who are incarcerated or are members of the Lords. Think anyone ever convicted of election fraud is also barred. There was also lots of other legal constitution stuff which sailed way above my head but was to do with other European monarchies having voting rights written into their constitution. I suppose strictly speaking ...... we are not actually a democracy. Legally parliament can ignore the wishes of the public ...... eg war with Iraq etc!

[mthomas08]

They're still human.

 

So are the people they have murdered, raped, destroyed peoples lives and torn apart but nevermind right?

 

Sorry I do not agree what so ever, when you see stories that those locked up are enjoying prison life like a holiday smiling away - who cares about their victims right?

 

They are still human beings but the right to vote isn't a right to be human, that's a society choice. That line kind of reminds me of benefits, “It’s my human right” a term used far too often. They are human beings so in turn, don’t lock them up and allow them to stay on the streets. After all, they are losing their freedom and if that’s not the biggest human right they have then what is? Sorry but you can’t use the term they are still human beings to give them a right to vote but they are being locked up like animals in a Zoo.

 

"what is the purpose of incarceration in a prison? Punishment? Rehabilitation? Protection of society?" All 3 plus justice for the victims. The main purpose in history was to remove their freedom, their right to choose their life, that in turn could be their right to vote. After all the right to vote is a choice.

 

One thing I've learnt in life (this is aimed at society) until people are victims the views won't change.

 

I'm a believe that our current justice system is appalling and not working. What's the % of re-offenders? Is it really deterring crimes?

 

When these criminals made the choice to commit a crime, they made the choice to face prison and in turn lose their freedom and any rights that went along with it.

[claireadams]

I know a few people who are 'inside' at the moment for various reasons and I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Eventually most prisoners will be released so in my opinion why shouldn't they have a say.

[Garacesh]

So are the people they have murdered, raped, destroyed peoples lives and torn apart but nevermind right?

A valid point, perhaps it depends on your crime. Or maybe depending on how long you're incarcerated for?

 

The thing is, I agree with both sides of the argument. In committing a crime you have (most likely) impacted somebody else's well-being, in which case you have violated their rights. By such, your own should be forfeit.

 

That being said.. It used to be a crime to be gay. If we lock up everybody who commits $Crime, how can the laws ever be changed? Are we to leave the law to those who either A) Do not do $Crime (and thus won't vote for it to be legalised), or B) Do not get caught doing $Crime (a small percentage, if our police force is doing their job properly)

[claireadams]

Surely that’s just it, it has to, to a point, depend upon the crime and if they are a reoffender rather than a blanket ban? Some of the reasons people get locked up is incredibly sad

[localzuk]

So are the people they have murdered, raped, destroyed peoples lives and torn apart but nevermind right?

 

An eye for an eye, hey? Very biblical. Also doesn't work. Doesn't reduce crime. Doesn't reduce recidivism.

 

Sorry I do not agree what so ever, when you see stories that those locked up are enjoying prison life like a holiday smiling away - who cares about their victims right?

 

My advice? Stop reading those stories. They aren't exactly all true... "Tabloid journalism"...

 

They are still human beings but the right to vote isn't a right to be human, that's a society choice. That line kind of reminds me of benefits, “It’s my human right” a term used far too often. They are human beings so in turn, don’t lock them up and allow them to stay on the streets. After all, they are losing their freedom and if that’s not the biggest human right they have then what is? Sorry but you can’t use the term they are still human beings to give them a right to vote but they are being locked up like animals in a Zoo.

 

None of that is countering my comment though. it is merely a knee-jerk reaction based entirely on emotion rather than figuring out the purpose of our justice system.

 

"what is the purpose of incarceration in a prison? Punishment? Rehabilitation? Protection of society?" All 3 plus justice for the victims. The main purpose in history was to remove their freedom, their right to choose their life, that in turn could be their right to vote. After all the right to vote is a choice.

 

That's a circular argument. You've basically said the purpose of incarceration is incarceration. It doesn't say *why* we incarcerate. What is the goal for our society? Surely the first step is trying to reduce crime, and then if that part fails, to reduce recidivism? Evidence from all over the world indicates that simply locking people up as punishment is neither a deterrent for first time crimes, or as a punishment for recidivism. Indeed, there are plenty of cases where people become institutionalised, and commit crime simply to end up back in prison again!

 

One thing I've learnt in life (this is aimed at society) until people are victims the views won't change.

 

You do not need to be a victim to look at this topic. We most certainly shouldn't be determining our justice policies using emotion, which seems to be your view here.

 

I'm a believe that our current justice system is appalling and not working. What's the % of re-offenders? Is it really deterring crimes?

 

Last I looked, it was around 35% re-offending rate. Norway is around 20%.

 

When these criminals made the choice to commit a crime, they made the choice to face prison and in turn lose their freedom and any rights that went along with it.

 

You're looking at crime as if its a "bad guy in a mask decides to burgle a place on a whim" kind of thing. It is a *lot* more complex than that. If we had lower poverty in this country, we would see a lower rate of crime, for example.

 

Also, you have made a flawed argument there - people do not lose their rights. Rights are immutable - which is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created. Rights can be suspended for certain purposes, but they are never lost. For example, you can be locked up for a crime, but if you're locked up in isolation permanently? That is not acceptable, under UK or EU law.

[sparkeh]

I'm a believe that our current justice system is appalling and not working. What's the % of re-offenders? Is it really deterring crimes?

Your argument is somewhat contradictory. You think that the current system doesn't work yet you seem to advocate ploughing on with it.

 

Alienating prisoners from society is harmful to their chances of reoffending. What actual good does denying them the vote do?

[claireadams]

You're looking at crime as if its a "bad guy in a mask decides to burgle a place on a whim" kind of thing. It is a *lot* more complex than that. If we had lower poverty in this country, we would see a lower rate of crime, for example..

 

Thats a fairly common way people see it though Goodies vs badies but sometimes its just a bad deal at life

[localzuk]

Thats a fairly common way people see it though Goodies vs badies but sometimes its just a bad deal at life

 

This image of crime needs challenging, both by government and by the media. The world is a billion shades of grey, the idea of goodies vs baddies in reality is limited to Hollywood movies and comic books.

[claireadams]

This image of crime needs challenging, both by government and by the media. The world is a billion shades of grey, the idea of goodies vs baddies in reality is limited to Hollywood movies and comic books.

 

I think it's mainly the media. Too many people believe what they read. THe only people in prisons are murders, rapists, pedos, druggies... They all have xboxs and beautiful meals every day.... In reality if you've ever had to visit someone there, its far, far from the truth. Grotty, smelly places, full of rats and damp. It's far from a holiday camp and some really don't deserve to be in there.

 

I have a friend who's locked up basically for being ill, they can't get his meds right and he has a mental illness, they can't get him into a mental hospital as there is no beds/he's not priority when there are, for the last 3 years he's been in prison, he's never hurt anyone... They really aren't all 'badies'

[pcstru]

It costs around ~£40,000 to keep someone in prison for a year. With nearly 85,000 prisoners, that's £3.4 Billion a year spent on keeping people locked up. With crime statistics showing a steady decline in violent crime, theft and criminal damage I think we should welcome voters who have first hand, current experience and have a unique perspective to judge whether this state of affairs is a good thing or a waste of taxpayers money.

[Garacesh]

It costs around ~£40,000 to keep someone in prison for a year. With nearly 85,000 prisoners, that's £3.4 Billion a year spent on keeping people locked up. With crime statistics showing a steady decline in violent crime, theft and criminal damage I think we should welcome voters who have first hand, current experience and have a unique perspective to judge whether this state of affairs is a good thing or a waste of taxpayers money.

 

Realistically that's not how people vote though, is it? People vote for "what will benefit me the most?"

 

I can appreciate the fact that some people in prison might be in prison for mitigating circumstances ("I stole that food to feed my starving family") and they should get a vote. But then there are the actual baddies. The drug peddlers, the murderers, the rapists. The scum of society. Should they be allowed to vote? I don't think so, personally. Which raises a much more in-depth and complicated set of questions. Where do you draw the line being the main one.

[Sagima]

Where do you draw the line being the main one.

 

With the level of facility they are locked up in I suppose would be the easiest. (I'm assuming there are still different types of prison for different types of prisoner - it isn't something I've ever really investigated)