Should prisoners get the vote?

[lunarwolf]

ofc they should get the chance to vote. it's a right/duty of all nationals of age. they are in jail paying their debt to society, so why should they not be able to voice their opinions.

if you start selecting who can vote and who can't; it quickly becomes a slippery slope. ie should the unemployed or people who get benefits get the right to vote? could be argued that they aren't really contributing

 

[eatcustard]

ofc they should get the chance to vote. it's a right/duty of all nationals of age. they are in jail paying their debt to society, so why should they not be able to voice their opinions.

if you start selecting who can vote and who can't; it quickly becomes a slippery slope. ie should the unemployed or people who get benefits get the right to vote? could be argued that they aren't really contributing

1/10 must try harder

 

[Inquisitor]

Prisoners should lose their human rights, and any other rights for that matter, the moment they are found guilty and start their sentence!

If you can lose your "human rights" for committing a crime, then they're not really "human rights" are they? More like human privileges.

 

[citizen0100]

Personally I think they should be able to vote as it wont their punishment!

 

[EdGey]

I'm going to say no they shouldn't.

 

[Edrof]

If you commit a crime bad enough to be locked up then you damn well shouldn't have any say in how the country is run.

Committing a crime is essentially ignoring society's rules - the rules that most citizens manage to abide by - so screw you!

 

[AJK]

If you can lose your "human rights" for committing a crime, then they're not really "human rights" are they? More like human privileges.

And so they should be. Violate someone else's rights by committing a crime, and lose yours. Seems straightforward.

 

[lunarwolf]

1/10 must try harder

lol obvioulsy you didn't write the bill of human rights

I guess that my opinion must be validated by you for it to be legitimate.

1/10 must try harder at being open minded, a little more humane, civilized and sociable

 

[AJK]

http://prison-diary.blogspot.com/

A good read and informative. Doesn't change the fact that for some people (obviously not the author), prison is in some way or ways easier than the real world - and hence not a universally effective deterrent.

 

[Edrof]

lol obvioulsy you didn't write the bill of human rights

I guess that my opinion must be validated by you for it to be legitimate.

1/10 must try harder at being open minded, a little more humane, civilized and sociable

And not being the victim of his crime?

Criminals are an entirely different catagory of potential voter to the unemployed and to bring up such a comparison is pointless. Not only have criminals made a direct choice to hurt or kill other members of society, but their selfish, irresponsible or ignorant actions can echo down generations, affect entire communities and destroy people's lives. They opted out of society through their own choices when they slipped off the mantle of responsibility that the rest of us ever-labour beneath.


TL, DR: Sod 'em!

 

[Vonhelmet]

If you can lose your "human rights" for committing a crime, then they're not really "human rights" are they? More like human privileges.

Well said, that man.

 

[eatcustard]

If you can lose your "human rights" for committing a crime, then they're not really "human rights" are they? More like human privileges.

Voting has always been a privilege, and not a right.

 

[Edrof]

Voting has always been a privilege, and not a right.

You'll be saying fish & chips aren't a human right next

 

[Podmonkey]

No they shouldnt. They acted outside of society and broke its rules which is why they are in there, they should have zero say in how its run 'oh quick, lets vote for the guy whos going to be the most lenient on us!' - a generalisation ofcourse but it would be impossible to pick and choose which should be able and those which shouldnt. They chose that life, any perks and privelages should be instantly removed.

Edit: on thought aswell. Would possibly be easier to limit to either lifetime and repeat offenders. Everyone deserves a second chance (apart from the obvious crimes).

 

[Inquisitor]

Voting has always been a privilege, and not a right.

That's entirely beside my point. I didn't mention voting once.

And so they should be. Violate someone else's rights by committing a crime, and lose yours. Seems straightforward.

So if I commit a crime, I should lose the right to a fair trial?

 

[BlackCoat2k10]

Prisoners should lose their human rights, and any other rights for that matter, the moment they are found guilty and start their sentence!

Why has this even been considered? It's ridiculous!

Quoted because I feel the same. You are a Criminal because you choose not to stick to the laws of the land, therefore you should loose all rights and priveleges of that land when imprisoned, be imprisoned (and not with all this ****** they have currently, its like child day care in prisons atm), Life sentence should mean life yada... I could go on but I've been talking with my dad about this all morning and its making me sick to think such 'criminals' have it so easy nowadays... paaaaahh

 

[Vonhelmet]

RAGE AND FURY.

And rational discussion obviously.

 

[Stanners]

That's entirely beside my point. I didn't mention voting once.



So if I commit a crime, I should lose the right to a fair trial?

No, you should not loose it and you should also recieve a fair sentence that is not reduced for good behaviour etc as the whole point of prison is to punish you for the duration of your sentence you were given at trial.

And to answer the original question, no you should not have a vote while you are detained under her majestys pleasure.

 

[Vonhelmet]

the whole point of prison is to punish you for the duration of your sentence you were given at trial.

And that, dear friends, is where the wheels come off.

 

[semi-pro waster]

They are discussing this on Radio2 at the moment. Got some liberal speaking total nonsense. They shouldn't have the vote, as they shouldn't be able to sue because they have to slop out.

I still believe that the slopping out cases were decided wrongly - the argument should have been very simple "We're exercising our right to derogate from the ECHR based on ground of public policy in article 8 (was it? I can't remember the articles off the top of my head) so kindly naff off". I don't believe that the prisons are in a fit state in some cases and there's no way that it should have taken so long to address the problem but it equally shouldn't have been an issue that the government lost on.

Still Tony Kelly's done well out of the cases...

I can't see why not. After all, I don't think losing the right to vote is even the remotest of concerns for people weighing up whether or not a crime is worth the risk.

I don't see that it matters whether someone contemplating a crime considers the potential loss of the right to vote, there's a good chance they don't contemplate that the cells might be painted pink (actually done in some prisons as apparantly it lowers aggression) or learning how to sew mail bags together either but that doesn't mean these things cannot or should not happen.

It's slightly peculiar when compared to my normal position perhaps but here I'm of the opinion that if you are incarcerated you should lose your right to vote - essentially I view it as a social contract, if you've behaved then you have all rights and privileges that the state attempts to afford you, if/when you haven't then the state has the obligation to take some of them away. In this case voting since by committing a crime you've proved that you have a disrespect for society on some level then why should you be accorded the privilege to vote for changes in that society - once you've served your sentence then by all means vote but until then I don't believe it should be allowed.