Votes For Prisoners

[badass]

Fair enough.

What's passing without a murmur, though, and if it is, is it due to the publicity over this?

I broguht up a Guardian article in another thread about tax breaks for certain multinational businesses. I'm just not sure on how accurate a picture the article prints.
It might not be that however. We may see something else passe whilst this furore is going on.
On the principle of being told what to do by ECJ Judges, there are probably more important things to battle them over.

[Saracen]

....

On the principle of being told what to do by ECJ Judges, there are probably more important things to battle them over.

But if it's the principle, it matters not what the actual issue is. The principle is whether they have jurisdiction or not, or whether they are self-increasing their remit. Or perhaps, whether what they now think their remit is is what it was intended to be, and if not, what we're going to do about it.

[badass]

But if it's the principle, it matters not what the actual issue is. The principle is whether they have jurisdiction or not, or whether they are self-increasing their remit. Or perhaps, whether what they now think their remit is is what it was intended to be, and if not, what we're going to do about it.

Understood. I just think we should save the battle on these principles for something more worthwhile.
Mind you, with europe being in a bit of trouble right now, this could be a highly tactical decision by the coaliation governemnt to get concessions from Europe.
The UK withdrawing from the EU right now could be enough to cause the whole thing to collapse. Whether it is enough or not is not relevant - its whether the politicians believe we would do it over this and whether the risk of it causing the EU to collapse is a significant enough risk.

[Saracen]

Understood. I just think we should save the battle on these principles for something more worthwhile.
Mind you, with europe being in a bit of trouble right now, this could be a highly tactical decision by the coaliation governemnt to get concessions from Europe.
The UK withdrawing from the EU right now could be enough to cause the whole thing to collapse. Whether it is enough or not is not relevant - its whether the politicians believe we would do it over this and whether the risk of it causing the EU to collapse is a significant enough risk.

But, as I said earlier, this is not about the EU. It's abut the ECHR, which is not part of the EU. It happened earlier. We could withdraw from the EU entirely and we'd still be bound by the ECHR. If we withdraw from anything over this (and I don't see it happening, as a practical matter) it'd be from the ECHR.

As for saving it for something more "worthwhile", that was my point - on one level, it's not the issue that matters, it's the principle. If we're saying the Court has exceeded, or self-expanded it's jurisdiction, we absolutely should (IMHO) deal with it now, and how serious the issue is is immaterial, because it's the principle we're dealing with. Otherwise, you risk "function creep", and by the time you take a stand 10 issues down the line, they'll merely say "well, why didn't you raise it on any of the previous nine issues?"

[Lucio]

I don't think the ECHR has expanded beyond it's remit, but it has been given an unnecessarily broad remit within which to work in the first place. To be the sole arbiter of what is "right" for a human to endure in any number of wildly differing circumstances, often without any real understanding of the differences in local culture, is a huge responsibility.

I think the UK has to consider whether it'd be better placed in establishing a point under UK law where the buck stops with our own supreme court, which is already sufficiently disassociated from our government to give fair and impatial judgements.

[badass]

But, as I said earlier, this is not about the EU. It's abut the ECHR, which is not part of the EU. It happened earlier. We could withdraw from the EU entirely and we'd still be bound by the ECHR. If we withdraw from anything over this (and I don't see it happening, as a practical matter) it'd be from the ECHR."

My understanding is that we had to sign up to the ECHR in order to join the EU. Part of agreeing to the ECHR was that we agree that the highest court would become the ECJ.
Perhaps we can withdraw from the ECHR but to do that I'd imagine we'd have to also withdraw from being under the remit of the ECJ since the ECJ sees the ECHR as law.

If we were to withdraw from the ECHR, we would probably be threatened with being kicked out of the EU. However this is at a time when they need us more than ever which is why I was suggesting this might be a highly tactical move by the coalition government.

[Saracen]

My understanding is that we had to sign up to the ECHR in order to join the EU. Part of agreeing to the ECHR was that we agree that the highest court would become the ECJ.
Perhaps we can withdraw from the ECHR but to do that I'd imagine we'd have to also withdraw from being under the remit of the ECJ since the ECJ sees the ECHR as law.

If we were to withdraw from the ECHR, we would probably be threatened with being kicked out of the EU. However this is at a time when they need us more than ever which is why I was suggesting this might be a highly tactical move by the coalition government.

We were one of, if not the most influential drafters of the UCHR, and were one of the founders of it, and one of the original signatories and ratifying states, in 1951, some 22 years before we joined the EEC.

Oh, and also, it being one of my personal pet grievances, we (the people of the UK) never did join the EU.

We were taken into the EEC (and I stress the presence of that second E) by our government without being asked, and we then asked, after all the hugely damaging changes (such as relations with the Commonwealth) had been made, we were asked if we wanted to commit economic suicide by leaving it again. Our government might have joined the EEC, but we , the people, didin't. We just elected to not leave after being presented with a fait accompli. And, in my opinion, that single fact is a major reason why the EEC/EU has always been such a bone of contention in the UK, much more so than in many European states. It lacks true democratic legitimacy here.

And, having been dragged into the EEC by Ted Heath, an act for which I will forever despise and detest the man, we the people have never been allowed to express a view on whether we wanted that Economic agreement to develop into what it has, the political kludge that is the EU.

But even I can't blame this current controversy on the EU ... sadly.

[Tattysnuc]

Not allowing them that right makes a mockery of the whole democratic system, in my opinion. Someone disagrees with you. Lock them up. Problem solved. Onwards and upwards to a dictatorial regime.

Shouldn't the justice system be formed democratically by all citizens? Just because it's the law that everyone should wear clown shoes on the 1st of June or else face the death penalty doesn't mean violators shouldn't be allowed to challenge that law and have it reneged. I know it's hyperbole but there are people in prison for some relatively mild offenses that wouldn't be allowed to vote, and yet there are convicted violent muggers outside prison that would have more rights than people imprisoned for not paying their TV licence fines.

It's not like a few thousand prisoners would be enough to tip the balance to legalise murder and whatnot.

I completely disagree with this statement.

Prison, or any custodial sentence where someone is taken out of society for a period of time is about removing peoples FREEDOM.

In Western culture, and certainly in the UK, freedom is exercised practically via the democratic vote.

If you are in prison you are not free, and therefore do not deserve to have a vote until you are deemed fit to rejoin society.

If taking away a prisioner's vote is against human rights, then basically we are saying that Prison is only to reform people. Prison is SUPPOSED to be about taking away FREEDOM.

[Saracen]

.... and yet there are convicted violent muggers outside prison that would have more rights than people imprisoned for not paying their TV licence fines.

Nobody goes to jail for not paying for a TV licence. It is not an available punishment.

However ..... if you are prosecuted for failing to pay your licence, and are fined, and refuse to pay that .... well, if you persistently refuse to abide by the decision of a court and pay a fine, what do you expect them to do? It's about what, by then, is flipping the "bird" to the authority of the court.

[Saracen]

I completely disagree with this statement.

Prison, or any custodial sentence where someone is taken out of society for a period of time is about removing peoples FREEDOM.

In Western culture, and certainly in the UK, freedom is exercised practically via the democratic vote.

If you are in prison you are not free, and therefore do not deserve to have a vote until you are deemed fit to rejoin society.

If taking away a prisioner's vote is against human rights, then basically we are saying that Prison is only to reform people. Prison is SUPPOSED to be about taking away FREEDOM.

Nicely put. Tatty.

[roachcoach]

I'm torn.

One hand, yes - they've been naughty. One the other - what does it matter if they can?

Is there a "prisoner party" I'm unaware of? Why the 'fear' over giving prisoners the vote?

Frankly I dislike the inconsistency of the way it is implemented - Only some criminals loose the right? There's the whole issue of massive inconsistencies in sentencing criminals. Based on how nice the judge felt that morning, or how 'famous' the miscreant is? To provide an extreme example - look at what it takes to get a celeb locked up vs an ordinary joe.


I think its a nice check in the event some crazy party gets in and just starts rounding up "wrong 'uns" thus denying them to ability to vote them back out. Of course the twist there is said party isn't likely to give a hoot for the results of any vote


Perhaps a middle ground would be they are allowed to vote if their release date is after the coming change of government, but before the next change - that way they have a say in the governing party when they are released, but if they are on a long stretch, they cant influence it and shouldn't need to as they are not outside anyway. Relatively simple, seems fair. Probably too simple for most politicians tastes though, doesn't have nearly enough committees or inquiries

Personally I think they need to sort out consistent punishment first, then worry about what that does/doesnt take away from people.

[Rave]

I completely disagree with this statement.

Prison, or any custodial sentence where someone is taken out of society for a period of time is about removing peoples FREEDOM.

Says who? Is there some statute in UK law that defines what the purpose of sending people to prison is? Because I've missed it if so.

In Western culture, and certainly in the UK, freedom is exercised practically via the democratic vote.

Is it? I get to vote, on average, about once every 1.25 years (council/general elections). I get to choose what I do in a free society every single day.

If you are in prison you are not free, and therefore do not deserve to have a vote until you are deemed fit to rejoin society.

I like the way you state that as if it is a fact, without any supporting arguments at all. Oh wait- no I don't.

If taking away a prisioner's vote is against human rights, then basically we are saying that Prison is only to reform people.

How's that then? There are plenty of poeple imprisoned in this country who have absolutely no chance of ever being released, because they're mad / dangerous / dangerously mad etc.

Peter Sutcliffe for example. The Sun love to run a story every six months about how he's been allowed to eat enough normal food to get fat/ written to his lawyer to launch another ludicrous appeal/ how he's considering appealing to the ECJ to get parole. It's all crap, he's almost certainly never coming out. Do I care if the ECJ grant him the right to a cursory parole hearing every five years which will turn him down for very good reasons? I do not.

So why on earth would I (or you, or anyone else) care if he gets the vote? Do you think there are enough madmen in prison to elect a 'Freedom To Murder Prostitutes Party' MP, even under a strict Proportional Representation system?

Prison is SUPPOSED to be about taking away FREEDOM.

Again you state this as if it is a fact. Justify yourself please, stating which first principles you are starting from, and then detailing the steps of your logical progression.

[aidanjt]

Prison is SUPPOSED to be about taking away FREEDOM.

No, prison is suppose to isolate criminals who would infringe upon the freedoms of the general public, suspending a few of their freedoms in order to do so is a necessary side effect, but not the point in itself. You don't get to torture and torment prisoners before shoving them into a pit to starve and fight amongst themselves. They still have freedoms and rights, at the very least as human beings. It's either prison, or exile, and since all land in the UK has long since been homesteaded, prison is the only viable option to deal with threats to society.

[papap47]

besides, prisoners, especially imprisoned for a long time, wouldn't know who to vote anymore. Most of them don't know what's happening outside the bars.

[psdie]

agreed, i bet 99% of prisoners doing 2-3 years + do not care or vote anyway. giving prisoners yet more rights and making the justice system look like a walk in the park for most. i wonder if they did a poll on how many prisoners care if they vote, the results would be that most couldnt care less. doing crime to warrant a prison stay = loss of rights (within reason) for that time.

+1 - prisons seem to offer so many comforts, there's a danger it becomes a "not so bad" option for drop outs and the homeless - see the vagrant that pretended to have a nail bomb in a shop window, who now has a roof over his head and food paid for by the tax payer.

[Saracen]

Says who? Is there some statute in UK law that defines what the purpose of sending people to prison is? Because I've missed it if so.
....

Legislation? Not that I'm aware of. But there wouldn't be, would there, because the legislation details what, where, when and how. The "why" is government policy.

And on the subject of government policy, it is stated, in writing, that the primary purpose of prison is to deprive convicted offenders of their freedom. It's not the only purpose, but it is the primary one.

For instance, the following quote from a Justice Ministry written response to a Select Committee report ....

We are clear about what prison is for. Prison is first and foremost a punishment - it removes the liberty of offenders, forcing them to comply with a structured, disciplined and tough regime where everyday choices, usually taken for granted, are removed. But it is also a chance for offenders to reform and change their behaviour, and if prison is to work fully in the interests of the community, it needs to help deal with the problems which lead to re-offending.

Whether the removal of the right to vote is or should be one of those "everyday choices" is another argument, but it's pretty clear that a major function of prison is indeed explicitly about curtailing freedom, certainly of physical movement but also in other ways. Examples of that would be that you will be told what options you have for eating, and you'll be told when you're going to do the eating. You'll be told when you have access to recreation, and you'll be told when lights are going out, and when to get up in the morning. And so on. The whole regime, surely, is explicitly about removing freedoms, and not just about going where you please, doing what you please, when you please.