Votes For Prisoners

[Saracen]

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.

That "isolation" is effectively just the "protect the public" element, which is part of the purpose of prison, but far from the whole point. The point, effectively, can be summed up as :-

- punishment
- rehabilitation
- protection.

Clearly, punishment is part of it. You break society's rules, society will punish you. Break them badly enough and that will include prison. Break them very badly and it'll include a long period of prison.

So no, the removal of rights is not just a side-effect - it's a primary purpose. See the above Justice Ministry quote.

But yes, that same society does still regard prisoners as having rights, just not all the rights free members of society have. The most obvious right you don't have is to come and go as you please, but it's far from the only right that's removed from prisoners. On the other hand, you are quite correct that just because you're a prisoner doesn't mean you have no rights at all .... or at least, not in this country is doesn't, and we're talking about this country.

So really, this whole argument comes down to whether the right to vote is one of the rights that prisoners should lose, or one of the rights that they don't. Prisoners do, as a matter of fact and a matter or policy objective, lose rights. Is this, and should it be, one of them?

[roachcoach]

So really, this whole argument comes down to whether the right to vote is one of the rights that prisoners should lose, or one of the rights that they don't. Prisoners do, as a matter of fact and a matter or policy objective, lose rights. Is this, and should it be, one of them?

Yup, but its premature until we can sort out something resembling consistency in our judicial systems, for examples/reasons see my earlier post

[Saracen]

Yup, but its premature until we can sort out something resembling consistency in our judicial systems, for examples/reasons see my earlier post

I don't see it that way. I see it as a separate issue from the things you mentioned, and as not having much bearing on them one way or the other. It is certainly the case that you don't have to remove the vote from all prisoners just because you remove it from some. You just need a rational way to determine what the policy is, which could be length of sentence, length of remaining sentence, permanent removal while incarcerated for specific types of offence (such as violence), etc, or some combination of these and other factors.

I see no logical inconsistency in any of that, any more than I necessarily see logical inconsistency in other aspects of the judicial system. There is, for instance, variability in what you have to do to get sent to prison, or indeed in how long you go down for, because there's a LOT of variability in the circumstances of each and every case. That's why we have judges setting sentences, not a central computer - because they are expected to exercise actual judgement. Do they always get it right? No it my opinion. But I have to temper that opinion with the simple fact that they were in the court, they have the benefit of having heard the evidence and perhaps of having reports from other bodies, like social services, that I don't have access to.

So while some sentences, and even verdicts, strike me as utterly daft, I have to temper that with the fact that I'm usually relying on second-hand reports at best, and often little more than media reporting, whereas judges were there and have the facts.

So yeah, there are certainly some apparent inconsistencies in the system, though some of those are less real than they appear to be when you do get a bit closer to the actual facts, but I can't see how any of that affects the principle of whether prisoners (some or all) should have voting rights or not.

[roachcoach]

In an ideal world, yes.

Keep in mind the level of inconsistencies we can observe.

Consider the likes of Gazza, Pete Docherty and what it finally took to get George Michael nicked (and probably a heap of other people). Any "average" person wouldn't get away with that no matter the judge, they just wouldn't.

Sure, these examples are celebs, but that's kind of the point - creates a "different" class of citizen. I don't like the idea of that tied to voting.

[Saracen]

In an ideal world, yes.

Keep in mind the level of inconsistencies we can observe.

Consider the likes of Gazza, Pete Docherty and what it finally took to get George Michael nicked (and probably a heap of other people). Any "average" person wouldn't get away with that no matter the judge, they just wouldn't.

Sure, these examples are celebs, but that's kind of the point - creates a "different" class of citizen. I don't like the idea of that tied to voting.

I'm not so sure I'd label those as inconsistencies, though perhaps it's semantics. I'd label those as examples of one of the basic flaws in the system, which is that if you have money, you can buy more justice. Obviously, it only goes so far, but if you can afford expensive representation, you'll get out of things that those that can't afford it are stuck with. Justice might be blind, but she sure ain't cheap.

[roachcoach]

You can buy a better lawyer, yes. They can improve the odds of getting off, but they shouldn't be able to influence sentencing if they fail.

Consider Gazza - guilty at 4 times the legal blood alcohol level - any normal punter would (rightly) have the book and probably the shelf it was on thrown at him. Gazza got a suspended sentence and that was after he just didn't bother turning up to the first sentencing hearing.

Dohery was charged with driving dangerously, while drunk, and being in possession of heroin - found guilty - no jail time.

Seriously? No, just no. There's no way a mere mortal would get away with that and its wrong.

You are right in the generic variances with the (I hope) odd outlier, but all the arguments are about prisoners - perhaps they should be about criminals instead? Why is someone jailed because they refuse to pay a fine in protest any "worse" than this whackjob who scoots about pissed behind the wheel (carrying Class-A drugs optional extra)? It's not as if there's a clear line beyond which you'll land in jail; its ethereal, fuzzy and moving at best.

[daniel32885]

In my personal opinion, prisioners should NOT receive the vote. Why should they get to vote for laws they took the options to dis-obey? I believe this is just a way of the prisioners hoping they can vote for a party of law which will release them. NO THANK YOU!

If the prisioner can get out and re-build his life and regain his/her human rights, how does the victim (providing there is one) re-build there own life?