The right of prisoners to vote in Ireland

simu

From the Irish government's site:

Right to Vote
You have a right to be registered in the political constituency where you would normally live if you were not in prison. However, you have no right to be given physical access to a ballot box by temporary release or a postal vote or any other way.

If you happen to be on parole or temporary release at the time of an election, you are free to vote where you are registered.

Your rights if you are on remand are the same as if you were a convicted prisoner.

So, from this I take it that Irish prisoners are not able to vote or is the website out of date?


[edit]And to widen this out - what are people's stances on prisoner voting? I think they should be allowed to vote (by postal vote as diplomats etc already do and in the constituencies where they'd normally be living).[/edit]

Blackjack

As far as I know it still applies.
My own opinion is that it should stand. Once you have been imprisoned, you owe a debt to society, so you should not really have any part to play as regards the shaping of it, until such time as you have completed your sentence.
Mind you, I have not seen that many arguments that would convince me to support Prisoners having a vote,so it would be interested to hear what others had to say on the matter.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

would you be in favour of disallowing *all* criminals to vote? or just those who commited violent crimes? even then.. *all* violent crimes? even crimes of passion, or people who while normally would never dream of commiting such offences did so under the influence of alcahol or other mind altering substances?

Perhaps a banning period? like people lose their driving license for a few years for drink driving, and after this period is over the ex-con's can re apply for their right to vote?
*shrug*

therecklessone

TBH, I can't see any reason to deny a prisoner the right to vote.

Two things from the first post struck me as strange:

If you happen to be on parole or temporary release at the time of an election, you are free to vote where you are registered.

So its where you are, not what you've done, that decides whether you're eligible to vote or not? Doesn't seem fair to me.

Your rights if you are on remand are the same as if you were a convicted prisoner.

So if you're in prison awaiting trial (but not convicted of anything yet) you don'e get to vote? So an actual criminal on temporary release can vote, but a prisoner on remand, and innocent unless proven guilty, can't? Strange, very strange...

Xterminator

therecklessone wrote:

TBH, I can't see any reason to deny a prisoner the right to vote..

Well i can good reason.

All people who vote tend to vote for a candidate who they feel will benifit them, i.e. has there best interests at heart. (EG Farmers and family vote for those who defend the farmers interests)

Can you imagine what kind of person might have convicted criminals best interests at heart?

Convicted felons could help vote in a candidate who has criminal links, and might interfere on their behalf once in power, and/or vote against tougher crime measures etc.

You will notice i say convicted felons, as i am suprised to learn that those in custody, awaiting trial dont get postal ballots or some other arrangement. I do strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty!

X.

leeroybrown

Anyone convicted of a crime should lose their right to vote for the duration of their sentence. Once someone has served their sentence they should then be allowed to vote again as they have served their punishment.

therecklessone

Xterminator wrote:

Well i can good reason.

All people who vote tend to vote for a candidate who they feel will benifit them, i.e. has there best interests at heart. (EG Farmers and family vote for those who defend the farmers interests)

Can you imagine what kind of person might have convicted criminals best interests at heart?

Convicted felons could help vote in a candidate who has criminal links, and might interfere on their behalf once in power, and/or vote against tougher crime measures etc.

So you'd refuse them the vote because of who they might vote for? :eek:

(a) What right have you got to refuse the vote based on voting intentions? Should we refuse the vote to neo-nazis? Islamic fundamentalists?

(b) What's to stop a released prisoner voting for the very candidates that you fear they'd vote for while in prison?

A Dub in Glasgo

Prisoners should be able to vote. There is no democratic reason for not allowing them to vote.

There is no way we should stop people voting on the basis of who they might vote for. Hardly democratic excluding people on this basis.

PH01

The way I understand it is that once you're 'inside' you physically can't vote. That is that a prisoner just can't get out to vote down in Limerick if they are imprisoned in Dublin. That would be a logistical nightmare. Question is are they allowed a postal vote?

Overall it's a good system which we have in Ireland. In some so called developed countries in the world you can lose your vote altogether if you have been convicted of a crime.

therecklessone

PH01 wrote:

Question is are they allowed a postal vote?

No they're not.

I agree with you about the logistics of the ballot box though, definitely a non-runner.

DaBreno

You lose a lot of rights when youre sent to prison : the right to go where you want or do what you want. Losing the right to vote is an extension of this.
I have no problem with it.

therecklessone

DaBreno wrote:

You lose a lot of rights when youre sent to prison

And prisoners on remand? Those that are innocent unless proven guilty?

Orion

Xterminator wrote:

Well i can good reason.

All people who vote tend to vote for a candidate who they feel will benifit them, i.e. has there best interests at heart. (EG Farmers and family vote for those who defend the farmers interests)

Can you imagine what kind of person might have convicted criminals best interests at heart?
X.

Hmmm..... seems this policy of barring people from voting based on who they would vote for has been tried out already. In Florida in 2000.

Amnesiac_ie

I think it is grossly undemocratic to deny prisoners their right to vote. A prisoner remains a citizen while (s)he is incarcerated. I thought a democracy prided itself on allowing it's citizens to choose the government?

bonkey

Blackjack wrote:

My own opinion is that it should stand. Once you have been imprisoned, you owe a debt to society, so you should not really have any part to play as regards the shaping of it, until such time as you have completed your sentence.

Couldn't have said it better.

jc

Gurgle

Prisoners are still citizens of the country.
Every election and referendum that takes place has the potential to change the country forever. All citizens are entitled to their say.
I assume there's some beauracratice red-tape nonsense that prevents putting a polling station in a prison ?

bonkey

Gurgle wrote:

Prisoners are still citizens of the country.

Yes they are. And they are denied many other "rights" that non-incarcerated citizens have (such as, ooh, freedom of movement for one), but I'm pretty sure you're not going to argue they should have those back as well.

Every election and referendum that takes place has the potential to change the country forever. All citizens are entitled to their say.

Really? Even the under-18-years-old citizens? Should we give votes to 2-year-olds? Newborns?

Or when you said "all", did you mean "more than at present".

I assume there's some beauracratice red-tape nonsense that prevents putting a polling station in a prison ?

I'd imagine its the red-tape nonsense that says the prisoners don't have a vote, so putting a polling station in the prison would be a waste of time really.

Could it be done? Probably.

jc

DaBreno

therecklessone wrote:

And prisoners on remand? Those that are innocent unless proven guilty?

To clarify, my post refers to convicted prisoners, not those yet to be proven guilty.

Gurgle

bonkey wrote:

Yes they are. And they are denied many other "rights" that non-incarcerated citizens have (such as, ooh, freedom of movement for one), but I'm pretty sure you're not going to argue they should have those back as well.

Thats the punishment.
Losing your vote isn't.

bonkey wrote:

Really? Even the under-18-years-old citizens? Should we give votes to 2-year-olds? Newborns?

:rolleyes:
Dis discussion has been done.

bonkey wrote:

Or when you said "all", did you mean "more than at present".

No, I meant you shouldn't automatically lose your right to vote while incarcerated. If this is to be be part of the punishment, it should on an equal basis. Either all prisoners (or all prisoners who were incarcerated for the same 'type' of crime) should have the right and oppertunity to vote or none of them.

Losing your vote is a side-effect of not having the freedom to move around. If you can vote on day-release or on parole, it puts political power in the hands of those who decide who gets day-release on a particular day.

Stretched to the limits of how that power could be abused, a FF (or whatever) supporting governor (or whoever) could 'arrange' things so that the FF (or whatever) supporting prisoners would get day-release for the day of the vote.

Its a stretch to see this making a difference, especially in our political system.

simu

There's an interesting article here on this topic.

The right to vote is an inalienable human right enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Looks like we're denying prisoners their human rights in Ireland.

bonkey

Gurgle wrote:

Thats the punishment.
Losing your vote isn't.

Losing your vote is part of the punishment.
I think you meant that it shouldn't be.

:rolleyes:
Dis discussion has been done.

Not in this thread that I can see....but anyway...

The point - whether the discussion has been done or not - is that you're choosing to view the rights of adult non-incarcerated citizens as being the rights of "citizens in general". and then (presumably) clarifying that its really "citizens who I think should have these rights" that you're referring to.

No, I meant you shouldn't automatically lose your right to vote while incarcerated.

But so far the only reason for this seems to be that its because it is / should be a right....which it isn't. Its an entitlement which is limited to sub-sections of the population, and the question is whether or not the definition of which sub-sections are entitled to this should be changed to include prisoners.

If this is to be be part of the punishment, it should on an equal basis. Either all prisoners (or all prisoners who were incarcerated for the same 'type' of crime) should have the right and oppertunity to vote or none of them.

The law does not permit anyone who is currently incarcerated to vote. Just like it doesn't allow anyone who is currently incarcerated to have freedom of movement. No-one has pointed out any exceptions to the "locked up == no vote", so I don't see how you're making out that its not on an equal basis.

(I'm about to address why the stated exceptions of parole and temporary release don't make it an unequal basis).

Losing your vote is a side-effect of not having the freedom to move around.

You can view it that way. Or you can say that both the right to vote and the right to freedom of movement are both curtailed by incarceration.

Just as someone on parole / temporary release has been given back their right to freedom of movement within the state, they have also been given back their right to vote.

Again, it seems consistent to me, unless you think that parole and/or temporary release are also fundamentally unfair, in that they give the recipients' freedoms/rights/entitlements that those who remain incarcerated don't get.

If you can vote on day-release or on parole, it puts political power in the hands of those who decide who gets day-release on a particular day.

Yes it does.

It also opens them to criminal prosecution if they were ever found to have used that power, because to do so would be in direct contravention of the law which states that prisoners "have no right to be given physical access to a ballot box by temporary release".

Stretched to the limits of how that power could be abused, a FF (or whatever) supporting governor (or whoever) could 'arrange' things so that the FF (or whatever) supporting prisoners would get day-release for the day of the vote.

To do so in numbers beyond the trivial would be noticeable, though, and you can be damned sure that whoever the opposition party was to the guv'ner's choice would commence legal proceedings.

Its a stretch to see this making a difference, especially in our political system.

I agree.

Realistically, its not ever going to be about what impact the incarcerated would have on an election were they allowed to vote.

jc

therecklessone

bonkey wrote:

The law does not permit anyone who is currently incarcerated to vote. Just like it doesn't allow anyone who is currently incarcerated to have freedom of movement.

But loss of freedom of movement is a by-product of incarceration, loss of one's vote is not (or doesn't necessarily need to be). I'd like to hear a reason to remove a citizen's entitlement to vote once imprisoned that is not based on whether they are behind prison walls or not.

The fact that we currently allow the vote to prisoners on temporary release but deny it to prisoners on remand suggests that this is an exercise in logistics and nothing more. Why should a prisoner allowed out on a daily basis to work retain the right to vote while a priosner on remand be denied the same right?

bonkey

therecklessone wrote:

Why should a prisoner allowed out on a daily basis to work retain the right to vote while a priosner on remand be denied the same right?

One could just as easily ask why some prisoners are allowed out on a daily basis to work while others are denied the same right.

Its the same question, and it has the same answer

The fact that we currently allow the vote to prisoners on temporary release but deny it to prisoners on remand suggests that this is an exercise in logistics and nothing more

As I said...you can choose to view it that way. I see it differently. I see a reason why some people are kept on remand, and others not. I see a reason why some prisoners get early parole and others don't. I see a reason why some prisoners are granted day-passes and/or temporary leaves while others are not.

All of those reasons are connected....and so it would seem reasonable to conclued that another one which says that treating the former group (those who get the more lenient treatments) differently to the latter (those who don't get the more lenient treatments) when it comes to giving them their vote is also based on the same logic.

I can't see a logicistical reason why giving them the vote would be problematic, so I find it hard to just dismiss it as an exercise in logistics....but like I said, thats just me.

simu wrote:

Looks like we're denying prisoners their human rights in Ireland

Really? I can pretty-much guarantee you that every one of those documents of rights will contain something somewhere which compares to 29.2 of the UDHR:

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

subject to such limitations.....respect....meeting just requirements of morality, public order....

I think its fair to say that anyone serving a criminal sentence has not met the requirements of morality and/or public order on which their rights rest. Now, thats "just" the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the backbone on which most other documents of rights rest, but if you check any other declaration of rights you will generally find that they too have similar riders.

jc

Hagar

Given that not all citizens entitled to vote actually do so...
And at the risk of sounding pompous...
Do the criminal classes vote anyway?
They don't strike me as a civic minded body of people.

A Dub in Glasgo

Hagar wrote:

Given that not all citizens entitled to vote actually do so...
And at the risk of sounding pompous...
Do the criminal classes vote anyway?
They don't strike me as a civic minded body of people.

Corrupt politicians don't sound a bunch of civic minded body of people yet they not only can vote but they get handsomely paid by the taxpayer.

If a prisoner can demonstrate that they have an interest in politics and they have exercised their right on a previus occassion, do we let them vote?

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

As I said...you can choose to view it that way. I see it differently. I see a reason why some people are kept on remand, and others not..

What is the reason? People remanded in custody are guilty anyway?

Amnesiac_ie

If you equate the right to vote with the right to freedom of movement, why not deny the right to vote to hospital patients, the physically disbaled etc?

If a prisoner is allowed vote if (s)he happens to be on day release on polling day, I think it is grossly unfair to deny the right to vote to those who are incarcerated on the day.

Gurgle

Hagar wrote:

Given that not all citizens entitled to vote actually do so...
And at the risk of sounding pompous...
Do the criminal classes vote anyway?
They don't strike me as a civic minded body of people.

What are the criminal classes ?
Everyone in prison ?

What about someone jailed for protesting against bin taxes ?

Or vandalising a warplane belonging to a foreign crusading army, using Irish airports against the wishes of the vast majority of the population ?

What about someone sent to jail for 2 weeks for not paying a TV license fine sent to the wrong address ?

I object to murderers, rapists etc being allowed to breath, never mind vote but they aren't the only ones occupying our nation's prison cells.

Hagar

Gurgle wrote:

What are the criminal classes ?
Everyone in prison ?

Being in prison would define someone as a criminal in my mind regardless of the offence. If they are in prison as a result of an unjust law they must still be classed as criminals untill the law is changed. We can call them martyrs afterwards if you like.

There are also criminals who have not yet been apprehended.
I doubt if many of them will be caught on their way to the polling boothes.

pickarooney

Just to play devil's advocate here, if we had an outbreak of SARS or similar infection requiring quarantine, would people affected (by the quarantine if not necessarily by the virus) be allowed to vote?

tribble

How can denying prisoners the right to vote be construed as being democratic?

They have been convicted for breaking a law.
Laws change regularly (1990 homosexual act = criminal offence).

If you deny the people the right to change those laws then law itself is undermined as it can't be changed by the people who disagree with it - that's called a dictatorship (or US justice).

tribble

bonkey

Amnesiac_ie wrote:

If you equate the right to vote with the right to freedom of movement, why not deny the right to vote to hospital patients, the physically disbaled etc?

Because to do so would be to confuse the distinction between the right to freedom of movement, and the ability to move freely.

If you deny the people the right to change those laws then law itself is undermined as it can't be changed by the people who disagree with it

No, it can't be changed by those who are serving time for having broken it at the time of any relevant vote, not by those who disagree with it. There's again a clear distinction that you're not making.

jc

Sleepy

If you can't abide by the law of the land, why should you have a voice in changing it?

Sure, people held on remand have a case to get their vote made, but how many people are actually held on remand that aren't guilty? I'd say it's quite a low number to be fair.

Gurgle

bonkey wrote:

No, it can't be changed by those who are serving time for having broken it at the time of any relevant vote, not by those who disagree with it. There's again a clear distinction that you're not making.
jc

Hypothetical situation:
There is a public vote coming up to decide on the legal status of cannabis. Just before the vote, the gardaì are sent out on a crusade to arrest as many people as humanly possible for possesion. All the smokers are held for the day when the vote is on, it stays illegal by 51% v 49%.

Is that democracy in action ?

Under current legislation, all those people (tens if not hundreds of thousands) are criminals. I know of nobody who has ever been arrested for possesion but thats a matter of policy not law.

Back to the point:
Whether right or wrong, criminals have the right to vote.
They don't have the right of access to a polling station.
Whatever the effect, either incidental or deliberate, that is a loophole and loopholes can be (and sooner or later will be) exploited.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

but how many people are actually held on remand that aren't guilty? I'd say it's quite a low number to be fair.

Surely that is irrelevant if you agree with the 'Innocent until proven guilty' principle

tribble

Sleepy wrote:

If you can't abide by the law of the land, why should you have a voice in changing it?

If I were living in a perfect democracy then I'd agree with you - but we don't and it is often necessary for a significant number of people to be seen to break the law before the law is changed.

Sleepy wrote:

Sure, people held on remand have a case to get their vote made, but how many people are actually held on remand that aren't guilty? I'd say it's quite a low number to be fair.

By that same logic, why should one bother to vote at all!

bonkey wrote:

No, it can't be changed by those who are serving time for having broken it at the time of any relevant vote, not by those who disagree with it. There's again a clear distinction that you're not making.

I see your point but do not agree with it because of lazy way we have of balloting only when it becomes apparent that the law is being flouted.

Gurgle

pickarooney wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate here, if we had an outbreak of SARS or similar infection requiring quarantine, would people affected (by the quarantine if not necessarily by the virus) be allowed to vote?

Yes, electronically

Elmo

What about a special TD for prisoners.

Should a Murder be allowed vote?

Where do you draw the line?

bonkey

Well, apparently you don't draw it, Elmo. At least, thats the inescapable conclusion for anyone who believes that its a Human Right. If it is, then it doesn't matter what number of inhumane acts someone has done, nor how heinous they were....they still get to vote.

Personally I disagree with that, but if its the EU's official stance, then Ireland should revise its laws to be in compliance with that.

jc

Elmo

Personally I disagree with that, but if its the EU's official stance, then Ireland should revise its laws to be in compliance with that.

Does Ireland have to comply with everything that the EU does?

A Dub in Glasgo

Elmo wrote:

Does Ireland have to comply with everything that the EU does?

Yes, we gave it all up many years ago

Elmo

Yes, we gave it all up many years ago

Suppose we should all be happy with it so.


I think I will start voting FG. Not much point voting in people who do things when every thing is done for us in Brussels.

Victor

Xterminator wrote:

Can you imagine what kind of person might have convicted criminals best interests at heart?

Fianna Fáil?

Victor

Bonkey, stop trolling. It's not fair.

Sleepy wrote:

Sure, people held on remand have a case to get their vote made, but how many people are actually held on remand that aren't guilty? I'd say it's quite a low number to be fair.

Perhaps, even probably.

But there was a guy released last year after spending 18 months in Cloverhill (or is it Wheatfield, same complex). Charged with rape. Not previously identified by the victim prior to court. Based on description used by Gardaí. Description said 5'6", he was 6'5".

Anyway, how about we lock up lots of people (arbitarily or based on political bias, your choice) and not allow them to vote?

pickarooney wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate here, if we had an outbreak of SARS or similar infection requiring quarantine, would people affected (by the quarantine if not necessarily by the virus) be allowed to vote?

I imagine they would be entitled to postal / special voting (if they registered in time).