I just had a horrible thought - please reassure me regarding prison voting.

The_Minister

As you all know, the Supreme court recently ruled that we had to let prisoners vote. I disagree with this, but thats another thread.
What chilled me, is the question of where they will vote. If they vote in their home areas, then their votes will be spread out. But, what if they have to vote in the area within which they reside? That will mean that every area with a jail will have a few hundred extra votes, and most elections are decided by less than that, so prisoners will get to determine several TDs:eek: .
Think of it! TDs beholden to prisoners for their seats. That is not something that I want to see. Leaving aside the fact that most of them will vote Sinn Fein, it could lead to a situation where parties campaign for lighter sentencing!
Someone tell me that I'm wrong and that they will vote where they lived before they went to prison.

aidan_walsh

I'm thinking mandatory postal voting.

Villain

The_Minister wrote:

Leaving aside the fact that most of them will vote Sinn Fein

Thats a very intelligent comment, well researched, well presented and above all well proven :rolleyes:

The_Minister

irish1 wrote:

Thats a very intelligent comment, well researched, well presented and above all well proven :rolleyes:

Sinn Fein themselves call themselves the "party of the dispossessed", the marginalised, who fits in there more than prisoners.
This isn't the issue though. I want someone to be able to give me a definitive answer, will prisoners decide several seats in the next election?

daithimac

ye i'm sure there are a few in there who were kneecapped by the ra and wouldn't vote shin fein for love nor money:)

daithimac

seriously though. i would think that it would operate in the same manner as soilders who are stationed away from there homes.

flogen

daithimac wrote:

seriously though. i would think that it would operate in the same manner as soilders who are stationed away from there homes.

You can't compare soldiers to criminals, where do you think we are, America?

Seriously though, I'd imagine it would indeed be a postal vote; I find it hard to believe they'd put them as part of the local constituency; the thought of politicians canvassing gangsters isn't at all appealing.

mike65

Politicans have been canvasing gangsters for decades now!

Mike.

constitutionus

i have a sneeking suspicion they'll have to vote where theyre predominatly domicile. i.e the constituancy of the the prison. hey maybe thats why macdowel is so hot for thornton hall

the logical thing would be postal votes, but our governments arent exactly renowned for that particular prowess

gurramok

The_Minister wrote:

.
Leaving aside the fact that most of them will vote Sinn Fein, it could lead to a situation where parties campaign for lighter sentencing!
.

Please provide proof that at least 10%+ of the electorate and at least 20%+ up north are criminals?
I've voted for SF, FF, Greens in my lifetime, does that mean i'm a criminal???

Anyway, don't know why your concerned, the prison system is not that populated to effect any election outcome unless the majority of the public are criminals as well.

flogen

mike65 wrote:

Politicans have been canvasing gangsters for decades now!

Mike.

You've made a terrible mistake there, mike... you left the word 'canvasing' in by accident.

Time Magazine

gurramok wrote:

Please provide proof that at least 10%+ of the electorate and at least 20%+ up north are criminals?

Aside from the obvious count of people who have speeding tickets to their name etc., his argument is not commutative. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that a large proportion of criminals would vote Sinn Féin, even in the absence of empirical evidence either way; but this does not propose that a large proportion of Sinn Féin voters are criminals.*

flogen wrote:

You've made a terrible mistake there, mike... you left the word 'canvasing' in by accident.

I think he meant to leave it in, as in the only difference is that they canvass .

*That's purely coincidence...

J.S. Pill

The_Minister wrote:

But, what if they have to vote in the area within which they reside? That will mean that every area with a jail will have a few hundred extra votes, and most elections are decided by less than that, so prisoners will get to determine several TDs:eek: .
Think of it! TDs beholden to prisoners for their seats.

Get to determine? Beholden to? Think about those words for one second mate. Expand that logic - if a all the workers of a Jacobs Biscuit factory were concentrated in one constituency would politicians suddenly adopt a radical biscuit friendly agenda at the expense of everyone else? (weird example but I'm eating a fig roll). They would be 'beholden' to a given group who command a few hundred votes only insofar as support for this group doesn't detract from support from all other significant groups.

The_Minister

gurramok wrote:

Please provide proof that at least 10%+ of the electorate and at least 20%+ up north are criminals?
I've voted for SF, FF, Greens in my lifetime, does that mean i'm a criminal???

Anyway, don't know why your concerned, the prison system is not that populated to effect any election outcome unless the majority of the public are criminals as well.

Not all Sinners are criminals, but I suspect that most criminals are shinners:D

I'm worried because if they vote in the constituencies where they reside (where the prison is located) then they have enough to tip the scales of elections, and I have a real problem with criminals being able to do that.
Elections in our system are often only won by tiny margins - thats why politicians go for every vote.

Time Magazine

Fig Roll Man, The_Minister has a point. I'm not too well up on the location of our prisions, but let's say there's one in Kerry South.

This is the result of the last GE in Kerry South. Look how close it is for that seat. A couple of hundred votes can be everything.

Here's another random result. Damn close.

mackerski

Ibid wrote:

This is the result of the last GE in Kerry South. Look how close it is for that seat. A couple of hundred votes can be everything.

Of course, in that same election in Kerry North the poll was topped by a Shinner who also just happened to be a criminal.

Dermot

Just My View

Well they could always vote FF, Ray Burke for instance, oh wait...

Villain

Just My View wrote:

Well they could always vote FF, Ray Burke for instance, oh wait...

ROFL, excellent point.

Perhaps rather than trying to guess WHO the prisoners might vote for, it might be worth thinking about how many prisoners would actually bother voting.

Victor

Will the privacy of these postal votes be respected by the prison censor?

fly_agaric

The_Minister wrote:

Think of it! TDs beholden to prisoners for their seats. That is not something that I want to see. Leaving aside the fact that most of them will vote Sinn Fein, it could lead to a situation where parties campaign for lighter sentencing!

Don't you think deliberately and obviously courting a recidivist criminal vote in some way because your constituency has a prison in it would tend to alienate and maybe enrage all those other voters/interest groups who are not criminals?
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it!:rolleyes:

BTW, why shouldn't prisoners be able to vote? (actually, maybe don't answer - will probably derail the thread...)

Tricity Bendix

J.S. Pill wrote:

Get to determine? Beholden to? Think about those words for one second mate. Expand that logic - if a all the workers of a Jacobs Biscuit factory were concentrated in one constituency would politicians suddenly adopt a radical biscuit friendly agenda at the expense of everyone else? (weird example but I'm eating a fig roll). They would be 'beholden' to a given group who command a few hundred votes only insofar as support for this group doesn't detract from support from all other significant groups.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine such a group of madeup politicians becoming very vocal about the need to protect the jobs of workers at said biscuit factory from cheaper biscuits imported from Eastern Europe. Politicians might also be tempted to fight for better working conditions for those in the confectionary industry in an effort to keep their seats.

If a politician comes out lovely little sound bites like 'prison doesn't work' or 'we need to be harder on the roots of crime, not criminals', it isn't impossible to imagine them picking up a significant votes from prisoners without seriously impacting the vote they would get from the general population.

A scary prospect indeed. The Supreme Court kicks the country in the balls once more.

The_Minister

fly_agaric wrote:

BTW, why shouldn't prisoners be able to vote? (actually, maybe don't answer - will probably derail the thread...)

Humanities FTW

But, seriously, can anyone give me a definitive answer? Not a, I suppose, or an I'd presume, but a real answer. Because if not, then I'm going to write to McDowell about this. I feel really uncomfortable living in a society where elected representatives owe their jobs to criminals, and those representatives may one day control the position of Minister of Justice.

EDIT: I'm not normally this reactionary, but this is something that I feel strongly about.

mackerski

fly_agaric wrote:

BTW, why shouldn't prisoners be able to vote?

Citizens of a free country get to exercise a number of rights. One of them, for instance, is being allowed to serve on a jury. This is a right that is also revoked from prisoners. I suppose it's easy enough to see why. Certainly, you'd think that a breaker of laws might not be fit to judge defendants under those same laws.

As for voting, that's the right to choose the people who make the laws. Now, we have a cushy enough criminal justice system compared to certain other countries, not that I'd want to be on the wrong side of it myself. Not getting to vote seems a small (and warranted) curtailment of an imprisoned citizen's rights IMHO.

Dermot

Villain

Can you give a me link to some news article on this decision.

Also I doubt the numbers are going to make that much difference:

As of 23rd June 2006, the number of prisoners in each prison was as follows;

Institution / Number in Custody Mountjoy (m) / 495
Mountjoy (f) / 87
St Patrick’s / 192
Cork / 261
Limerick (m) / 277
Limerick (f) / 17
Castlerea / 210
Cloverhill / 382
Wheatfield / 377
Portlaoise / 112
Arbour Hill / 138
Training Unit / 91
Midlands / 439
Loughan / 103
Shelton Abbey / 56
Totals / 3237

The_Minister

irish1 wrote:

Also I doubt the numbers are going to make that much difference:

All it takes is a few hundred to tip several areas.

Villain

Any chance of a link to this story??

The_Minister

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1586168,00.html

The Press Release:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Oct/GrandChamberJudgmentHirstvUK061005.html

Villain

I thought you said the Supreme court had ruled here??

The last time I know of our supreme court ruling on this was:

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=448228&issue_id=4611

wow sierra

The prisoners will be voting by post in the constituency they lived in prior to going to prison not in the constituency that the prison is located in. I dont think we needed to worry about prisoners campaigning for shorter sentences -the lack of prison spaces ensures short sentences as it is.

Victor

It would have much more impact in a local election than a national one.

Of course, in forming a constituency, does one count the prison population or not (its difficult not to).

aidan24326

Ibid wrote:

Aside from the obvious count of people who have speeding tickets to their name etc., his argument is not commutative. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that a large proportion of criminals would vote Sinn Féin, even in the absence of empirical evidence either way; but this does not propose that a large proportion of Sinn Féin voters are criminals.*

I think he meant to leave it in, as in the only difference is that they canvass .

*That's purely coincidence...

Yeah, a hyphen would have been appropriate, as in canvassing-gangsters.

Villain

So can someone clarify the situation here, is this a ruling from the European Court on human rights or is this a ruling from the Irish Supreme court as the OP stated??

The_Minister

irish1 wrote:

I thought you said the Supreme court had ruled here??

****. I ment the EU court. Sorry about that. I didn't realise that I had said the Supreme Court.
The outcome is (I think) the same.

Villain

I'm not sure it is actually, but I'm not certain.

Diogenes

The_Minister wrote:

Humanities FTW

But, seriously, can anyone give me a definitive answer? Not a, I suppose, or an I'd presume, but a real answer. Because if not, then I'm going to write to McDowell about this. I feel really uncomfortable living in a society where elected representatives owe their jobs to criminals, and those representatives may one day control the position of Minister of Justice.

EDIT: I'm not normally this reactionary, but this is something that I feel strongly about.

Oh FFS this is postively assine.

Firstly you're working on the assumption that the entirity of the prison population will act as a mass voting block for one candiate. Then you're working off the assumption that SF is the criminal's party of choice, I'm not denying that there are links to SF's paramilitary wing and criminal elements, but claiming that SF is the party of criminals choice is a profound leap of logic. And finally you're assuming that every prisoner will avail of this opportunity to vote.

Then we move to the politcians owning their job and catering to the criminal element to garner votes. Jesus. What incentives could a politcan offer these prisoners to garner votes? Shorter sentences? Less Gardai on the street?

Did it possibly occur to you that any small gain they'd get from a few hundred prisoners would be nothing compared to the massive loses they'd get, in the ordinary population, from announcing such policies? They may as well hand their constituency to the opposition once word got out. It would be politcial hari kari, this is phemonially basic stuff here.

No one is going to pander to get criminal's votes. This is an inane fear.

Villain

You know I don't think is actually an issue here.

From BBC.co.uk:

What happens if rulings made by the Court of Justice contradict judgements made by individual national states and the European Court of Human Rights?

At the moment, the supreme courts of individual states are subject to the control of the European Court of Human Rights, which sits in Strasbourg and adjudicates on the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, if a national government chose to ignore a European Court ruling, there would be no way to resolve the conflict apart from political negotiations.

The Court of Justice adjudicates on purely EU matters.

If the charter became law, a mechanism would have to be worked out to allow a single jurisprudence - probably the European Court in Strasbourg - to interpret the law.

The_Minister

Diogenes wrote:

And finally you're assuming that every prisoner will avail of this opportunity to vote.

They are bored in there and angry at the state. They have the time, and all it would take would be for one man to rouse them. We lose out by voting because we could be doing something else, they don't.
SF have said numerous times that this kind of person (those marginalised from society) are the kind of people that vote for them.

Diogenes wrote:

Then we move to the politcians owning their job and catering to the criminal element to garner votes. Jesus. What incentives could a politcan offer these prisoners to garner votes? Shorter sentences? Less Gardai on the street?

They may campaign for greater freedoms for prisoners such as conjugal visits or more TV time, under the auspices of human rights. They may wish to bias the parole board. There is much that they could do without people copping on and making the connection. They wouldn't touch the hot button issues such as Gardaí numbers, but there are many things that they adopt.

Diogenes wrote:

Did it possibly occur to you that any small gain they'd get from a few hundred prisoners would be nothing compared to the massive loses they'd get, in the ordinary population, from announcing such policies? They may as well hand their constituency to the opposition once word got out. It would be politcial hari kari, this is phemonially basic stuff here.

Sinn Fein do not have a great Law and Order vote. They have been connected to criminality numerous times, without any large loss in the polls. For FG or FF or PDs you would be right, but not for SF.

Diogenes

The_Minister wrote:

They are bored in there and angry at the state. They have the time, and all it would take would be for one man to rouse them.

Yeah in one constitency at most.

We lose out by voting because we could be doing something else, they don't.

Whut? Seriously? Whut? We "lose out"? Voting takes at most half an hour (including walking to the station) They could be doing plenty of other things as well getting high, picking fights, having a shower, this is such a non point.

SF have said numerous times that this kind of person (those marginalised from society) are the kind of people that vote for them.

Thats reaching, seriously reaching. Sinn Fein would not say they're the thieving scumbag's party. They'd say the party for minorities, the underprivliged etc...Whether they are or not is another matter, but it's a massive leap to suggest SF would court the prisoner vote.

I mean for example one of the reason for SFs support in the north inner city of dublin, is their paramilitaries wing's involvment in removing drug dealers from the inner city back in the 80s. I think you'll find their hardline stance aganist drug dealers involved policies that I doubt McDowell would agree to.

To suggest that SF will now court those they dealt with roughly a decade ago, successfully, while not marginalising their base support is incredibly naive.

They may campaign for greater freedoms for prisoners such as conjugal visits or more TV time, under the auspices of human rights. They may wish to bias the parole board. There is much that they could do without people copping on and making the connection. They wouldn't touch the hot button issues such as Gardaí numbers, but there are many things that they adopt.
Sinn Fein do not have a great Law and Order vote.

Please, get a grip. Again no one has ever won an election announcing that they are "soft on crime". Any politican who wandered around demanding more rights for prisoners is going to get slayed by the opposition.

Seriously this is just rampant speculation of the kind of Helen Lovejoy variety that has no basis in reality. There are many actual issues that will effect the next general election getting freaked out by something that isn't going to happen is assine.

They have been connected to criminality numerous times, without any large loss in the polls. For FG or FF or PDs you would be right, but not for SF.

No they've been connected to a paramilitary organisation that, apparently the irish people feel was okay to engage in criminal activities for decades. Now I don't think thats right, but apparently thats okay with the majority of the electorate.

Theres a huge leap to suggest that SF are the party that is going to court the joyriding, mugging, junky vote. Theres an even bigger leap to suggest that such a group will vote as a block, theres a massive leap to think that the prison population vote could swing an election, esp. when you consider the negative effect among the general voter population.

I'm not saying you're making some massive assumptions and leaps here. I'm saying you're Evil bloody Kneivle and theres about nine double decker buses behind you.

J.S. Pill

b.ie curious wrote:

It is not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine such a group of madeup politicians becoming very vocal about the need to protect the jobs of workers at said biscuit factory from cheaper biscuits imported from Eastern Europe. Politicians might also be tempted to fight for better working conditions for those in the confectionary industry in an effort to keep their seats.

If a politician comes out lovely little sound bites like 'prison doesn't work' or 'we need to be harder on the roots of crime, not criminals', it isn't impossible to imagine them picking up a significant votes from prisoners without seriously impacting the vote they would get from the general population.

A scary prospect indeed. The Supreme Court kicks the country in the balls once more.

My point is simply that just because an election may be determined by a hundred votes it doesn't mean that a party is going to identify a subgroup that makes up 100 votes and concentrate on securing the votes of that group to the detriment of the interests of other groups. It will try to capture the votes of as many groups as it can.

Your second paragraph seems to recognise this and yes, the key to any kind of strategy would be to mobilise any 100 or so group without alienating any other groups. Needless to say this is always going to be a very delicate balancing for any party to do but that's politics for you. Even if a given policy doesn't impact on the interests of the majority directly (e.g. tough on the causes of crime, support the biscuit workers) the perceived support for a villified group (prisioners, unions) that advocating those policies may generate can be a vote loser.
In any event, as one poster kindly pointed out, the numbers are too small to be of much consequence to say nothing of the issue of voter turnout among the prison population.

In sum, I wouldn't worry about politicians promising to remove the VAT on crowbars any time soon...

gurramok

The_Minister wrote:

They are bored in there and angry at the state. They have the time, and all it would take would be for one man to rouse them. We lose out by voting because we could be doing something else, they don't.
SF have said numerous times that this kind of person (those marginalised from society) are the kind of people that vote for them.


They may campaign for greater freedoms for prisoners such as conjugal visits or more TV time, under the auspices of human rights. They may wish to bias the parole board. There is much that they could do without people copping on and making the connection. They wouldn't touch the hot button issues such as Gardaí numbers, but there are many things that they adopt.
Sinn Fein do not have a great Law and Order vote. They have been connected to criminality numerous times, without any large loss in the polls. For FG or FF or PDs you would be right, but not for SF.

Thats very odd.
I'm from one of those 'marginalised' communties as you describe, we ain't a bunch of criminals you'd be surprised to know and yet the lack of a garda presence and pursuit of criminals was a huge factor in the populace sinking a vote in the ballot box for them last time around.

marginalised /= prisoners

How do you know they don't have a 'great law and order' vote, can you elaborate?
Has it occurred to you that this so-called connection to criminality as you describe without any large loss in the polls is that, just maybe the electorate don't believe everything thats written in the papers and judge what happens on the ground in their neighbourhoods.
Your original post rekindles of a Evening Herald tabloid type sensationist headline with no substantiation and creating fear that less than 4000 of the populaton can influence Govt policy.

mackerski

gurramok wrote:

How do you know they don't have a 'great law and order' vote, can you elaborate?

How about having criminals stand for election? To be fair, it worked for them. Looks like there's crossover appeal after all.

Dermot

gurramok

mackerski wrote:

How about having criminals stand for election? To be fair, it worked for them. Looks like there's crossover appeal after all.

Dermot

Haha, same political shot can be aimed at FF drunk drivers convicted in the courts still sitting as TD's, remember a certain nurse knocked down in central dublin nevermind a certain donegal minister driving wrong way up the Nass rd?!

Please list these criminal election candidates, we all know about Ferris who had served his time for political offences and seems to have not stopped the people of kerry electing him, are the electorate criminals as well in your eyes?

The_Minister

Doesn't matter anyway. I met McDowell today and asked him. They are going to postal vote.

Diogenes

The_Minister wrote:

Doesn't matter anyway. I met McDowell today and asked him. They are going to postal vote.

Wow I was fairly convinced he wasnt allowed direct contact with sunlight, the things you find out.

I'm glad your rather assine fear has been laid to rest, you'll let convicts vote provided the vote doesn't matter much.

Wow democracy in action.:rolleyes:

The_Minister

Diogenes wrote:

I'm glad your rather assine fear has been laid to rest, you'll let convicts vote provided the vote doesn't matter much.

My fears weren't so "assine" that the Minister for Jstice didn't need to be told why I was asking.

Diogenes wrote:

Yeah in one constitency at most.

I have a real problem with prisoner's having any representative in government, who owes is seat in any way to them. Call me an idealist, but I don't think that they should get the remotest say in who becomes Minister for Justice

keynesian

The_Minister wrote:

I have a real problem with prisoner's having any representative in government, who owes is seat in any way to them.

Call me an idealist, but I don't think that they should get the remotest say in who becomes Minister for Justice

Your so conservitive, it's funny. I take it you don't beleave in reform or that "ciminal" think about any think other then there prison sentince. I'm sure they don't have familys! Or even think, the reason their in jail is because of lack of jobs, education and maybe they never get sick.

Plus I'm sure the having a high consintration and easy accessable ppl (poor basterds would have to lisen) would make it easy for politition to canviss and tip the balance, ur right Ibib. I'm also sure every politition would be in like a shout to do so.

But while we are at it, we should take votes away from traviler, those who didn't pass the leaving cert, elderly, foriner, poor ppl in genral, and was it really a good Idea to give women the vote.

Your view on criminals will not help solve the fact that there are criminals. The more you disifracise ppl the more they act out side the pale.

Diogenes

The_Minister wrote:

My fears weren't so "assine" that the Minister for Jstice didn't need to be told why I was asking.

This would be the same Minister for justice who uses parliamentary priviledge to make unsubstantiated allegations, scaremonger, and smear his political opponents? The same minister who read a bill into session entirely in Irish to avoid debate of it? The same Minister who went on Morning Ireland to rant about Indymedia?

Yeah, I'm thinking such wild speculation and scaremongering like your "fear" was right up his alley.

I have a real problem with prisoner's having any representative in government, who owes is seat in any way to them. Call me an idealist, but I don't think that they should get the remotest say in who becomes Minister for Justice

For starts I'd recommend a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "idealist" because the attitude you're presenting is nothing of the sort.

Leaving aside the bleeding obvious that the electorate are rarly allowed know who will hold what government position after an election, suggesting that convicts, have even the remotest say in who becomes Minister for Justice.

Needless to say you've not given an iota of evidence to support your claim that SF is the criminal's party of choice. Or that any politican wouldn't be commiting political suicide by pandering to the 4,000 prisoners in this country. Or that such a voting block has any really power. Or for that matter is even a voting block who will vote in unison.

So theses are such non points that they should be dismissed with a snort of derision.

Lets look at the "idealism" of your attitude that prisoners should not be allowed to vote. You're basically suggesting prisoners shouldn't have a fundamental democratic right on the off chance that they might use such a right in a manner that is objectional to your politics. Which is essentially fascism.

Diogenes

Diogenes wrote:

This would be the same Minister for justice who uses parliamentary priviledge to make unsubstantiated allegations, scaremonger, and smear his political opponents?

Oh Frank Connolly was/is a political opponent of McDowell first and CPI second? I see -That would be scarier but take that to another thread,its not for discussion here-FULL STOP on that one now.

The same minister who read a bill into session entirely in Irish to avoid debate of it?

I'm sorry but if you think reading a bill in Irish is a way of disguising it,you're mistaken.Journalists do have the wherewithall to translate and many of them have a working use of the language as do a lot of T.D's.It's a pit many Irish people don't.

The same Minister who went on Morning Ireland to rant about Indymedia?

Another barrell scrape there.Personally I wouldn't rely on indymedia to tell me it's raining today as I'm sure there'd be some spin on it some way or the other.

Yeah, I'm thinking such wild speculation and scaremongering like your "fear" was right up his alley.

Yeah like prisons are supposed to be a withdrawal of rights as punishment for wrong doing imho and not the holiday camps that they are.
To be perfectly honest,and on topic,I doubt if this were put to a referendum many people would leave them with their in cell tv's not to mention the vote.

For starts I'd recommend a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "idealist" because the attitude you're presenting is nothing of the sort.

Leaving aside the bleeding obvious that the electorate are rarly allowed know who will hold what government position after an election, suggesting that convicts, have even the remotest say in who becomes Minister for Justice.

You ignore the fact that 1 t.d is enough to determine that if it's the t.d that puts one party into power or not.Mildred fox got in with 16 votes more than her opponent last time.

Needless to say you've not given an iota of evidence to support your claim that SF is the criminal's party of choice. Or that any politican wouldn't be commiting political suicide by pandering to the 4,000 prisoners in this country. Or that such a voting block has any really power. Or for that matter is even a voting block who will vote in unison.

I don't think the OP or anyone was suggesting any party would pander to them publically.

Lets look at the "idealism" of your attitude that prisoners should not be allowed to vote. You're basically suggesting prisoners shouldn't have a fundamental democratic right on the off chance that they might use such a right in a manner that is objectional to your politics. Which is essentially fascism.

I wouldnt maintain that position myself,I'll let the op define his position on it more clearly.
I certainly wouldnt let prisoners vote while they were in prison.I'd add it firmly to the list of things that should be withdrawn when the sanction of prison is imposed.

mackerski

gurramok wrote:

Haha, same political shot can be aimed at FF drunk drivers convicted in the courts still sitting as TD's, remember a certain nurse knocked down in central dublin nevermind a certain donegal minister driving wrong way up the Nass rd?!

I don't vote for FF either, but I also don't consider drunk driving (or corruption) to be on a par with subversive activities.

gurramok wrote:

Please list these criminal election candidates, we all know about Ferris

Ferris will do to establish a principle. Having criminal candidates is a bit like losing your virginity in that respect.

gurramok wrote:

who had served his time for political offences and seems to have not stopped the people of kerry electing him, are the electorate criminals as well in your eyes?

It's not an offence to approve of crime, just to engage in it. Naturally I have my own views on the kind of person that would put Martin Ferris in power, and you can draw your own conclusions whether they are negative or positive.

Dermot

Diogenes

Tristrame wrote:

Oh Frank Connolly was/is a political opponent of McDowell first and CPI second? I see -That would be scarier but take that to another thread,its not for discussion here-FULL STOP on that one now.I'm sorry but if you think reading a bill in Irish is a way of disguising it,you're mistaken.Journalists do have the wherewithall to translate and many of them have a working use of the language as do a lot of T.D's.It's a pit many Irish people don't. Another barrell scrape there.Personally I wouldn't rely on indymedia to tell me it's raining today as I'm sure there'd be some spin on it some way or the other.

McDowell took the opportunity to rant about indymedia on morning Ireland, I'm sorry shouldn't the Minister for Justice have better things to do with his time then trawl left wing media websites, and take to the radio waves to tell people about it?

What about McDowell's claims about the IRA and the northern bank raid, we're what two years after he confirmed that they did, yet we're no closer to arrests. Shouldn't the minister for justice try to avoid predjuicing criminal cases that are still open?

This is neither here nor there, "The Minister" announced that Mc Dowell's taking an interest in this is justification for his fears, I'm merely pointing out that the things our Minister for Justice has stuck his beak in over the years, have been a little odd, and taking the Minister's interest as a seal of approval for his concerns, is a bit laughable.

Yeah like prisons are supposed to be a withdrawal of rights as punishment for wrong doing

Which is the rub. We are already withdrawing some rights to prisoners? Are you proposing that we withdraw any and all human rights of prisoners?

I doubt you are, the european court of human rights has ruled that there is no reason why prisoners should not be allowed vote. The Minister doesn't want them to vote, because (rightly or wrongly) he feels they'll all enmass vote for the party he objects to.

Exactly why do you feel prisoners don't deserve the right to vote?

imho and not the holiday camps that they are.

How are our prisons holiday camps? I generally find that people who claim prisons are holiday camps are under eronious assumptions about prison quality of life. Do you think they get Shizatzu massages? Sauna's? How are our overcrowded drug riddled prisons, holiday camps?

To be perfectly honest,and on topic,I doubt if this were put to a referendum many people would leave them with their in cell tv's not to mention the vote.

Well yeah as I said, no one ever won an election on a "soft on crime" platform, which is why I feel The Minister's claims about TD's beholden to prisoners is so inane.

You ignore the fact that 1 t.d is enough to determine that if it's the t.d that puts one party into power or not.Mildred fox got in with 16 votes more than her opponent last time.

There have been lots of tight elections [mod edit removing allegations] However any politcan who tries to go after the prisoner population in the hope of picking up some votes, is going to lose 100 ordinary citizen's votes for every prisoners he picks up, just in terms of negative publicity alone.

I don't think the OP or anyone was suggesting any party would pander to them publically.

So they'll pander to them clandestinely? Smuggle in election manifestos? Softly chant party slogans over the exercise yard wall?

Do you really think this wouldn't get out? Any attempt at it would be politcal hari kari.

I wouldnt maintain that position myself,I'll let the op define his position on it more clearly.
I certainly wouldnt let prisoners vote while they were in prison.I'd add it firmly to the list of things that should be withdrawn when the sanction of prison is imposed.

I'm actually not all that convinced of it myself, however it's the manner that the OP has presented his case that has annoyed me more than anything else. It doesn't seem to be that prisoners will vote that seems to have stuck the bee in his bonnet, he seems more concerned with who they will vote for. He appears (because he's convinced SF are the party of choice for junkies, muggers and rapists) to object to them voting because they'll vote enmass for a party he find objectionable.

Diogenes

Diogenes wrote:

McDowell took the opportunity to rant about indymedia on morning Ireland, I'm sorry shouldn't the Minister for Justice have better things to do with his time then trawl left wing media websites, and take to the radio waves to tell people about it?

It's his human right

What about McDowell's claims about the IRA and the northern bank raid, we're what two years after he confirmed that they did, yet we're no closer to arrests. Shouldn't the minister for justice try to avoid predjuicing criminal cases that are still open?

Do you know for a fact whether he has or not? Or is that just your opinion?

This is neither here nor there,

Correct,so go back on topic or I will be sending posts to the recycle bin.

"The Minister" announced that Mc Dowell's taking an interest in this is justification for his fears, I'm merely pointing out that the things our Minister for Justice has stuck his beak in over the years, have been a little odd, and taking the Minister's interest as a seal of approval for his concerns, is a bit laughable.

To you it might,it's all a matter of opinion.

Which is the rub. We are already withdrawing some rights to prisoners? Are you proposing that we withdraw any and all human rights of prisoners?

Oh a misnomer...
What next when I tell you no I just want luxuries withdrawn (which is what I said) ...yeah what will your next misrepresentation be? Let me guess,you'll be saying I want Irish prisons run like Gitmo :rolleyes:

Let me be very clear,I wouldnt give them a vote or any luxuries.

I doubt you are, the european court of human rights has ruled that there is no reason why prisoners should not be allowed vote. The Minister doesn't want them to vote, because (rightly or wrongly) he feels they'll all enmass vote for the party he objects to.

I think thats been answered,they'll be voting in their own constituencies probably.Thats if they get the vote at all.

Exactly why do you feel prisoners don't deserve the right to vote?

Punishment.

How are our prisons holiday camps? I generally find that people who claim prisons are holiday camps are under eronious assumptions about prison quality of life. Do you think they get Shizatzu massages? Sauna's? How are our overcrowded drug riddled prisons, holiday camps?

More misnomers about shzaitu massages.I believe that prisoners should have a frugal existance and pay for their crimes.They shouldnt have TV's.

Well yeah as I said, no one ever won an election on a "soft on crime" platform, which is why I feel The Minister's claims about TD's beholden to prisoners is so inane.

Funny that I thought his point was regarding t.d's elected on narrow majorities and that these t.d's might be beholden to prisoners.
Thats the theory behind the concern.
It doesn't mean it would happen.In fact I think it wouldn't.

There have been lots of tight elections (I was a tallyman when McDowell lost out in the 97 election and witnesses the bullying of vote counters by PD and FF party workers).

Were you now,well I am not allowing unsubstatiated allegations of that nature here. Consider your main post edited and that boards.ie is disassociating itself from your remarks.

However any politcan who tries to go after the prisoner population in the hope of picking up some votes, is going to lose 100 ordinary citizen's votes for every prisoners he picks up, just in terms of negative publicity alone.

So they'll pander to them clandestinely? Smuggle in election manifestos? Softly chant party slogans over the exercise yard wall?

Do you really think this wouldn't get out? Any attempt at it would be politcal hari kari.

More misnomers....
I said publically remember.
I've not known a politician to turn down a vote yet.

I'm actually not all that convinced of it myself, however it's the manner that the OP has presented his case that has annoyed me more than anything else. It doesn't seem to be that prisoners will vote that seems to have stuck the bee in his bonnet, he seems more concerned with who they will vote for. He appears (because he's convinced SF are the party of choice for junkies, muggers and rapists) to object to them voting because they'll vote enmass for a party he find objectionable.

Have you considered that maybe,maybe just maybe that the op was making a point and you are running away with yourself here because he suggested that they would vote in one direction as opposed to another?
I couldnt care less what way they voted tbh,my position would be, that it is a right the state should absolve them of temporarally when imprisoning them for a crime.
I'd be of the view that prison should be a punishment and not a 2 star hotel.