Should prisoners be allowed vote?

Blisterman

Big debate in the UK about prisoners having the right to vote. David Cameron says the thought makes him "sick to his stomach". But others say its against European Human rights.

Personally, I'm far from a bleeding heart liberal, but I think the right to vote should be universal. Democracy has been built over the last few hundred years so that every man and woman of legal age has the right to vote, regardless of race, creed, property ownership etc, so that the government can be a true representation of the public's wishes. (I know that's not always how it works out, but it's the principle that matters. Lets not derail the thread).

So I think prisoners, despite possibly having committed some horrific acts and deserving punishment, are still human beings and therefore should be entitled to vote.

Victor

They can vote year for the last few years.

I think its a useful way to try to give prisoners a link back to the community.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think that if you ban prisoners from voting you have far too much faith in democracy.

mikemac

Do they vote in their home areas though?

What I'm wondering if you have a prison with for example 1,000 prisoners, if you tell them they can only vote in that constituency where the prison is, suddenly you have a large and powerful voting block.

So letting them register in their home areas would spread the votes around

Victor

They get postal votes based on the constituency in which they would be normally resident if they weren't in prison.

fly_agaric

Blisterman wrote: »

So I think prisoners, despite possibly having committed some horrific acts and deserving punishment, are still human beings and therefore should be entitled to vote.

I'd agree. Prisoners are part of society and should get to have their say in elections the same as other citizens.

I might make an exception for referenda on aspects of the justice system.

I think it is up to the rest of the society to decide how criminals are punished for crimes. The criminals themselves should not have direct input in such decisions through a referendum.

Greensout

No, When someone is locked up there rights and freedom is taken from them. and rightly so. In my opinion if someone is Locked up they should also lose their right to vote. I know some people will argue against me that is fair but either way this is not a difficult decision either when we lock people up we also take away their right to vote or not easy choice.

Einhard

Greensout wrote: »

No, When someone is locked up there rights and freedom is taken from them. and rightly so. In my opinion if someone is Locked up they should also lose their right to vote. I know some people will argue against me that is fair but either way this is not a difficult decision either when we lock people up we also take away their right to vote or not easy choice.

First off, some rights are taken from prisoners when they are incarcerated, not all rights as you imply. Secondly, we don't take away their right to vote, as has been noted already on this thread.

It's one of those issues where one's instinctive reaction is negative, and even indignant, but where, on reflection, it's difficult to articulate a coherent argument against it.

Jesus Wept

Yes, of course.

SparkyTech

Greensout wrote: »

No, When someone is locked up there rights and freedom is taken from them. and rightly so. In my opinion if someone is Locked up they should also lose their right to vote. I know some people will argue against me that is fair but either way this is not a difficult decision either when we lock people up we also take away their right to vote or not easy choice.

I think it depends on the context of the crime/duration of the sentance though. Someone who committed a serious act of violence twords another human bieng such as murder or rape is not on a par with a citizen locked up for not paying their TV licence or breaking a red light. If someone is serving a sentence for a minor offence, shows signs of reform and remorse, and is only locked up for a relitavly short amount of time then yes, I believe they deserve the right to vote.

gk5000

Greensout wrote: »

No, When someone is locked up there rights and freedom is taken from them. and rightly so. In my opinion if someone is Locked up they should also lose their right to vote. I know some people will argue against me that is fair but either way this is not a difficult decision either when we lock people up we also take away their right to vote or not easy choice.

Yes agree with Greensout. They have damaged society in some way and lose their freedom to atone for that or at least to deter them from further crimes while inside.

Society owes them very little. They give up their rights to freedom including the freedom to vote. Even postal voting is extra logistics that should not be extended to them (unless they are on remand and have not been convicted).

kerryman12

Have to agree with the guys here, prisoners should not be allowed to vote.

If society decides to take away these people freedom, surely they forfeit the right have a say in how that socirty is run ?!?!

Absolam

I agree; surely someone who acts against the interests of society to such a degree as to be deprived of society for a period should have no say in the running of that society for that period.

Blisterman

Yeah, but whether someone acts against the interests of society, is subjective.

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for decades, only to be elected president after his release.

newmug

Blisterman wrote: »

Yeah, but whether someone acts against the interests of society, is subjective.

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for decades, only to be elected president after his release.

That was a different scenario altogether. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned by a corrupt, undemocratic, tyrannical government, for fighting to secure his right to vote in the first place, not for disrespecting and breaking the law that should have enshrined it.

I think there is no way prisoners should have the right to vote in a normally functioning free society. They chose to waive their right to freedom when they consciously decided to commit their crime, and I believe their right to vote should be seen as part of that freedom.

BostonB

Blisterman wrote: »

Yeah, but whether someone acts against the interests of society, is subjective.

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for decades, only to be elected president after his release.

Would he have been able to vote even if he wasn't in prison?

Jesus Wept

It would be somewhat helpful to keep them involved with events in the outside world.
I can't see the prison vote being one that any political party is going to set out to target.

Joey the lips

I think prisioners should be allowed to vote. Mainly because its democratic and they have that right.

However i wonder if they should be allowed run canidates etc.

Having said all that. If a canidate gets into office on the votes of prisioners then society has seriously gone wrong so yes let them vote.

Blisterman

newmug wrote: »

That was a different scenario altogether. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned by a corrupt, undemocratic, tyrannical government, for fighting to secure his right to vote in the first place, not for disrespecting and breaking the law that should have enshrined it.

I think there is no way prisoners should have the right to vote in a normally functioning free society. They chose to waive their right to freedom when they consciously decided to commit their crime, and I believe their right to vote should be seen as part of that freedom.

Well, closer to home, Bobby Sands was elected to parliament while imprisoned.

kerryman12

Blisterman wrote: »

Well, closer to home, Bobby Sands was elected to parliament while imprisoned.

Very true.

But taking a slightly different angle;

Should for example a rapist be allowed to vote?

speedboatchase

Why would it matter if they're a rapist? That's like saying 'okay, okay, so they all vote, except the paedophiles and the rapist... and the child abusers. We're still deciding on the murderers...'

Screw their rights, freedoms and 'link back to the community' - they threw away 99% of all that when they broke the law. The idea that a convicted murderer's vote holds as much weight as the victim's family is insulting

Blisterman

A problem is deciding where to draw the line. Very few people would like the idea of terrorists voting, but that's essentially what Bobby Sands and Nelson Mandela were charged with.

Even sex crimes is a grey area. Less than 20 years ago, people could be charged with being gay.

Glorianna Gael

Prison is supposed to be as much rehabilitation as punishment, therefore prisoners should be allowed to vote to allow them to participate positively in society. It poses the question though, Should someone who goes to prison for stealing to feed their family loose the vote? should TDs or MPs go to prison for defrauding the taxpayers and the whole democratic system then lose their vote?

speedboatchase

Blisterman wrote: »

A problem is deciding where to draw the line. Very few people would like the idea of terrorists voting, but that's essentially what Bobby Sands and Nelson Mandela were charged with.

Even sex crimes is a grey area. Less than 20 years ago, people could be charged with being gay.

Bobby Sands was convicted of possession of firearms, he wasn't a political prisoner but that's another argument for another day. I and reckon most people would be a lot more disturbed by sex offenders and murderers voting than political prisoners. And sex crimes aren't that grey - I doubt in 20 years from now it'll be legal to touch kids or force yourself upon the opposite sex

newmug

Blisterman wrote: »

Well, closer to home, Bobby Sands was elected to parliament while imprisoned.

Thats exactly my point. Bobby Sands should not have been in prison in the first place, neither should Mandela. But where the law is just (and it was far from just in S.A. or N.I.) and society is free and functioning properly, "normal" criminals shouldn't be allowed to vote as part of their punishment for deciding to fcuk freedom when they committed their crimes.

Mr. Presentable

No. If they are not fit to be a part of normal society they should have no say in how it's run.

Mr. Presentable

newmug wrote: »

Thats exactly my point. Bobby Sands should not have been in prison in the first place, neither should Mandela. But where the law is just (and it was far from just in S.A. or N.I.) and society is free and functioning properly, "normal" criminals shouldn't be allowed to vote as part of their punishment for deciding to fcuk freedom when they committed their crimes.

Sorry, but both were terrorists according to the regime and laws under which they lived. They belonged in prison.

speedboatchase

newmug wrote: »

Thats exactly my point. Bobby Sands should not have been in prison in the first place, neither should Mandela. But where the law is just (and it was far from just in S.A. or N.I.) and society is free and functioning properly, "normal" criminals shouldn't be allowed to vote as part of their punishment for deciding to fcuk freedom when they committed their crimes.

So what happens to people in possession of firearms? Do they not go to jail?

People are missing the big picture here. Allowing prisoners to vote is an essential part of the checks and balances in a well functioning democracy.

Here's a hypothetical scenario:

Party A are in power, party B in opposition. Pary A introduce a law making it illegal to be a member of party B. Members of party B are imprisoned, losing their vote, thus allowing Party A to consolidate their grip on power even further.

It may seem far fetched, but even a quick glance at any history book will show that similar things have happened many times throughout history.

Added to this, many laws are somewhat arbitrary and subject to change. In the past being gay in this country would have been reason enough to lose your vote.

The idea of someone losing their right to vote because they happen to be sent to prison for 2 weeks at the time of a general election for unpaid speeding fines is clearly absurd.

newmug

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Sorry, but both were terrorists according to the regime and laws under which they lived. They belonged in prison.

speedboatchase wrote: »

So what happens to people in possession of firearms? Do they not go to jail?

The real criminals in both cases were the invaders. Therefore the "laws" the invaders imposed were null and void. Sands and Mandela were not terrorists, they were natives defending themselves. They did not belong in prison.

BostonB

Blisterman wrote: »

Well, closer to home, Bobby Sands was elected to parliament while imprisoned.

...and then they changed the law to prevent that happening again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1981

So how is that useful?

BostonB

Deleted User wrote: »

...
Party A are in power, party B in opposition. Pary A introduce a law making it illegal to be a member of party B. Members of party B are imprisoned, losing their vote, thus allowing Party A to consolidate their grip on power even further.....

Party A could change the law removing the vote anyway. So its an argument that goes nowhere.

speedboatchase

newmug wrote: »

The real criminals in both cases were the invaders. Therefore the "laws" the invaders imposed were null and void. Sands and Mandela were not terrorists, they were natives defending themselves. They did not belong in prison.

Using that logic, would you see anything wrong with an Irish person arming themselves in Belfast this weekend and targeting RUC members, 'defending themselves' from 'invaders'?

Plautus

Deleted User wrote: »

People are missing the big picture here. Allowing prisoners to vote is an essential part of the checks and balances in a well functioning democracy.

Here's a hypothetical scenario:

Party A are in power, party B in opposition. Pary A introduce a law making it illegal to be a member of party B. Members of party B are imprisoned, losing their vote, thus allowing Party A to consolidate their grip on power even further.

It may seem far fetched, but even a quick glance at any history book will show that similar things have happened many times throughout history.

Added to this, many laws are somewhat arbitrary and subject to change. In the past being gay in this country would have been reason enough to lose your vote.

The idea of someone losing their right to vote because they happen to be sent to prison for 2 weeks at the time of a general election for unpaid speeding fines is clearly absurd.

I think the example you've given is quite tendentious. In the first place, any law proscribing another political party would be repugnant to the Constitution. Therefore, one imagines that a government which would be capable of passing such a law would have dismantled all the checks and balances to begin with. Removing the right to vote of prisoners (or simply not honouring this obligation) is very easily done when you're banning associations of people from the public sphere to begin with. So it's not a situation that's been realistic to consider since the 1930s (and this isn't Weimar Germany by a long shot.)

Your other argument does a good deal more work - some laws have had a distinctly 'moralistic' character in the past, and it doesn't seem right that someone jailed for non-payment of debt (for example) or who is on remand pending a trial to determine their guilt should be deprived of the vote.

In any case, you have to wonder how many prisoners actually claim their franchise. I'm guessing not many.

Blisterman

Apperently, there's a pending class action suit in the UK now of prisoners suing for being deprived a vote.

No idea if they'll be succesful though.

Victor

BostonB wrote: »

Party A could change the law removing the vote anyway. So its an argument that goes nowhere.

Well, in our case, the constitution largely prevents that.

BostonB

Victor wrote: »

Well, in our case, the constitution largely prevents that.

Bit early for me. I don't follow.

Dave!

In principle, I'd have no problem taking the right away. We take away many of their rights, and it seems a bit arbitrary to decide that voting is one of the rights that they should retain. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives everyone the right to freedom of movement within the state, yet we withold that right in the event of incarceration. What could be more fundamental than being able to move freely around your own country?

Someone mentioned that it might be a useful way to try to give prisoners a link back to the community, ie. it's a practical step to help rehabilitation. I'm not sure there's much evidence that being able to cast a vote every 5 years reduces recidivism rates, but if there were, I'd be open to the idea.

BostonB

Dave! wrote: »

... I'm not sure there's much evidence that being able to cast a vote every 5 years reduces recidivism rates, but if there were, I'd be open to the idea.

Good idea. I'm on board with that.

Victor

BostonB wrote: »

Bit early for me. I don't follow.

While Party A could abolish voting for everyone, it would be prevented from doing so by the constitution.

However, the constitution is relatively silent about sending everyone from Party B to prison (they could claim habeus corpus and some other provisions).