Should prisoners have the right to vote?

Omackeral

A friend of mine called me the other day wondering about this topic. She's bringing her secondary school pupils to a debate with the subject matter of prisoners having a voting being up for discussion. Her team is on the side of yes, they should be allowed to vote. What are your thoughts?

At present, they are allowed to vote via post. Do you think this is right? Should someone who broke the law have a say in how it's made? On the other hand, should someone who's doing a few months of a sentence be stripped of the right to vote on matters which will concern him/her and their children in the future e.g. same sex marriage, repealing the eighth?

I thought it might be interesting to get people's thoughts on this.

Peregrinus

No, they should not.

I don't see voting as a kind of gold star for good behaviour; it's a civic responsibility, and if there's one group of people that you want to encourage to develop civic responsibility, it's offenders.

Plus, I think the perspectives of those who break the laws may be particularly relevant to forming a judgment about whether a proposed law is good or wise law . If they have a critique to offer, it should be heard.

Plus, most people don't end up breaking the law because simply they're bad or weak; social and economic circumstances play a very large part in bringing them to jail.

This is not to say that they have no responsibility for what they have done. But they are representative of people for whom current social, economic and political arrangements are not working out well. And those people have a perspective which, either as a matter of justice or as a matter of simple self-interest, we ought to want to be heard.

TommyKnocker

No, they should not.

As said by the poster above, voting is not a reward for good behavior, it is a civic duty. So IMHO all citizens of a country should have the right to vote.

suicide_circus

Voting is a privilege, a privilege which is temporarily suspended while you are incarcerated.

Omackeral

No, they should not.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Voting is a privilege, a privilege which is temporarily suspended while you are incarcerated.

It's not suspended. They can vote and they do.

Dodge

FWIW anyone who selects "I'm sure in a poll" needs their head examined. The "I'm unsure" option is to not vote

--

now back to your topic...

Fr_Dougal

I'm unsure.

No.

I don't want prisoners having any reach outside their prison walls. I'd prefer if prisoners were suspended for a period during, and after they leave jail, or during any probation period.

Captain Chaos

I'm unsure.

TommyKnocker wrote: »

As said by the poster above, voting is not a reward for good behavior, it is a civic duty. So IMHO all citizens of a country should have the right to vote.

If you are convicted of a crime you have forefitted your civic duties and entitlements until sentence served imo. Can't have your cake and eat it. You are not a member of functioning society once inside so why should you have a say in what goes on outside.

May as will let all citizens abroad vote too while your at it.

suicide_circus

Omackeral wrote: »

It's not suspended. They can vote and they do.

Oh

Omackeral

No, they should not.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

If you are convicted of a crime you have forefitted your civic duties and entitlements until sentence served imo. Can't have your cake and eat it. You are not a member of functioning society once inside so why should you have a say in what goes on outside.

May as will let all citizens abroad vote too while your at it.

Interesting take on it. Say you're serving 2 months for non payment of fines. Should that exclude you from having a say on same sex marriage, for example? That's gonna be in law for the duration of your lifetime and that of your children's. The law wouldn't even come into effect while you're in there for the 60 days yet will be in play for when you're released.

conorhal

I'm unsure.

I don't think so. The point of prison is your removal from civil society and the revoking of your right to freedom. These right you get back when you have served your sentence and rejoin civil society. It should be the same with the vote.

_Brian

I'm unsure.

Nope they are in prison as a punishment for a crime. The idea is a removal of rights and the right to vote shouldn't be extended to them.

When they prove they can act as a responsible member of society then their vote should be returned.

endacl

suicide_circus wrote: »

Voting is a privilege, a privilege which is temporarily suspended while you are incarcerated.

Voting is a privilege? Seriously?

suicide_circus

endacl wrote: »

Voting is a privilege? Seriously?

Ask people who don't have the right to vote

endacl

Omackeral wrote: »

Interesting take on it. Say you're serving 2 months for non payment of fines. Should that exclude you from having a say on same sex marriage, for example? That's gonna be in law for the duration of your lifetime and that of your children's. The law wouldn't even come into effect while you're in there for the 60 days yet will be in play for when you're released.

Theoretically, that referendum result could itself be amended or repealed in the future. If, after serving the 2 month sentence, you found it problematic, you could start a movement to have it overturned by another referendum.

Peregrinus

No, they should not.

conorhal wrote: »

I don't think so. The point of prison is your removal from civil society and the revoking of your right to freedom. These right you get back when you have served your sentence and rejoin civil society. It should be the same with the vote.

I don't see why. Your right to liberty is the only right you lose when imprisoned - you retain all your other rights. You're not "removed from civil society" - you can still write to people, phone people, engage in court proceedings, buy and sell property, validly enter into contracts and transactions, etc, etc.

The default position, then, is that your retain your rights and your legal status and legal capacities. Given that, there's no presumption that you should lose your voting rights on account of having also lost your physical liberty. The two are not linked in any special way.

Peregrinus

No, they should not.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ask people who don't have the right to vote

If voting is a privilege, then ther are no people who have the right to vote; just some people who have the privilege of voting.

Hellrun

I'm unsure.

There should be a restriction of privileges whilst in prison, one of those should be voting. Seems that they get far too many privileges to be fair.

endacl

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ask people who don't have the right to vote

It wouldn't be a privilege. It would still be a right.

That's why it's important. It's a right. Not a privilege.

Ted111

I think everyone on the ballot paper should be made to go in to prison and press the flesh.

Skyfarm

do you mean boards prison ? or the garlic man injustice type prison?

Maximus Alexander

No, they should not.

Yes, they absolutely should have the right to vote.

Think about the twisted logic of not allowing someone a vote on how the society that has incarcerated them functions. To take it to the extreme, which I think is reasonable in order to demonstrate the fundamental need for them to be able to vote: Imagine a society where prisoners are not allowed to vote. Now imagine that there are a group of people protesting against the government. Put them all in prison. Now they're 'criminals' and can't vote. Yay, fair and just society!

suicide_circus

endacl wrote: »

It wouldn't be a privilege. It would still be a right.

That's why it's important. It's a right. Not a privilege.

Too early for your semantics. It's a right and we are lucky to have it.

suicide_circus

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yes, they absolutely should have the right to vote.

Think about the twisted logic of not allowing someone a vote on how the society that has incarcerated them functions. To take it to the extreme, which I think is reasonable in order to demonstrate the fundamental need for them to be able to vote: Imagine a society where prisoners are not allowed to vote. Now imagine that there are a group of people protesting against the government. Put them all in prison. Now they're 'criminals' and can't vote. Yay, fair and just society!

Yeah actually that makes sense

Winterlong

They are citizens and should be allowed to vote. I would hate for us to end up like some states in the US where people convicted of crimes are ineligible to vote for life....but really it is a racist tool to ensure only 'our type' of people are allowed to vote.

nhunter100

conorhal wrote:

I don't think so. The point of prison is your removal from civil society and the revoking of your right to freedom. These right you get back when you have served your sentence and rejoin civil society. It should be the same with the vote.

Loss of freedom to come and go as you wish is sufficient, removing the right to vote is pretty and draconian.

Omackeral

No, they should not.

Winterlong wrote: »

They are citizens and should be allowed to vote. I would hate for us to end up like some states in the US where people convicted of crimes are ineligible to vote for life....but really it is a racist tool to ensure only 'our type' of people are allowed to vote.

Okaaaaaayyyyyy

Dave_The_Sheep

Omackeral wrote: »

Okaaaaaayyyyyy

Well argued.

nhunter100

suicide_circus wrote:

Ask people who don't have the right to vote

Every Irish citizen has a right to vote in Ireland, so who do we ask?

seamus

No, they should not.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Too early for your semantics. It's a right and we are lucky to have it.

It's not semantics though, it's very important.

If voting is a privilege, then it can be taken away. If it's a right, it can't.

And yes, you're correct to say that having the right to vote is something we should all be very happy of.

And protecting that right is therefore something we should take very seriously, lest someone starts calling it a "privilege" and taking it away from those deemed unworthy of it.

We take it away from prisoners. Then what?
We take it away from former prisoners. Then what?
We take it away from people on trial. Then what?
We take it away from people accused of crimes. Then what?
We take it away from people who are related to criminals. Then what?

The very point of rights is that they have to be universal - once someone starts being allowed to call it a "privilege", they can start restricting the group to whom that privilege applies.

Omackeral

No, they should not.

seamus wrote: »

It's not semantics though, it's very important.

If voting is a privilege, then it can be taken away. If it's a right, it can't.

And yes, you're correct to say that having the right to vote is something we should all be very happy of.

And protecting that right is therefore something we should take very seriously, lest someone starts calling it a "privilege" and taking it away from those deemed unworthy of it.

We take it away from prisoners. Then what?
We take it away from former prisoners. Then what?
We take it away from people on trial. Then what?
We take it away from people accused of crimes. Then what?
We take it away from people who are related to criminals. Then what?

The very point of rights is that they have to be universal - once someone starts being allowed to call it a "privilege", they can start restricting the group to whom that privilege applies.

Good points. Human rights are inalienable according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights charter. The Irish Prison Service's mission statement is to provide safe and humane custodial care. So if you take away human rights, are you going against the humane aspect? Is suspending them a fairer middle ground? Are you dehumanising people by telling them their vote and opinion means nothing. Could be considered a slippery slope.

However, if you commit a crime, are you infringing on other people's human rights? If you're not agreeing to abide by democratic rules then why should you get a say in how they're made, seen as you are opting to operate outside of them? It's a good debate and it's interesting to see the responses.

osarusan

Fair play to posters for an interesting debate so far.

It's a bit academic I think as we're very unlikely to go against the ECHR, but still interesting.

meeeeh

No, they should not.

Well that's one way to get rid of political opposition or dissidents. You put them in prison and don't let them vote.

Winterlong

Omackeral wrote: »

Okaaaaaayyyyyy

Let me dumb it down for you.

Felony disenfranchisement in the US affects black/hispanic people more than white people because they are more likely to be arrested and convicted.

1 in every 13 black people cannot vote for this reason.
1 in every 56 of white voters.

And you will find that the states where they have these laws were voted in by a white legislature.
That is why I say it is racist.

Clea

No, they should not.

I voted Yes on this very undecided pole, solely because I believe convicts should be given a chance.
As well as giving them a chance after they leave prison - when or if they do.

Maximus Alexander

No, they should not.

Omackeral wrote: »

However, if you commit a crime, are you infringing on other people's human rights? If you're not agreeing to abide by democratic rules then why should you get a say in how they're made, seen as you are opting to operate outside of them? It's a good debate and it's interesting to see the responses.

I would argue that your rights are much more fundamental than the democratic rules, as you put it, which are somewhat arbitrary or certainly subjective. A government can theoretically legislate for almost anything to be a crime punished by a custodial sentence, and you can be sent to prison without ever doing anything that is objectively immoral, or certainly without infringing on anyone else's rights.

If there's a general election and you happen to be serving a month for non-payment of fines, for example, would it be in any way reasonable to say "We are revoking your rights because you didn't respect the rights of others?"

At an even more basic level, I'd be seriously concerned about any government or organisation that was advocating reducing peoples' rights. That's pretty ominous.

It's all well and good to say "Yeah sure take away rights from that group of people over there that I'm not part of". But if everyone has that attitude it won't be long before we find that none of us have any left.

seamus

No, they should not.

Omackeral wrote: »

However, if you commit a crime, are you infringing on other people's human rights? If you're not agreeing to abide by democratic rules then why should you get a say in how they're made, seen as you are opting to operate outside of them? It's a good debate and it's interesting to see the responses.

Ultimately the UDHR details the rights that society recognises and protects for the individual, it's not a list of rights that individuals must recognise in other individuals.

Ultimately laws are then based on these rights which in effects force individuals to recognise human rights in other individuals.

The most critical part though is that the rights are universal - a failure by an individual to recognise these rights does not mean their own rights are forfeit. Because then you may as well not have them at all.

The only time it is appropriate to suspend these rights is to protect the rights of another. Which makes it legal to kill someone in order to protect someone else's right to life. But once a person has been killed, retroactive suspension of the killer's human rights serves no purpose.

If you can "lose" your rights by committing an act, then they're not rights at all, they're privileges.

NiallBoo

No, they should not.

I think this debate comes down to what people view the function of prison to be.

We're guilty of thinking of it as a way for society to get revenge on the person.

It should thought of as only:
1. A means of rehabilitation so that the person can in future become a "functioning" member of society.
2. Protecting the public from danger. (Rehabilitation aside, you need to protect people from that serial-killer/whatever)

If you think about why you punish a child, it's not because you want them to suffer - you send them to the naughty corner in the hope that when they're done they'll behave better. Prison isn't really that different.
Of course, providing support for this rehabilitation is something we're seriously lacking.

The idea of denying a vote is continued vengeance and prevents people fully integrating into society.
Making people outsiders takes away the value of society to them and makes it harder to see value in society's rules.

Turtyturd

No, they should not.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Voting is a privilege, a privilege which is temporarily suspended while you are incarcerated.

Didn't take long for someone to stupidly charge in and make a fool of themselves.

Prisoners is a term which generates a certain image in people's minds but the reality is that many of them don't fit the image. They should be as entitled to their say as anyone else.

meeeeh

No, they should not.

Any country which is serious about separation of government from judiciary should not prevent prisoners from voting. That is all there is to it.

biko

No, they should not.

Why have you chosen to make our votes public OP?

foggy_lad

I'm unsure.

Omackeral wrote: »

It's not suspended. They can vote and they do.

There was a time not too long ago when they could not vote. then the buffoons in Europe told us to give the convicts a vote.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see why. Your right to liberty is the only right you lose when imprisoned - you retain all your other rights. You're not "removed from civil society" - you can still write to people, phone people, engage in court proceedings, buy and sell property, validly enter into contracts and transactions, etc, etc.

The default position, then, is that your retain your rights and your legal status and legal capacities. Given that, there's no presumption that you should lose your voting rights on account of having also lost your physical liberty. The two are not linked in any special way.

You lose many other rights in prison, right to free association being one, the right to write letters is there but the prison service may censor any letter as it sees fit, calls are also monitored for the same security reasons.

endacl wrote: »

It wouldn't be a privilege. It would still be a right.

That's why it's important. It's a right. Not a privilege.

It should be a privilege and should be removed for convicts for as long as they have been sentences, including suspended sentences.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html#l862a3

Who can vote in elections and referenda?

You must be at least 18 years of age on 15 February, the day the Register comes into force. You must also have been ordinarily resident in the State on 1 September in the year before the Register comes into force.

While you may be entitled to register as a voter due to your residency, there may be a limit on the types of elections in which you can vote. The registration authority will need to know your citizenship because this will determine the elections at which you may vote.

The right to vote is as follows:

Irish citizens may vote at every election and referendum;
British citizens may vote at Dáil elections, European elections and local elections;
Other European Union (EU) citizens may vote at European and local elections*
Non-EU citizens may vote at local elections only.

*If you are an EU citizen, other than an Irish or British citizen, and you were not registered to vote in previous European elections in Ireland, you must also complete a declaration, Form EP1 (pdf), to guard against double voting in the election. The local council will register you to vote in your local constituency and send the information in your declaration to your home EU Member State. You can also get the form from your local authority.

You must be registered at one address only and you must live at that address on 1 September before the register comes into force. If you live away from the address at which you are registered, (for example, if you are a student living away from home), you will need to contact the registration authority and give them your new address.

If you leave your address but you plan to return there within 18 months, you can continue to be registered there, as long you do not register at any other address.

foggy_lad

I'm unsure.

biko wrote: »

Why have you chosen to make our votes public OP?

Even prisoners get a secret ballot!

seamus

No, they should not.

foggy_lad wrote: »

It should be a privilege and should be removed for convicts for as long as they have been sentences, including suspended sentences.

Why?

And what safeguards would you put in place to prevent abuse of this?

A Little Pony

Sure why not, Ian Huntley should be allowed the vote. He only murdered two children.

Clea

No, they should not.

Right to vote is given by citizenship afaik?
Being in jail does not take the citizenship away from convicts, therefore > does not take away their right to vote as well.

nhunter100

A Little Pony wrote:

Sure why not, Ian Huntley should be allowed the vote. He only murdered two children.

Not relevant , Huntley is in prison in the UK that's where he committed his crime, this thread is about prisoners in Ireland.

A Little Pony

nhunter100 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote:

Sure why not, Ian Huntley should be allowed the vote. He only murdered two children.

Not relevant , Huntley is in prison in the UK that's where he committed his crime, this thread is about prisoners in Ireland.

Asking if prisoners should get the vote is the most stupid question ever asked. Of course they shouldn't.

nhunter100

A Little Pony wrote:

Asking if prisoners should get the vote is the most stupid question ever asked. Of course they shouldn't.

Referencing the crimes of a killer in a foreign country to make a point is even stupider tbh.

nhunter100

A Little Pony wrote:

Asking if prisoners should get the vote is the most stupid question ever asked. Of course they shouldn't.

BTW way the question wasn't should they get the vote, they already have it. The question was should they be allowed to vote and yes they should it's a right conferred by our constitution. Their confinement to prison is their punishment for whatever crime they have committed.

animaal

I misread the question as "Should pensioners be allowed to vote".

That would have been a far more entertaining discussion.

Prisoners? That's interesting. I wonder if the prisoners could organise to transfer all their votes to a single constituency, and become a lobby?