Prisoners' right to vote?

[luka82]

Citizenship carries with it both rights and responsibilities. Citizens should work to the betterment of their communities through economic participation and efforts to better improve life for all citizens, this gives the right to also receive protection from that same community. IMO they have violated their right by breaking the law and should lose that privilage until they have served their sentence.

We say-it`s everyone`s BASIC citizenship right! (literally translated).
It`s your birth right. You are no less a citizen when you commit a crime! That makes you a criminal yes, a criminal-citizen. :smile:
I just don`t believe in selective democracy, I say ' Same rights for all'.

Yeah, but Luka, Sesame Street follows a completely different set of rules and regulations than the rest of the world. :smile:

You make me happy! :boobies::smile:

 

[luka82]

Don't think I'm narrow minded. I'm not saying these stuff because I just want to. I do believe I have proper reasons to say these things.
And I'm more then aware that there are "innocent" people in there. But yet, where to draw the line of rights for them.
Like many said above: You don't earn the right to vote if you can't live the rights. And you certainly can't decide that one prisoner can vote and the other one not. Once in prison: no right to vote. Outside prison, accepted in the community: yes, then they can.

No. :smile:

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

Isn't part of actually being in prison is that your rights are stripped away? If prisoners can then vote why can't sex offeneders sell girl scout cookies?

 

[DaveyR]

I don't see an easy yes or no answer to this one and am pleased I don't have to make the decision. There are some in prison that should not be there and should be getting help and support not punishment. There are some in prison who should not even be entitled to oxygen never mind be allowed to vote. A blanket decision based on length of sentence is not fair IMHO.

 

[D_Relentless Original]

We say-it`s everyone`s BASIC citizenship right! (literally translated).
It`s your birth right. You are no less a citizen when you commit a crime! That makes you a criminal yes, a criminal-citizen. :smile:
I just don`t believe in selective democracy, I say ' Same rights for all'.

Well I guess you have the right to your Opinion, although I totally disagree with you in all aspects of your post.

 

[helgaleena]

In the USA convicted FELONS have permanently lost the right to vote. In the case of less serious convictions, it is as average_joe describes.

My ex was in for a felony offense but he could have participated in tribal elections anyway. But he said that since he was a traditionally trained warrior he was expected by custom to stay apolitical. He refrained from voting in one instance and was barred from voting in the other.

I am heartened to hear that once again other countries in the world are more humane to their citizens than in the USA. Not that the system works very well here, with the easy to rig electronic ballots and the electoral college and all.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I don't see an easy yes or no answer to this one and am pleased I don't have to make the decision. There are some in prison that should not be there and should be getting help and support not punishment. There are some in prison who should not even be entitled to oxygen never mind be allowed to vote. A blanket decision based on length of sentence is not fair IMHO.

Agreed. Considering how some judges completely abuse their power when issuing punishment to guilty people, that's more than enough reason to not base whether or not a prisoner could vote based on the length of their sentences. I'm still drawn to the two sisters from Mississippi who were given life sentences for assisting three men in an armed robbery who stole $11 even though they had no prior criminal record. They spent 16 years in prison for that while the men who actually committed the crime were let out before they were. Luckily they were freed, however, imagine if their right to vote was taken away for something so small?

If anything, this could be a right that can be maintained or revoked based on the type of crime. Whereas if someone was caught with a bag of weed in their pocket or stole an insignificant amount of money/property, I wouldn't mind if they actually participated in the electoral process. At the same time, I personally think first degree murderers and child rapists shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the ballot box. But that's just me.

 

[accemb]

We say-it`s everyone`s BASIC citizenship right! (literally translated).
It`s your birth right. You are no less a citizen when you commit a crime! That makes you a criminal yes, a criminal-citizen. :smile:
I just don`t believe in selective democracy, I say ' Same rights for all'.

You make me happy! :boobies::smile:

Luka, I disagree.... when you are a criminal, you have made yourself a lesser citizen, thereby giving up certain rights.

 

[Endued]

I really don't see any reason why a prisoner should have no right to vote on how the country is governed. I find it a little disgusting, actually.

 

[Jason]

There is a settled view among the people of the UK that prisoners should not have the right to vote. This matter has now been debated by parliament and this popular view confirmed by our MPs by an overwhelming majority. The idea is integral to the UK constitutional position around the rights and responsibilities of voters.

As it stands the UK will be in breach of ECHR rules. Presumably test cases will be brought from May. It is hard to see how the ECHR can do other than award prisoners compensation paid by the UK government (ie paid by UK tax payers). The compensation will be for every prisoner and at every election. The sum is not yet known but will be substantial. Additionally the ECHR may declare UK elections invalid.

The UK may try to offer the ECHR some sort of compromise, though it is far from clear that any compromise would pass a vote in parliament. Additionally the ECHR may well reject a compromise - certainly the one being talked about now of votes only for prisoners sentenced to less than a year is most unlikely to satisfy them.

As for what happens then, no-one really knows! Politicians are desperate for an answer. The UK might refuse to pay compensation the ECHR awards - indeed I think it must do this else the government would encounter overwhelming public opposition. But any subsequent normalisation of relations with the ECHR would involve paying previously unpaid compensation. The ECHR might seek to shame the UK (declaring elections invalid) though this might rebound on the standing of the ECHR. They would themselves come under the international spotlight and they are far from neutral - nine of the countries who contribute judges have serious human rights abuses, while the concept of San Marino having a permanent judge is nuts.

The only real sanction the ECHR has is to exclude the UK from the Council of Europe. However all EU states are CofE members and this would certainly provoke an EU crisis. Probably the treaty position is that a country that is kicked out of the CofE is kicked out of the EU - but the treaties are complex and not designed for this situation.

The UK might try a "Bill of Rights" to acknowledge the E Convention on HR but to enforce it through UK courts not E Court of HR. But the LibDems say they would not accept this - it would be a coalition breaker. And anyway it still brings UK into conflict with EU.

I suspect the UK will play for time by finding some way of delaying any action, with the ECHR going along with a delay because they are pretty scared. But the only way I can see to resolve this impass is a UK referendum on ECHR membership. Such a referendum would be de facto a referendum on EU membership also.

 

[dude_007]

Well, considering the economic and political configuration of our country gives to those who have and takes from those who do not have, many people are left with little choice but to turn to crime. I don't think murderers should be able to vote. Or white-collar criminals. But some people have mental illness which ultimately leads to incarceration. Why? Because with our failed healthcare system they do not get proper support and are roaming the streets with nothing. And don't even get me started on the racism issue. Suffice to say, some people have little choice but to break laws to survive.

 

[luka82]

I don't see an easy yes or no answer to this one and am pleased I don't have to make the decision. There are some in prison that should not be there and should be getting help and support not punishment. There are some in prison who should not even be entitled to oxygen never mind be allowed to vote. A blanket decision based on length of sentence is not fair IMHO.

I agree! Grat post, CS.
This is what i think :smile:
I believe that everyone who is of legal age should vote. If you strip that right to prisoners in general, you are stipping it for people who were wrongly imprisoned.
I think when we talk about human rights and rights in general, they should apply to every person. They are humans, some of them have done really disgusting things, they deserve to die! But, I don`t have the right to take away their life! The only thing society, in my opinion, has the right to take is their freedom.
Ok, lets say some people got imprisoned because they have been involved in cheque scams. A mother of 4 children, couldn`t survive, kids not old enough to work, so she used a scam, got caught, got 3-4 years. Is she a criminal, YES! should she be punished, yes. Is it only her fault she ended up in jail, NO! She lives in a society where she with 2 jobs couldn`t make ends meet. Where no one gives a flying fuck her kids are hungry! Is that woman a citizen, yes! Is she a criminal, again yes! Should she lose her rights, absolutely NO!

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

I agree! Grat post, CS.
This is what i think :smile:
I believe that everyone who is of legal age should vote. If you strip that right to prisoners in general, you are stipping it for people who were wrongly imprisoned.
I think when we talk about human rights and rights in general, they should apply to every person. They are humans, some of them have done really disgusting things, they deserve to die! But, I don`t have the right to take away their life! The only thing society, in my opinion, has the right to take is their freedom.
Ok, lets say some people got imprisoned because they have been involved in cheque scams. A mother of 4 children, couldn`t survive, kids not old enough to work, so she used a scam, got caught, got 3-4 years. Is she a criminal, YES! should she be punished, yes. Is it only her fault she ended up in jail, NO! She lives in a society where she with 2 jobs couldn`t make ends meet. Where no one gives a flying fuck her kids are hungry! Is that woman a citizen, yes! Is she a criminal, again yes! Should she lose her rights, absolutely NO!

Freedom of speech/vote... If you can take freedom away, then definitaly the right to speech/vote too.

And there are always exceptions, that is why there are rules so the line between correct and incorrect is there.

 

[luka82]

Freedom of speech/vote... If you can take freedom away, then definitaly the right to speech/vote too.

And there are always exceptions, that is why there are rules so the line between correct and incorrect is there.

Pieter the freedom of speech is among the basic human rights, if those prisoners wrongly commited didn`t have the freedom to act/speek, they would still be in jail.
The freedom of speech on the other hand, doesn`t have a lot to do with the freedom to vote. Mostly because you vote annonimously. I believe that every person has the right to vote, that`s it, you and some other people don`t agree, I`m ok with that. :smile:
Oh, and you know I wasn`t talking about the freedom of speech in my post that you have quoted. :wink:

 

[Jason]

The UK parliamentary debate and vote on prisoners' votes is important for two sorts of reasons:
1) It is a debate on the rights of prisoners.
2) It is a debate on the right of the UK parliament to act as a sovereign parliament and create its own laws.

The real impact of the debate is going to come from (2) - and there has to be consequencies from a vote that puts the UK on a path of direct conflict with the ECHR. The point has been made many times that the ECHR is not the EU, yet 100% of EU nations are members of the ECHR and of the CofE, and it is very hard to see how the UK could be outside ECHR and CofE and also in EU.

Curiously this thread seems more interested in (1). The issue is not a lively one in the UK in that we've only had a parliamentary debate because the ECHR has asked for it, and there is a clear public view that prisoners should not get the vote. Documents made available to MPs to prepare them for voting set out the present UK system - and amazingly go back to 1100 and include the Magna Carta along the way. The underlying idea is that voting is a responsibility as well as right - and the responsibility seen as part of being a contributor to society. It is linked with the eligibility and requirement to serve as a juror. Voting in local elections is linked with the council tax register. Overall voting is seen as a freedom linked with a whole bundle of responsibilities and obligations. Within the UK system sending someone to gaol is seen as depriving them of freedom - most obviously the freedom of movement, but also restricting feedom to communicate, taking away the freedom to vote, taking away the responsibility to serve as a juror.

I think the key is the idea that voting in the UK is both a responsibility and a right - and that rights can be exercised only with responsibility. Those in gaol have been found by a court not to be responsible and so cannot vote.

 

[Jason]

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the UK government to draw up within six months legislation to give prisoners the vote.

Votes for prisoners were rejected by parliament a few weeks ago - and by an overwhelming majority. This is shaping up as a direct conflict between the United Kingdom as a sovereign state and the ECHR, an institution to which all EU nations belong and which the EU itself may soon be joining direct. Very messy!

 

[D_Relentless Original]

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the UK government to draw up within six months legislation to give prisoners the vote.

Votes for prisoners were rejected by parliament a few weeks ago - and by an overwhelming majority. This is shaping up as a direct conflict between the United Kingdom as a sovereign state and the ECHR, an institution to which all EU nations belong and which the EU itself may soon be joining direct. Very messy!

Hey Jason, what will happen if they do not comply?

 

[hud01]

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the UK government to draw up within six months legislation to give prisoners the vote.

Votes for prisoners were rejected by parliament a few weeks ago - and by an overwhelming majority. This is shaping up as a direct conflict between the United Kingdom as a sovereign state and the ECHR, an institution to which all EU nations belong and which the EU itself may soon be joining direct. Very messy!

In the US I am considered liberal, but to me if you commit a crime worthy of prison time you lose the right to vote. The EU is so politically correct it is ridiculous

 

[Jason]

Hey Jason, what will happen if they do not comply?

There are three options now:

1) The UK government takes the matter back to parliament with a compromise, perhaps that prisoners whose sentence is less than four years can vote. To have any hope of passing it would need a government whip demanding that all Con and Lib Dem MPs vote for the legislation, and support from the Labour party also. Just a few weeks ago MPs by an overwhelming ratio - 10:1 - rejected prisoner votes, so it is unlikely that the government could whip this through. It is also far from clear that the ECHR would accept a compromise at sentences less than four years - rather the ECHR would simply reject this also. Additionally application is messy - if a prisoner with a 5 year sentence has it reduced to 3 on appeal, have his human rights been breached through not being able to vote?

2) The UK accepts that very soon the UK courts will action the ECHR ruling and award compensation to all prisoners, totalling about £150m per election. The UK government pays up at every election. Unbelievably this option really is on the table.

3) The Lord of the Rolls has stated that the UK courts could be instructed that this specific ECHR ruling is not to be applied and that “as a matter of domestic law there would be nothing objectionable in such a course”. So yes we can ignore it and stop the courts enforcing it. However it is a clear breach of treaty by the UK.

I suspect that the UK will try (1) if only to demonstrate to the world that it cannot be done. Our MPs will for a second time have considered the matter and reached a view. They might even come up with a token gesture, say prisoners under one year can vote (but in the UK if you can vote you can also sit on a jury, so it gets messy). This will take some time. Then maybe option (2) - though the public outcry would be loud.

Option (3) would lead to the UK being expelled from the ECHR, though this would take some time. As such we would be the only nation ever to be kicked out - such paragons of virtue as Belarus are firmly in - and it would stress our relationship with the EU. Every EU nation is a member of the ECHR. The EU is starting a process whereby the EU will itself be a member of the ECHR, and therefore membership will be a condition of EU membership. By leaving the ECHR we would be putting ourself in a departure lounge from the EU. We would also be in a very weak position in arguing that any nation anywhere should take note of international law.

The political dimension is that the UK feels the victim of an ECHR which is trying to increase its power. By chance it is the UK that from the autumn has the chair of the committee looking at reform of the ECHR. There is a view that the ECHR wants to create an issue that the UK needs a compromise on - prisoner votes - so that the UK does not force through any reform.

Curiously for EuroSceptics this is a win-win position. Either the government stands up to the ECHR, or the government is forced into ludicrous positions which increase the anti-Europe mood in the UK.

 

[Average_joe]

In the USA convicted FELONS have permanently lost the right to vote. In the case of less serious convictions, it is as average_joe describes.

My ex was in for a felony offense but he could have participated in tribal elections anyway. But he said that since he was a traditionally trained warrior he was expected by custom to stay apolitical. He refrained from voting in one instance and was barred from voting in the other.

I am heartened to hear that once again other countries in the world are more humane to their citizens than in the USA. Not that the system works very well here, with the easy to rig electronic ballots and the electoral college and all.

It's up to the individual state to decide what they want to do. In some, felons can never regain their rights. In others, such as the state I was talking about, once they are "off-paper" their rights are restored.