Now then

[expat]

Don't let the namby-pamby lefty lentil-munchers try and fudge the issue by carping on about speeding fines etc. Not the same thing at all.

Too easy an answer. I do not munch lentils, nor words. Speeding is a crime. If you mean that speeding is a crime that you commit, so you don't think you should lose the vote for it, then say so. Don't be namby-pamby!

[premiere]

Easy answer. If you do not abide by the rules of society, you forfeit some of the rights of said society. So whilst you are banged up at Her Majesty's Pleasure, bang goes your voting rights. Apply this to Custodial sentences only and it all becomes easy to police. Don't let the namby-pamby lefty lentil-munchers try and fudge the issue by carping on about speeding fines etc. Not the same thing at all.

absolutely not the same thing at all, but I fail too see why only jailbirds should not have the right.

I mean.. there are loads of people who break the law criminally and quite seriously, but get a light sentence from some namby pamby judge. However, the fact that they have committed a serious offence should too exclude them from voting.

20 years ago I worked at a distribution company and there was a bloke called Colin who worked there. There was a party at work one night, celebrating someones retirement. Colin got p*ssed and then willingly drove home (unknowlingly to us as he just disappeared from the party). On the way home, he knocked a 19 year old girl off her bike. She died.

Colin got a £200 fine, 12 month driving ban and a 6 month suspended jail sentence.

People have gone to jail for less and yet it is said that they shouldn't have the right to vote? But Colin has cos he isn't in jail?

Anyone who commits a criminal offence that carries a 'possible jail term' sentence should lose the right to vote, whether they are in fact jailed or not.

[Pondlife]

Too easy an answer. I do not munch lentils, nor words. Speeding is a crime. If you mean that speeding is a crime that you commit, so you don't think you should lose the vote for it, then say so. Don't be namby-pamby!

There is a distinction though. Speeding does not result in a criminal conviction nor does careless driving. Dangerous driving does and can result in a custodial sentence.

[expat]

Easy answer. If you do not abide by the rules of society, you forfeit some of the rights of said society.

...and not others. You don't "lose rights" at random, you lose them for a reason. For example you may lose your liberty, because there is a reason for that. The reason is usually that it is meant to be a punishment, a deterrent to your or others committing crimes in the future, a chance for supervision and reform, or simply keeping you off the streets.

A reason, in other words. What's the reason for removing the vote? Does it reform the criminal? Will a burglar be deterred by the risk of not being able to vote in the next election? No. The reason is that you want to be spiteful. IMHO that is a bad reason.

[To BI or not to BI?]

Wrong: I did not say that they were outlaws. In fact that is exactly the distinction I wanted to make. An outlaw is something quite differen from a lawbreaker.

Prisoners are not outlaws. They are not outside the law, within the law (that is why they are being punished by it).

Someone who is subject to the law, and breaks it, is not an outlaw: he is subject to its punishment, and he is still subject to its protection. An outlaw is someone who has not merely broken the law, but has stepped right outside it. It is not murder to kill an outlaw, because he is outside the law: the law protecting people from murder does not apply to him.

Someone who is being punished within the law is still protected by the law from being murdered. In the same way, he should still have the vote.

Otherwise, if you think that breaking the law removes that right, why not apply it to all lawbreakers? You with the speeding tickets too.

Apologies. I misread you. Still don't agree with your argument, though. If you break the law you must be prepared to accept the consequences, one of which may be to be banged away for a period of time, during which you may not vote. Using the same principle, if you are caught speeding you may have your license suspended suspended for a period of time, during which you may not drive.

[DimPrawn]

If crims can vote, they might just be tempted to vote for the party that is soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime.

And we know who they are don't we!

[Dundeegeorge]

Yes, all of them....

If crims can vote, they might just be tempted to vote for the party that is soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime.

And we know who they are don't we!

Possibly......

[expat]

There is a distinction though. Speeding does not result in a criminal conviction

Yes, it does. A speeder has broken the law. What is the distinction you are seeking to make? If is is that it does not attract a custodial sentence, then in the context of discussing whether a criminal might forfeit rights for all convictions or only for going to prison, that is a circular argument.

[shaunbhoy]

I do not munch lentils, nor words.

Well try munching mine a bit longer then you might understand them. I stated quite clearly that custodial sentences should mean a loss of voting rights. Other less serious offences should not IMHO. Hard to see how I could have made it plainer for you. Perhaps some diagrams?

[expat]

Anyone who commits a criminal offence that carries a 'possible jail term' sentence should lose the right to vote, whether they are in fact jailed or not.

Some of you have been relatively thoughtful about who should be subject to this, but no-one has yet come up with a reason why anyone should not be able to vote.

I can give you a reason why nobody should ever be deprived of their vote: because in a democracy it is the vote that rules the government, not vice versa. when the government decides who may or may not vote, they are committing a very grave action. Better that they do not do that at all.