Now then

[expat]

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?

You made it plain. I think you're wrong. Capisce?

[expat]

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.

Ta. But that's exactly my point: if you're baqnned you lose the right to drive as a punishment, a deterrent, a chance to reflect, for public safety, etc.
In prison you lose your liberty for the same reasons.

But why do you lose the vote? Why? I know you say it is as a consequence of breaking the law: but why should it be imposed a a said consequence? Where is the sense?

Never mind who gets it and who doesn't, or the fact that it followes from being found guilty of a crime. Why should it be done at all?

[To BI or not to BI?]

Ta. But that's exactly my point: if you're baqnned you lose the right to drive as a punishment, a deterrent, a chance to reflect, for public safety, etc.
In prison you lose your liberty for the same reasons.

But why do you lose the vote? Why? I know you say it is as a consequence of breaking the law: but why should it be imposed a a said consequence? Where is the sense?

Never mind who gets it and who doesn't, or the fact that it followes from being found guilty of a crime. Why should it be done at all?

For the sake of argument, let's assume you went to jail for stealing (feel free to substitute stealing with whatever other offence that may send you to jail). Now let's assume that party X plans to change the law so that people who steal cannot be sent to jail. Who do you think all the people who are in jail for stealing will vote for?

[expat]

For the sake of argument, let's assume you went to jail for stealing (feel free to substitute stealing with whatever other offence that may send you to jail). Now let's assume that party X plans to change the law so that people who steal cannot be sent to jail. Who do you think all the people who are in jail for stealing will vote for?

So you want to remove the vote from a set of people, because you think that you know what they would vote for, and you don't want to see that happen. So better not let them vote at all. Do you see where this leads?

[shaunbhoy]

But why do you lose the vote? Why? I know you say it is as a consequence of breaking the law: but why should it be imposed a a said consequence? Where is the sense?

Never mind who gets it and who doesn't, or the fact that it followes from being found guilty of a crime. Why should it be done at all?

Because the right to vote is a privilege, and as well as being confined to both punish you and to prevent you from reoffending, there ought to be a certain loss of the privileges extended to law-abiding citizens during incarceration. Its not as if prison life is that fraught nowadays anyway. Comprende?
Spare us your bleeding heart lectures expat.

[DimPrawn]

Removing anything from a convict infringes their human rights.

I will not allow this happen, and will make a fecking lot of money defending it!

Yours,

Cherie Blair

[The Lone Gunman]

IMHO. In todays society too many things are taken for granted, people have forgotten that with rights come responsibilities and one should not be available without the other.

Too many people have abdicated the resposibility side of the equation but still insist on the rights.

Why should someone who has chosen to break the law be allowed to contribute their opinion on who should make the law.

It is my belief that the voting franchise is an earned right. People should have to do something to gain it. Serving with the armed forces or public services would be one route, possibly a citizenship test another. Don't go getting picky on the details, it is just an idea and some examples and it is how I feel.
Thus the franchise could be removed from those found to be unworthy.

This may be a bit elitist, but the plebs are more and more showing their innability to positively contribute to society on a daily basis.

[Sergeant Apone]

It is my belief that the voting franchise is an earned right. People should have to do something to gain it. Serving with the armed forces or public services would be one route, possibly a citizenship test another. Don't go getting picky on the details, it is just an idea and some examples and it is how I feel. Thus the franchise could be removed from those found to be unworthy.

See also Starship Troopers for a fictional discourse on precisely this matter.

[The Lone Gunman]

See also Starship Troopers for a fictional discourse on precisely this matter.

I was going to quote that myself, but I expect most have only seen the film and it is a lot less thaught provoking than the book.

[Sergeant Apone]

I was going to quote that myself, but I expect most have only seen the film and it is a lot less thaught provoking than the book.

Yes, the film has some overtones of it remaining but the book is much more explicit, having been critiqued as a pro-fascist polemic by many.