Prisoners having a vote....

[MarillionFan]

I didn't know retired English cricketers had such extreme opinions. At least, David Gower always struck me as a fairly liberal, balanced and amiable chap.

Who do you think taught Saddam? Nasty piece of work that Nasser.

[TheFaQQer]

I didn't know retired English cricketers had such extreme opinions. At least, David Gower always struck me as a fairly liberal, balanced and amiable chap.

[Ignis Fatuus]

You are kidding, right?

I am not kidding. Prisoners are part of society. You (and I) might dislike them, might want to see them punished, might want to argue that they should not be allowed to vote. Fair enough, maybe they shouldnt' be allowed to vote. But they are part of society.

Society (n) A large social grouping that shares the same geographical territory and is subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.

Looks to me like prisoners are part of that. A part I don't like, but a part nonetheless.


There is a serious point behind this nit-picking: it is to say that, if you want to argue that prisoners should not get the vote for some reason, go ahead and argue it; but simply to say that they are not part of society, without justifying that claim, is not arguing the original point, it is merely what is called begging the question.

[shaunbhoy]

I am not kidding. Prisoners are part of society. You (and I) might dislike them, might want to see them punished, might want to argue that they should not be allowed to vote. Fair enough, maybe they shouldnt' be allowed to vote. But they are part of society.

Society (n) A large social grouping that shares the same geographical territory and is subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.

Looks to me like prisoners are part of that. A part I don't like, but a part nonetheless.


There is a serious point behind this nit-picking: it is to say that, if you want to argue that prisoners should not get the vote for some reason, go ahead and argue it; but simply to say that they are not part of society, without justifying that claim, is not arguing the original point, it is merely what is called begging the question.

Not that serious a point though, patently.

[cailin maith]

Society has excluded them for the crimes they have committed. Surely that exclusion should mean they don't have the rights and freedoms to which they were previously entitled?

[Mich the Tester]

Society has excluded them for the crimes they have committed. Surely that exclusion should mean they don't have the rights and freedoms to which they were previously entitled?

One great advantage of a prison sentence as opposed to capital punishment is that if someone turns out to be innocent, you can give him his rights and freedoms back, apologize and possibly (if we were a civilised society) provide some compensation for the disruption to his life. You can't give someone the right to vote retrospectively in all the elections that put governments in place that may have made his life in prison harder or better during the years he was locked up. This might sound like a contrived argument, but it isn't; it's based on the simple principle that we only have limited certainty as to guilt, and we might get it wrong.

Also, add the ban on prisoners voting to the rights our leaders have usurped to lock people up for 28 days without charge and internment powers and you hand rulers a toolkit for locking up people who might vote against them.

[TheFaQQer]

An incarcerated criminal has the right to vote in a European election, but not a domestic one.

The question is where do you draw the line. Why should a repentant fraudster in jail not have the right to vote, yet an unrepentant murderer who has been released have the right to vote?

Whatever the concepts, the UK does not have the right to choose which parts of the European Convention on Human Rights it wants to apply and those that it does not - no government does. Either withdraw from the convention (and take the consequences of that action), which is what the Tories want to do, or you stay in the convention (as most of the other political parties want) and accept that you have to abide by it.

[Mich the Tester]

An incarcerated criminal has the right to vote in a European election, but not a domestic one.

The question is where do you draw the line. Why should a repentant fraudster in jail not have the right to vote, yet an unrepentant murderer who has been released have the right to vote?

Whatever the concepts, the UK does not have the right to choose which parts of the European Convention on Human Rights it wants to apply and those that it does not - no government does. Either withdraw from the convention (and take the consequences of that action), which is what the Tories want to do, or you stay in the convention (as most of the other political parties want) and accept that you have to abide by it.

Quite ironic for a party that was once led by Sir Winston Churchill.

[Doggy Styles]

I heard some old lag on the radio the other day, and he said that "the last thing the great majority of prisoners worry about is being able to vote".

Apart from spending time with other old lags in prisons, I don't know if he has any other data he has to back that up. But if true, some people are fighting for something in the UK that that the great majority of lags don't care about, the majority of the public don't want, and the vast majority of MPs don't want.

So why try and enforce it?

[Mich the Tester]

the EU Court of Human Rights...

...doesn't exist.