Reply to: Now then

[Joe Black]

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?

My gut reaction like many others is, operate outside the laws of the land and you can't expect the law to give you the same rights as everyone else...but I also see the side expat points out. That if someone creates an unjust law, and you lose your rights as a result of it, then how can you ever repeal such a law.

As I said, my gut reaction is one thing, but then again such things have been the trade of choice for many a year for dictators and their so called political prisoners who have no rights.

[To BI or not to BI?]

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?

I realize that it sounds silly, or calculated, and probably I am not expressing myself well enough. I think in the end it all comes down to the fact that I don't think it is right to demand certain rights if you are infringing those same rights in the first place. By committing a crime you position yourself above society and its rules, therefore you cannot expect to be able to influence society in deciding what rules to apply (as you would if you were allowed to vote)

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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.