Reply to: British General Election could breach Human Rights convention

[escapeUK]

Prisoners have never been able to vote, its the consequence of living a life of crime. More scary is the thought of what a government desperate to hold onto power could do to ensure the criminal vote...



Are you getting worried yet?

Vote Nu Liemore for shorter sentences and more prison perks...

No, this country is fked and has been for years. All you need to worry about is your escape plan!

[threaded]

Most in jail are also victim of some kind.

PZZ

Most women are in jail for a downward spiral that started with failing to pay their TV license.

If the TV license was removed, you'd reduce the female prison population dramatically.

HTH

[threaded]

They might vote for someone who wants to make theft legal.

What, like the directors and shareholders of a bank or insurance company?

[pzz76077]

There is always a better solution to sending someone to prison.
Prison is just the end of a system of failure that should have started with education, support etc.

Most in jail are also victim of some kind.

PZZ

[norrahe]

Why lock people up if you can send them out to work and tax them into submission?

Well you have to put the chavs somewhere

[Mich the Tester]

Build more prisons, so that if they get in again after the next election, they can start putting people away as opposed to giving them a caution.

Why lock people up if you can send them out to work and tax them into submission?

[norrahe]

What else would labour do after doubling the prison population?

Build more prisons, so that if they get in again after the next election, they can start putting people away as opposed to giving them a caution.

[AtW]

What else would labour do after doubling the prison population?

Hard Labour?

[minestrone]

What else would labour do after doubling the prison population?

[norrahe]

I darn't even read this in case my blood boils at doo gooders sticking their noses in.

I for one am happy with people breaking the law, going to jail and loosing their freedom to vote as part of their punishment while paying their debt to society. May break their human rights but where was his thought for my rights when he stole someones property or physically harmed them. Would like to know how far an 'eye for an eye' policy would get in a human rights debate. Seems perfectly feasible to me but i bet we won't be allowed to do that.

They may pay taxes on what they earn etc but they didn't pay any taxes on what they stole so making a living without putting in to the system so have no vote. Simples

I have to agree with you on that one.

[pzz76077]

It is said that the law is a living instrument, not static, therefore I am in favour of judicial activism. It is worth reading the Court’s judgment for the history, and the reasoning of the judges for arriving at their decision. It is almost flawless.

I researched my subject before bringing the action. I discovered that it had never been debated in Parliament before the law was passed to disenfranchise prisoners. Therefore, it cannot be claimed to be a legitimate law. Whereas Guy Fawkes failed to blow up Parliament, I claim to have succeeded. I made history, leaving my graffiti in law books. It was the Individual v The State.

I believe in reform simply because I reformed myself with the help of others. From law-breaker to a law maker. In the process I have turned Jack Straw from law maker to law-breaker. Empowerment.

When I started studying law, we had already joined the Council of Europe and EU and therefore my study took in the international law and European law perspectives. When Charles Falconer read law at Cambridge we were not in Europe and therefore he only studied English law. It put him at a disadvantage from a fresher and perhaps sharper mind.

If you accept that human beings are entitled to human rights, and that prisoners because they are human are entitled to human rights, and that it is a human right to vote (Article 3 of the First Protocol), it follows that prisoners are entitled to the vote. This is the default position, Universal Suffrage, then there is scope for disenfranchisement when the punishment fits the crime, say, electoral fraud. There is no link between burglary and the franchise. The vote is so precious in a democracy it cannot be removed just on a whim.

Whilst we are signed up to the Convention and surrendered jurisdiction to the Court, that position governs our conduct. The Court is upholding the rule of law. Jack Straw is not, he is breaking it. In March my submission to the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe is that my case progresses to the final resolution stage and is returned to the Court for a judgment on the systemic violation. The Court will then lay down the active steps the UK must take to remedy the situation, and the time frame for compliance. If the UK fails to comply fully with the judgment, then the Court will suspend the UK from the Council of Europe. And, because all Member States who sign up to the EU have to abide by both the Convention and Court decisions, the UK will be suspended from the EU as a rogue State. This would be a shame as I believe the UK is in the sink or swim position and needs Europe to survive.

The law is a double-edged sword. If it can punish you it can also protect you. Prisoners are merely asserting that they want the law’s protection against the State for this gross breach of their human rights. What message does it send to prisoners that it is alright to break the law? The government must set a good example. The UK has argued that prisoners by committing their crimes have lost the moral authority to vote. However, moral qualification is not one of the criteria for the franchise. Lord Carey has opined that Parliament has lost the moral authority to govern since the expenses scandal.

A civilised society cannot any longer sacrifice human beings to a civic death, it is primitive and barbaric and serves society no good at all and is a very expensive waste of time and money. If prisoners had the vote, they would have a voice in Parliament and then lobby for reforms which would benefit themselves and society in general.

I seem to recall reading that it has been debated in Parliament.
Emily Pankhurst for one brought this issue to the fore during her groundbreaking work.



PZZ

[Doggy Styles]

Never mind all that. They are lags, many are multiple offenders, and so they can't be trusted to vote for decent law-abidingness.

They might vote for someone who wants to make theft legal.

[Jailhouselawyer]

Vote for prisoners votes

It is said that the law is a living instrument, not static, therefore I am in favour of judicial activism. It is worth reading the Court’s judgment for the history, and the reasoning of the judges for arriving at their decision. It is almost flawless.

I researched my subject before bringing the action. I discovered that it had never been debated in Parliament before the law was passed to disenfranchise prisoners. Therefore, it cannot be claimed to be a legitimate law. Whereas Guy Fawkes failed to blow up Parliament, I claim to have succeeded. I made history, leaving my graffiti in law books. It was the Individual v The State.

I believe in reform simply because I reformed myself with the help of others. From law-breaker to a law maker. In the process I have turned Jack Straw from law maker to law-breaker. Empowerment.

When I started studying law, we had already joined the Council of Europe and EU and therefore my study took in the international law and European law perspectives. When Charles Falconer read law at Cambridge we were not in Europe and therefore he only studied English law. It put him at a disadvantage from a fresher and perhaps sharper mind.

If you accept that human beings are entitled to human rights, and that prisoners because they are human are entitled to human rights, and that it is a human right to vote (Article 3 of the First Protocol), it follows that prisoners are entitled to the vote. This is the default position, Universal Suffrage, then there is scope for disenfranchisement when the punishment fits the crime, say, electoral fraud. There is no link between burglary and the franchise. The vote is so precious in a democracy it cannot be removed just on a whim.

Whilst we are signed up to the Convention and surrendered jurisdiction to the Court, that position governs our conduct. The Court is upholding the rule of law. Jack Straw is not, he is breaking it. In March my submission to the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe is that my case progresses to the final resolution stage and is returned to the Court for a judgment on the systemic violation. The Court will then lay down the active steps the UK must take to remedy the situation, and the time frame for compliance. If the UK fails to comply fully with the judgment, then the Court will suspend the UK from the Council of Europe. And, because all Member States who sign up to the EU have to abide by both the Convention and Court decisions, the UK will be suspended from the EU as a rogue State. This would be a shame as I believe the UK is in the sink or swim position and needs Europe to survive.

The law is a double-edged sword. If it can punish you it can also protect you. Prisoners are merely asserting that they want the law’s protection against the State for this gross breach of their human rights. What message does it send to prisoners that it is alright to break the law? The government must set a good example. The UK has argued that prisoners by committing their crimes have lost the moral authority to vote. However, moral qualification is not one of the criteria for the franchise. Lord Carey has opined that Parliament has lost the moral authority to govern since the expenses scandal.

A civilised society cannot any longer sacrifice human beings to a civic death, it is primitive and barbaric and serves society no good at all and is a very expensive waste of time and money. If prisoners had the vote, they would have a voice in Parliament and then lobby for reforms which would benefit themselves and society in general.

[Ardesco]

Prisoners have never been able to vote, its the consequence of living a life of crime. More scary is the thought of what a government desperate to hold onto power could do to ensure the criminal vote...



Are you getting worried yet?

Vote Nu Liemore for shorter sentences and more prison perks...

[northernladuk]

I darn't even read this in case my blood boils at doo gooders sticking their noses in.

I for one am happy with people breaking the law, going to jail and loosing their freedom to vote as part of their punishment while paying their debt to society. May break their human rights but where was his thought for my rights when he stole someones property or physically harmed them. Would like to know how far an 'eye for an eye' policy would get in a human rights debate. Seems perfectly feasible to me but i bet we won't be allowed to do that.

They may pay taxes on what they earn etc but they didn't pay any taxes on what they stole so making a living without putting in to the system so have no vote. Simples