Should prisoners get the vote

SimonAH

@greg66

I'm not against it on the grounds of 'naughty boy, no telly for you' I'm against it on the grounds of the massive brick on the rubber sheet of the electorate that a large prison would embody.

As a fr'example....

Back in the late eighties when I was at university in South Kensington a bloke stood as an independant candidate for MP and made a huge dent in the votes polled, yet did almost no campaigning - reason was he was linked to the university and got the halls of residence to back him.

Wandsworth prison is in the Battersea paliamentary constituency? It holds 1665 inmates in an area that polled 67,111 votes in the last election. As it happens, the majority was larger than this, but this is potentially one in forty votes, nearly 2.5% in a very population dense area reckon that won't skew the electoral process?

I think Pentonville and Holloway are in the same constituency? What about more rural areas where there is a prison? Mr Bridger could become one of the most powerful figures in British politics.......fancy MPs being effectively selected by the dregs of society?

Now, OK, of course I'm egging the pudding a bit here - but you have to concede that the prison population (about 80,000 at the last count) is a big, bored and largely unpleasant slice of society that we are (potentially) about to hand the opportunity to make some major mischief, and gain influence and publicity on the way past?

greg66_tri_v2.0

SimonAH wrote:

@greg66

I'm not against it on the grounds of 'naughty boy, no telly for you' I'm against it on the grounds of the massive brick on the rubber sheet of the electorate that a large prison would embody.

As a fr'example....

Back in the late eighties when I was at university in South Kensington a bloke stood as an independant candidate for MP and made a huge dent in the votes polled, yet did almost no campaigning - reason was he was linked to the university and got the halls of residence to back him.

Wandsworth prison is in the Battersea paliamentary constituency? It holds 1665 inmates in an area that polled 67,111 votes in the last election. As it happens, the majority was larger than this, but this is potentially one in forty votes, nearly 2.5% in a very population dense area reckon that won't skew the electoral process?

I think Pentonville and Holloway are in the same constituency? What about more rural areas where there is a prison? Mr Bridger could become one of the most powerful figures in British politics.......fancy MPs being effectively selected by the dregs of society?

Now, OK, of course I'm egging the pudding a bit here - but you have to concede that the prison population (about 80,000 at the last count) is a big, bored and largely unpleasant slice of society that we are (potentially) about to hand the opportunity to make some major mischief, and gain influence and publicity on the way past?

The solution: prisoners are deemed to vote in the constituency in which they resided before they were imprisoned.

graeme_s-2

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Yes. Like it or not, they are part of society. Saying that they would be a big block vote is like saying a prospective MP could get a load of "block" votes from an army barracks.

Or a University campus

graeme_s-2

SimonAH wrote:

As a fr'example....

Back in the late eighties when I was at university in South Kensington a bloke stood as an independant candidate for MP and made a huge dent in the votes polled, yet did almost no campaigning - reason was he was linked to the university and got the halls of residence to back him.?

If the logic you're applying to prisons also applies to universities, then are you saying that you believe students shouldn't be able to vote either?

SimonAH

But that's Liverpool isn't it?





JOKING :-D

(put your flaps down Mudcow :-D )

SimonAH

Graeme_S wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

As a fr'example....

Back in the late eighties when I was at university in South Kensington a bloke stood as an independant candidate for MP and made a huge dent in the votes polled, yet did almost no campaigning - reason was he was linked to the university and got the halls of residence to back him.?

If the logic you're applying to prisons also applies to universities, then are you saying that you believe students shouldn't be able to vote either?

Not in the slightest, it's a very different paradigm.

As it happens students tend to be one of the most apathetic groups of voters in the electorate and rarely mobilise en-block however personally I would make voting compulsory for all, and at that point then fine, you can let the prisoners have a vote too.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

http://www.respectyourself.info/

Should prisoners get the vote?

My personal view is NO! As part of society we agree to live within the boundaries of laws/rules. If you commit a crime that warrants a custodial sentence then it has been deemed that your actions place as not wanting to live within those boundaries. As you are outside those boundaries you should lose the right to vote and have an impact on said society.

What do you think?

I think this is an attractive but flawed argument.

Committing any criminal offence means you step outside the boundaries of society's laws/rules. But for some offences you will get a custodial sentence, and for some you will not. I'm not sure anyone (sensible) advocates removing the right to vote upon conviction of any and every crime.

So the issue shifts to a question of degree. Prison is a removal from society, but does a prison sentence truly reflect the worst criminal behaviour? Again, most (sensible) people would regard certain offences as always meriting a prison sentence. But it is quite clear that there is a large grey area below the most serious of offences: eg to take two random examples: physical violence does not always result in a prison sentence, whereas speeding in a car without more can result in a prison sentence. I find this a bit "upside down", and I am not convinced that there is the a consensus view as to which offences in this grey area should merit prison and which should not. Furthermore, in some cases prison can be avoided by genuine or skilful mitigation, which has nothing to do with the severity of the crime.

So you end up with the position that conviction of some criminal offences should result in a loss of the vote, irrespective of the sentence. I find that line - who loses and who retains the vote - almost impossible to draw personally. So whilst it may seem a bit of a kop out, I wouldn't try to draw it at all; I'd leave prisoners with the right vote.

I thought about my position very carefully before I made my post.

Clearly some crimes are worse than others, I am not disputing that, and certainly on an emotive level there are crimes that appear to carry a more severe sentencing than the crime suggests. Likewise, there are crimes that some may feel carry too little.

However, we have put our faith in the legal system to determine what crimes warrant a custodial sentence and for how long and what crimes do not. The law determines this and if there is error it is for the law to evaluate. This I see unrelated to removing the right to vote. The system is in place, if the judgement and sentencing system is incorrect then it needs changing not the stipulations.

If you carry out a crime you are choosing to live outside the rules of the given society. If you are caught you are subject to appropriate punishment by said society - we see this as a constant throught the human species and even other Great Apes and Monkeys. If you commit a crime that warrants a custodial sentence - regardless of how we may percieve cohesion between severity of crime and sentencing, the law is there to set a precedent that applies to all we follow it, if it is wrong then that law needs changing - then I believe you should lose the right to vote.

tailwindhome

Should prisoners also be excluded from becoming MPs?

walkingbootweather

TailWindHome wrote:

Should prisoners also be excluded from becoming MPs?

or vice versa?

jedster

I agree with DDD here. I think Greg's argument is weak.
Clearly we lock some people up for offences that seem less serious than others where people remain free.
Arguably that is illogical or injust.
But I don't see why that means much for whether prisoners should be allowed to vote. I think removing someone's liberty by locking them in a cell is a bigger restraint on their rights than denying them the vote while they are in prison. I don't think that having an arbitrary rule that if someone's behaviour has been so serious as to merit prison it is also serious enough to suspend their right to vote adds a substantial layer of injustice.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

http://www.respectyourself.info/

Should prisoners get the vote?

My personal view is NO! As part of society we agree to live within the boundaries of laws/rules. If you commit a crime that warrants a custodial sentence then it has been deemed that your actions place as not wanting to live within those boundaries. As you are outside those boundaries you should lose the right to vote and have an impact on said society.

What do you think?

I think this is an attractive but flawed argument.

Committing any criminal offence means you step outside the boundaries of society's laws/rules. But for some offences you will get a custodial sentence, and for some you will not. I'm not sure anyone (sensible) advocates removing the right to vote upon conviction of any and every crime.

So the issue shifts to a question of degree. Prison is a removal from society, but does a prison sentence truly reflect the worst criminal behaviour? Again, most (sensible) people would regard certain offences as always meriting a prison sentence. But it is quite clear that there is a large grey area below the most serious of offences: eg to take two random examples: physical violence does not always result in a prison sentence, whereas speeding in a car without more can result in a prison sentence. I find this a bit "upside down", and I am not convinced that there is the a consensus view as to which offences in this grey area should merit prison and which should not. Furthermore, in some cases prison can be avoided by genuine or skilful mitigation, which has nothing to do with the severity of the crime.

So you end up with the position that conviction of some criminal offences should result in a loss of the vote, irrespective of the sentence. I find that line - who loses and who retains the vote - almost impossible to draw personally. So whilst it may seem a bit of a kop out, I wouldn't try to draw it at all; I'd leave prisoners with the right vote.

I thought about my position very carefully before I made my post.

Clearly some crimes are worse than others, I am not disputing that, and certainly on an emotive level there are crimes that appear to carry a more severe sentencing than the crime suggests. Likewise, there are crimes that some may feel carry too little.

However, we have put our faith in the legal system to determine what crimes warrant a custodial sentence and for how long and what crimes do not. The law determines this and if there is error it is for the law to evaluate. This I see unrelated to removing the right to vote. The system is in place, if the judgement and sentencing system is incorrect then it needs changing not the stipulations.

If you carry out a crime you are choosing to live outside the rules of the given society. If you are caught you are subject to appropriate punishment by said society - we see this as a constant throught the human species and even other Great Apes and Monkeys. If you commit a crime that warrants a custodial sentence - regardless of how we may percieve cohesion between severity of crime and sentencing, the law is there to set a precedent that applies to all we follow it, if it is wrong then that law needs changing - then I believe you should lose the right to vote.

I don't follow the logic. The role of prisons is pretty poorly defined - punishment? rehabilitation? keeping them off the streets? a deterrent? Unless you can answer exactly why it is deemed appropriate to send people to prison, I don't see how you can conclude that it should follow that they lose their entitlement to vote. There are all sorts of people in society that we might like to see deprived of the right to vote - chavs, teenagers, pensioners etc etc. Prisoners are just another group. I don't much like them but, I don't agree that in committing an offence punishable by prison they have automatically waived their right to participate in any aspect of wider society.

JamesB5446

A poor person is more likely to be imprisoned for the same crime as a rich person.
A black person is more likely to be imprisoned for the same crime as a white person.

Being out of prison doesn't make you any better than someone in prison. It just means that you've not been caught yet or that the system is already biased towards you.

SimonAH wrote:

fancy MPs being effectively selected by the dregs of society?

Better than being selected by News Corp, imo.

SimonAH

JamesB5446 wrote:

A poor person is more likely to be imprisoned for the same crime as a rich person.
A black person is more likely to be imprisoned for the same crime as a white person.

Being out of prison doesn't make you any better than someone in prison. It just means that you've not been caught yet or that the system is already biased towards you.

SimonAH wrote:

fancy MPs being effectively selected by the dregs of society?

Better than being selected by News Corp, imo.

First paragraph
Yes. True. But please note the word 'crime'

Second paragraph
Yes, in the vastly overwhelming number of cases, not being in, or having been in, prison does imply you are a better person. Your behaviour has to be pretty sodding extreme to get banged up in this country.

Third paragraph
The free press, as odious as they may often be, fairly accurately represent the national psyche. You can't additionally say that Heat readers should be denied a vote (as much as I'd like to say that anyone that vacuous should be recused)

None of the above is relevant anyway.

My only argument was that big blocks of prisoners would distort politics, and as they are prisoners for being anti-social anyway, why sweat about them being denied electoral rights?

To cross-link with the other DDD thread du jour, this is one demographic against whom I have no issues with discrimination. Feck 'em.

tailwindhome

JamesB5446 wrote:

A poor person is more likely to be imprisoned for the same crime as a rich person.
A black person is more likely to be imprisoned for the same crime as a white person.

So this is a rule that disportionately (sp?) impacts of black males from poor background.

Greg'll make a Tory out of you yet DDD.



If the argument is that prisoners have set themselves 'outside' society and thereby lose the right to vote are there any other rights they should lose; medical care, education?

JamesB5446

Would we need a by election every time some one is proven to have been wrongfully imprisoned?

First.Aspect

JamesB5446 wrote:

Being out of prison doesn't make you any better than someone in prison. It just means that you've not been caught yet or that the system is already biased towards you.

What on earth DO you get up to in your spare time?

Clearly its some form of narcotic abuse, if this comment is anything to go by.

Which makes you a criminal. Who hasn't been caught yet. I get it now.

First.Aspect

The solution is obvious. Every prisoner has the RIGHT to vote.... at their local polling station.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs

Re: Greg's argument (and not having actually decided myself) - I also find it slightly weak. A given offence has a range of sentences. Right now decisions are made as to whether the particular circumstances in each case warrant loss of liberty for a period or not. Its no more or less imperfect for inclusion of the right to vote as a consequence of imprisonment, providing that is applied uniformly.

And that's the problem. I personally find the biggest flaw to be that if one commits a given crime under a given set of circumstances on one day, you may lose the right to vote for Nick Griffen, whereas on another day (when your sentence happens to span polling day) your punishment is more lenient [see what I did there?].

It is also a disproportionately large part of a term of imprisonment of 1 week falling across a polling day as compared to a 5 year term falling across a single polling day (for the sake of argument).

So there is a random and thus inherently unjust additional punishment in prohibiting voting by whilst in prison.

But all in all I am managing to cope with the terrible ineqity of the imposition that society places on these poor souls and really we should spend more time worrying about badgers.

JamesB5446

First Aspect wrote:

Clearly its some form of narcotic abuse, if this comment is anything to go by.

Which makes you a criminal. Who hasn't been caught yet. I get it now.

If that was the case, why would what I choose to ingest make me any less worthy of voting than you?