Plans to let 28,000 prisoners vote

[Beorn]

Grieve calls for debate on plans to let 28,000 prisoners vote

Dominic Grieve has called for a parliamentary debate over Government proposals to give up to 28,800 prisoners the right to vote.
A Ministry of Justice consultation document suggests that criminals sentenced to less than four years in prison should be given the right to vote.

But Dominic, the Shadow Justice Secretary, warned that many people would question whether this is a “sensible development”:
“The principle that those who are in custody after conviction should not have the opportunity to vote is a perfectly rational one. Civic rights go with civic responsibility, but these rights have been flagrantly violated by those who have committed imprisonable offences.”
Dominic stressed the importance of having a parliamentary debate on the proposal, so that MPs get the chance to retain the existing system whereby convicted prisoners are not allowed to vote.

Source (http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2009/04/Grieve_calls_for_debate_on_plans_to_let_prisoners_ vote.aspx)

[Beorn]

Regardless of whether a member of society has committed a crime, the right to vote on matters pertaining to your country should never be rescinded.

[The Lawspeaker]

Regardless of whether a member of society has committed a crime, the right to vote on matters pertaining to your country should never be rescinded.
I disagree. Criminals never forfeit their basic human rights (right to receive medical care, to self-determination over ones own body, to be fed and to have a place to sleep etc) but for the time they are in the nick they ought to loose any rights they have as citizens since they have turned themselves against their society. That would include loosing the right to vote.

They first should repay their debt on society.

[Absinthe]

No, in fact, it should be the first thing taken away from you.
If society puts you away, it's for a reason. You can't be a member and a non-member of society at the same time. Plus, if criminals have the right to vote, then it's even one more bad influence (along with minorities and lobbyists) for the voting outcome. Do we need that?

[Skandi]

I would say that it depends on the crime, I think that those rules were written when people were only locked up for "proper" crimes not some of the crap that can get you jailed now. Someone put away for 5 days for a motoring conviction or other stupid crime, should not be denied the vote, as they would just be very unlucky to miss the election.

[Vulpix]

I would say that it depends on the crime, I think that those rules were written when people were only locked up for "proper" crimes not some of the crap that can get you jailed now. Someone put away for 5 days for a motoring conviction or other stupid crime, should not be denied the vote, as they would just be very unlucky to miss the election.

Indeed, or the so called "thought crimes"! :mad:

[Loki]

Regardless of whether a member of society has committed a crime, the right to vote on matters pertaining to your country should never be rescinded.

My thoughts too. I think basic human rights, such as the right to vote, should be maintained always. We are not living in medieval times any more.

[Maelstrom]

My thoughts too. I think basic human rights, such as the right to vote, should be maintained always. We are not living in medieval times any more.

Care to elaborate?

I personally think that more of our present day crimes need to become torts, while would leave a great deal more people eligible to vote.

[Loki]

Care to elaborate?

I personally think that more of our present day crimes need to become torts, while would leave a great deal more people eligible to vote.

Torts?

Human rights have been fought over for many centuries, costing many lives. Civilization did not just pop out of nowhere. I don't think harking back to medieval times is a valid emotion.

It is easy to proclaim on a message forum that all criminals should be executed, castrated, or whatever. But in practice things are a bit different. Unless we want to become a society as oppressive as we see in some Middle Eastern countries. No thanks, we're better than that.

[Beorn]

They first should repay their debt on society.


And then what? Will their vote suddenly become applicable and acceptable towards society upon their release?

[The Lawspeaker]

And then what? Will their vote suddenly become applicable and acceptable towards society upon their release?
Yes- if they are citizens and they have repaid their debt and served their time in prison. Why not ? They repaid their debt.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I don't think they should vote, nor should anyone who has ever been convicted of a serious crime. There are a lot of people in jail for things that I don't think should be jailable crimes (DUI, drug & weapon possession, etc) but most of these people aren't exactly the cream of society either.


We are not living in medieval times any more. :(

[Maelstrom]

Torts?

Human rights have been fought over for many centuries, costing many lives. Civilization did not just pop out of nowhere. I don't think harking back to medieval times is a valid emotion.

It is easy to proclaim on a message forum that all criminals should be executed, castrated, or whatever. But in practice things are a bit different. Unless we want to become a society as oppressive as we see in some Middle Eastern countries. No thanks, we're better than that.

This is from one of my recent lectures on Legal History, concerning the law system in pre-1066 England:


Torts vs Crime

Torts = wrongs, seen as a disruption of one's mund or peace.
Each person in a community was in a hierarchy and this also translated to that of a hierarchy of mund.

Eventually certain torts came to be seen as a disruption of the King's mund also.

Some serious offences were boteless meaning no bot would suffice or was allowed and only punishment would suffice.

In other cases a bot was acceptable and the King would impose a fine or wite.

Eventually there were some things that came to be seen as disrupting the King's mund even if no other individuals peace was disrupted.

Today, there are crimes that are also torts and some torts that are not crimes.

An example of a present day tort for which a fine must be paid is if you have livestock that stray from your property and go and eat another persons vegetables or other such thing.

Here's a definition:


Tort
–noun Law.
a wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation.


Obviously I don't at all profess to be a master on the subject, but essentially in the Anglo-Saxon world a crime is always a crime if it affects another person directly.

A criminal is one that commits a crime. It is my personal belief that when possible every crime should become a tort.

It is wrong to permit some criminals to vote, whilst banned other criminals from voting when in essence all are criminals.

A criminal is called a criminal for a reason and as soon as you begin making exceptions within the criminal "spectrum" there arises an issue:

Person 1) All criminals are not permitted to vote.
Person 2) Ahh yeah, but what about Dave Davidson? He's only a criminal because of (explains a petty crime).

That's called The No True Scotsman Ploy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman) and isn't going to get you anywhere.

To conclude, a distinction, perhaps a new term needs to be created if you wish some (for lack of a better term) criminals to be allowed to vote. As I stated earlier, I advocate trying to make any possible crime a tort. But that's just me :D

[SwordoftheVistula]

Obviously I don't at all profess to be a master on the subject, but essentially in the Anglo-Saxon world a crime is always a crime if it affects another person directly.

A criminal is one that commits a crime. It is my personal belief that when possible every crime should become a tort.

Not exactly. In the modern Anglo-Saxon world, 'torts' refer to a variety of things for which one can sue in civil court, whereas 'crimes' refer to things which are ruled illegal by government law. Some things, such as assault & battery, are both a tort (you can sue someone who hits you with a baseball bat) and a crime (you can be arrested for hitting someone with a baseball bat).

Some things are torts but not crimes, for example if you injure someone in a car accident. Other things are crimes but not torts, for example if you sell someone crack cocaine.

[Groenewolf]

I do not think a certain section of prisoners should be alowed to vote. Namely those who are in for serious offences. In older times you could have been banished from society for certain crimes and they sure did not have the right to show up at the town-meeting or ding and participate in the proces of it.

Wether or not the should have right on things like healthcare is something else. About welfare no, let them work.

[Loddfafner]

I am concerned about the motive for ruling parties in places where elections are extremely close to incarcerate large numbers of potential voters for the opposing party.

[Skandi]

Thankfully that is yet to become a problem here so I don't think that you can use it as an excuse to let prisoners vote.

[Rudy]

Non-violent prisoners should regain full rights after they have passed a polygraph test.

[Beorn]

Non-violent prisoners should regain full rights after they have passed a polygraph test.

Why a polygraph test, Rudy? Just curious, is all. :)

[Groenewolf]

Why a polygraph test, Rudy? Just curious, is all. :)

I think it is a lie-dectorer test.

[Rudy]

It is also referred to as the Lie Detector test.

Within the US federal government, a polygraph examination is also referred to as a psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) examination.

Polygraphs are in some countries used as an interrogation tool with criminal suspects or candidates for sensitive public or private sector employment. The use and effectiveness of the polygraph is controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

Some examples of questions that could be used for former drug users are:

Do you plan on dealing illegal drugs when you are released?
Do you plan on stealing to support your drug habit?
Do you plan on using violence to obtain illegal drugs?

[Loddfafner]

It is also referred to as the Lie Detector test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

Some examples of questions that could be used for former drug users are:

Do you plan on dealing illegal drugs when you are released?
Do you plan on stealing to support your drug habit?
Do you plan on using violence to obtain illegal drugs?

Lie detector tests are not very effective. Anyways, many prisoners plan on straightening up when they get out. The problem is that once faced with the problems of the unemployability of ex-cons, and of despair after they find out just how far they have drifted apart from their old girlfriends, they tend to fall back into their old habits. They don't plan on it, but it is what they know.

[Beorn]

It is also referred to as the Lie Detector test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

Sorry, I perhaps didn't phrase my question clearly enough, but I know what a Polygraph test is and entails, but was more interested as to why you would want to ensure released convicts underwent a test.

[Rudy]

I would not want people to be released until they have been reformed. There is no point in releasing a monster back into society. Charles Manson is a good example of someone that does not want to be part of society. Therefore, his sentence should be indefinite. On the other hand, I do not think they should be tortured while being reformed.

Also, testing for people that want to regain gun rights.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I don't think that is something you can really test for. Most people in jail are there because they lack proper impulse control, common sense, or both. I don't think many of them sit around in the jail cell all day thinking "man, I can't wait to get out and stab my girlfriend 30 times again"