Tick Tock Tick Tock

[rabbit]

As it is now 24 hours since anyone posted on this site I thought that I would start a new topic.

This Thursday our MPs will vote on whether some prisoners should be given a right to vote.

I say that some prisoners should have that fundamental democratic right.

I don`t understand Cameron`s views on this.

My reasons, not in any particular order.

1.People can be sent to gaol for numerous reasons, many of which are not a danger to democracy,

2.Prison sentences are not necessarily always the best ways of punishing people who break our laws (I believe Cameron himself has inferred as much).

3.Some of our prisoners are innocent of the crimes of which they have been convicted.

4.The current regulations regarding who can vote are old and need to be reviewed.

[SRMoore]

So which prisoners would you allow to vote and which would you deny? Taking into consideration that if a prisoner locked up for 'twocing' cars could vote but another who is convicted of defrauding vulnerable old people couldn't, the latter would surely lodge a legal challenge because neither crimes are 'technically' violent crimes.

I'm not dismissing your post, Rabbit. Just showing that it's a bloody minefield and the easiest thing to do would be to leave it well alone IMHO

[Stevef]

When convicted and sentenced to jail, you are being deigned your freedom and liberty as a punishment for your crimes. This has and should continue to include the freedom to vote.

Crime is committed not just against a victim but against society itself. Being  jailed as a consequence means you should lose the rights that society provides you with for the duration of that sentence.



Just an after thought, If serving prisoners were allowed to vote I wonder what the turnout would  be!

[rabbit]

I don`t think leaving it well alone is an option.

Before women were given the right to vote, this argument may also have been used.

It is potentially a minefield, but prisoners can, with the law as it stands sue, the government for breach of human rights.

I am very wary of giving every prisoner the right to vote (although some would argue for a blanket permission)

Where to draw the line is a matter for others.

According to the Telegraph, " The bill, to be published on Thursday, will give MPs three options, according to The Daily Telegraph.

They will be votes for prisoners who have been imprisoned for four years or less, votes for prisoners who have been imprisoned for six months or less, or no votes for prisoners at all."

I would not agree with this choice of optiions being debated by MPs. because for instance a multi murderer
having served 5 months would be allowed to vote, whereas a person having served 7 months  for contempt of court would not.

A reasonable balance must be decided upon, and one which is not obviously subject to legal challenges.

At the end of the day, given the opportunity to vote, prisoners will be as apathetic as the rest of society,

[marky]

"As it is now 24 hours since anyone posted on this site I thought that I would start a new topic"
I think everyone's a bit depressed and who can blame them?

[notenoughsaid]

Not trying to be clever but just to muddy the water a little further there is a difference to the time a person is 'sentenced' to and actual 'time served'.Usually half to a third for minor offences and good behaviour etc. I hope the government take heed of this point. if a person gets a short sentence  and will be out in a few months and does not intend to re-offend than I feel he/she should be allowed to vote. But of course people change their minds!!!

[mk1]

Can not the principle at stake in this "Votes for prisoners" issue be understood, and borne in mind?
Whether or not prisoners (all, some or whatever) be allowed the vote should be a matter decided by our sovereign parliament ALONE and NOT an alien jurisdiction.

What a load of bollocks.
The 'issue' is that a BLANKET ban on prisoner votes has been deemed too restrictive.
That is there must be some form of graduation and that under such a 'gradual' system individual classes of prisoners can be disenfranchised.
It is entirely possible rules can be framed so that voting is denied too everyone.
In short be a bit more creative in your thinking.
Not that will make the slightest bit of difference to loony far right nutters obsessed with 'Yorup'



See here how another right wing nut job who raged daily against 'Yuman Rights' when others are involved  has no problem hiding behind the same laws when his ba*ll are in the wringer........ 



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/15/jon-gaunt-talksport-ofcom

[rabbit]

It looks as though Parliament has stopped the clock on this topic.

The Justice sectretary has proposed a set of options which may (at some time if ever) be put to MPs to vote on, including a blanket ban on prisoners voting.

The Attorney General (who should know a thing or two about legal matters) says basically it would be illegal for the UK to have a blanket ban. Is he therefore stating that our "sovereign state" would in effect be guilty of "contempt of court" if parliament did not comply with the judgements of a court? If so, in theory, that court could impose penalties.

These judgments are binding on the member countries (UK included).
Apparantly there are thousands of cases (by prisoners) awaiting to be heard by the UCHJ.

As a matter of interest, the following European countries do not allow prisoner voting at present:
Other European countries where prisoners cannot vote at present

    Austria (currently amending law)
    Armenia
    Bulgaria
    Estonia
    Georgia
    Hungary (considering a change to the law)
    Liechtenstein (considering a change to the law)
    Russia

Our special relationship friends the USA have even stricter rules, where in a number of states, a time served "felon" can never vote.

[mk1]

Typical politician's funk.
Cameron knows full well he will have to bend here but unable to come straight out and say he is shagged he is kicking it in the long grass in the hope  no one will notice when he eventually caves.
Nice collection of bedfellows we have on this one..........

  Austria (currently amending law)
    Armenia
    Bulgaria
    Estonia
    Georgia
    Hungary (considering a change to the law)
    Liechtenstein (considering a change to the law)
    Russia

We also jail more people than most of Europe-The UK certainly is a shining example to them there 'Yuropeans' .

If Cameron ignores the judgement it opens the doors to a flood of  compensation claims that will have to be paid out. The posturing and grandstanding (from all Politicians) will achieve nothing and comes with  a hefty price tag.

[testing times]

"There is a fundamental test of democracy at stake here - who decides our actions, the parliament WE elect or an extraneous body that consistently proves that it acts entirely against the interests of the UK and invariably against logic and common sense?"
The European Court of Human Rights is nothing whatsoever to do with the EU and one of the main drivers behind its creation was one Winston Churchill.

[mk1]

Also, don't forget that it is this same court that is forbidding deportation of declared and proven terrorists from the UK on the grounds that it "may violate their human rights"?
How do you think Sir Winston would have regarded this state of affairs?

As the ruling was made because evidence obtained by torture could be used against the 'prisoner' then I suspect Winston would think the court is doing what he wanted it to do-outlaw the use of torture!

[mk1]

MPs have defeated a bid by a Tory MP to scrap the Human Rights Act.

Richard Bacon said the act had been used by the European Court of Human Rights to influence British law, which was "fundamentally undemocratic".

But Labour's Thomas Docherty said Mr Bacon had misunderstood the legal impact of the act and praised it as one of Labour's most important reforms during government.

MPs voted against Mr Bacon's 10-minute rule bill by 195 to 72.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20598122