ChatterBank1 min ago
Why draw a line in the sand over the issue of votes for prisoners?
Why are the Tories making such a fuss over this? What do they hope to gain?
http
http
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I suspect it is to raise passions regarding not being in control of our own laws and being dictated to by other nations. Which is a fair enough point. Our "representatives" ought not sign into things. In the larger picture I think this one is mostly emotional. I can't see a few prisoner votes swaying anything.
Because they hope to drive further antipathy towards the EU - working on the assumption that people don't differentiate between the EU and the ECHR
RedGrant's reaction seems pretty typical ignoring the fact that it's just the sweeping blanket ban that's a problem.
The Government could simply offer the vote to anyone in an open prison or serving a sentence of less than a year.
But they're trying to pour petrol on the fire for their own political reasons
RedGrant's reaction seems pretty typical ignoring the fact that it's just the sweeping blanket ban that's a problem.
The Government could simply offer the vote to anyone in an open prison or serving a sentence of less than a year.
But they're trying to pour petrol on the fire for their own political reasons
"I don't see why this is even a discussion issue, how can anyone in their right mind even consider giving votes to prisoners?"
That's a fairly typical response from those who don't think that prisoners should be allowed to vote; it assumes that it's self-evident. But it's not evident to me. Can anyone explain using rational argument, rather than just "well it's obvious, innit?" why being in prison should automatically deprive people of the right to vote?
That's a fairly typical response from those who don't think that prisoners should be allowed to vote; it assumes that it's self-evident. But it's not evident to me. Can anyone explain using rational argument, rather than just "well it's obvious, innit?" why being in prison should automatically deprive people of the right to vote?
A few votes from UKIP is what they hope to gain I suspect.
I suppose this boils down to whether you think that because it would seem the majority of people don't think prisoners should be allowed to vote it is therefore "undemocratic" and an abuse of sovereignty for a "foreign" court to overrule the will of the British people.
As others have indicated, it would be perfectly reasonable to have a compromise on this issue: allow all citizens the right to vote and then introduce exclusions based on other considerations, including whether they are serving custodial sentences for particular crimes. As it is the current stance seems wholly untenable and designed merely to create a false impression of being democratic and sticking up for our sovereignty. Both of which seem like spurious positions to me
I suppose this boils down to whether you think that because it would seem the majority of people don't think prisoners should be allowed to vote it is therefore "undemocratic" and an abuse of sovereignty for a "foreign" court to overrule the will of the British people.
As others have indicated, it would be perfectly reasonable to have a compromise on this issue: allow all citizens the right to vote and then introduce exclusions based on other considerations, including whether they are serving custodial sentences for particular crimes. As it is the current stance seems wholly untenable and designed merely to create a false impression of being democratic and sticking up for our sovereignty. Both of which seem like spurious positions to me
I realize that punishment for crime is an anathema to many, not that we actually do punish crime, but one of the minor penalties is the removal of privileges that are enjoyed by those of us not in prison. So I find it remarkable that anyone can possibly consider that prisoners should get to vote. The EU thing is really a secondary argument about a situation that really should not have arisen.
rojash
/// why being in prison should automatically deprive people of the right to vote? ///
You might as well ask why should being in prison automatically deprive them of most other things, that law abiding citizens are entitled to?
But to answer your question, because they have fell foul of the laws of this country, so why should they have the right to vote for those who make those laws?
If they are really concerned about voting, then keep out of prison, is the simple answer.
/// why being in prison should automatically deprive people of the right to vote? ///
You might as well ask why should being in prison automatically deprive them of most other things, that law abiding citizens are entitled to?
But to answer your question, because they have fell foul of the laws of this country, so why should they have the right to vote for those who make those laws?
If they are really concerned about voting, then keep out of prison, is the simple answer.
"I wonder on this issue - along with a few others too - what our european counterparts do "
(from Guardian article last year)
There are 14 European countries where prisoners are allowed to vote, including Ireland, Spain, Sweden and Denmark; there are 16 where prisoners have limited voting rights, including France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. Prisoners are banned from voting in 6 countries including the UK, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Liechtenstein and Georgia. In the US some prisoners are banned from voting even after they have left jail.
(from Guardian article last year)
There are 14 European countries where prisoners are allowed to vote, including Ireland, Spain, Sweden and Denmark; there are 16 where prisoners have limited voting rights, including France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. Prisoners are banned from voting in 6 countries including the UK, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Liechtenstein and Georgia. In the US some prisoners are banned from voting even after they have left jail.
As a country we signed up to the ECHR and if we believe in the rule of law should comply with it's rules. We do have the choice to withdraw from ECHR and that would get us off the hook. However we are not the only European country in default regarding voting rights for convicted prisoners. There are devices where we could "be seen to comply" when in effect those in choky would have no influence on the way the country is governed.
It's worth pointing out that the EHCR ruling relates to a "blanket ban" on voting for prisoners. That is the issue. They aren't ordering the UK to allow all prisoners the right to vote.
I believe the onus is on those who support a blanket ban to justify it.
As an extreme example, why should a person who happens to be in jail for a relatively short period around the time of an election for a relatively minor offence not be able to vote?
I believe the onus is on those who support a blanket ban to justify it.
As an extreme example, why should a person who happens to be in jail for a relatively short period around the time of an election for a relatively minor offence not be able to vote?
/// sorry Rojash, I'm not sure what more you want. Perhaps by way of example you could explain your rationale for why you think they should have the vote. Then I could use the same frame work to explain why they should not. ///
Or perhaps a better idea would be for Rojash to post speaking for those who oppose the prisoners right to vote.
We could then see exactly how we should correctly put things.
Or perhaps a better idea would be for Rojash to post speaking for those who oppose the prisoners right to vote.
We could then see exactly how we should correctly put things.
ichteria, see my post at 12:03. The time in Jail is irrelevant, they are in jail, presumably because they did something bad. Can someone please explain why any prisoner should have the vote, rather than as above, introducing some sort of perceived relevance to the style of prison or length of sentence?
Because they will be returning to a country run by a party in which they have had no say in electing.
You might say " they abdicated that right" but that's an arbitary value judgement you're making.
I might as easilly say that those who have comitted any crime - including breaking the speed limit have irrevocably broken the contract between individual and state and have laost the right to vote.
I think you should acknowledge that you position is based on a personal opinion and not somehow natural and obvious
You might say " they abdicated that right" but that's an arbitary value judgement you're making.
I might as easilly say that those who have comitted any crime - including breaking the speed limit have irrevocably broken the contract between individual and state and have laost the right to vote.
I think you should acknowledge that you position is based on a personal opinion and not somehow natural and obvious
The issue itself is of little importance (though I believe that prisoners should not be allowed to vote, mainly for the reasons outlined in earlier answers).
The real issue is the right of the UK Parliament to pass legislation. When faced with this issue a few months ago Parliament voted by a hefty majority to retain the status quo. In true ECHR (and, yes, EU as well) fashion this was considered the “wrong” answer. The Westminster decision was ruled “unlawful” and so they have been asked to vote again.
Yes, we are signatories to the ECHR. However, when it was devised I cannot imagine that its architects, in their wildest dreams, imagined it would be used to override decisions of the UK Parliament which effected only citizens of the UK and which were essentially the business of nobody else. That is the real issue here. The answer is simple. The UK Parliament and government ministers (for whom the electorate voted) are constantly having their decisions reversed by a foreign court. The electorate should be asked if they are happy with this by means of a referendum and if they say they are not we should withdraw from the ECHR forthwith and also repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act which had the Convention as its basis.
The real issue is the right of the UK Parliament to pass legislation. When faced with this issue a few months ago Parliament voted by a hefty majority to retain the status quo. In true ECHR (and, yes, EU as well) fashion this was considered the “wrong” answer. The Westminster decision was ruled “unlawful” and so they have been asked to vote again.
Yes, we are signatories to the ECHR. However, when it was devised I cannot imagine that its architects, in their wildest dreams, imagined it would be used to override decisions of the UK Parliament which effected only citizens of the UK and which were essentially the business of nobody else. That is the real issue here. The answer is simple. The UK Parliament and government ministers (for whom the electorate voted) are constantly having their decisions reversed by a foreign court. The electorate should be asked if they are happy with this by means of a referendum and if they say they are not we should withdraw from the ECHR forthwith and also repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act which had the Convention as its basis.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.