Prisoners, right to vote

In many countries prisoners are not allowed to vote in the elections. For example countries such as Armenia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxemburg, Romania, Russia and United Kingdom, convicted prisoners do not have the right to vote.

The issue is particularly controversial in the United Kingdom. In April 2001, the British High Court rejected a case brought by John Hirst (a man serving a life sentence for manslaughter), who argued that the ban on prisoners voting was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.

March 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights; the European Court’s Grand Chamber rejected the British government’s appeal in October 2005. As of June 2006, however, there has been no change in UK law on the matter. I'm not entirely sure what are the current issues surrounding the case above so feel free to correct me if I had made any mistakes.

So do you think convicted prisoners should have the right to vote?

Considering that sentencing guidelines and laws change with each government, I think letting prisoners vote could have an effect on polls, although I don't think many inmates would really care about such facts.

I'm not sure where I actually stand on this issue, so I'll wait for people who actually do have opinions to speak up. I just wanted to point the above out.

Yes same here. I'm not entirely sure which side to take so that is one of the main reasons why I posted this topic. I can see that allowing prisoners to vote could aid them in their rehabilitation by getting them involved in current affairs.

Criminals have their rights taken away, the most obvious one being freedom. Not voting is part of that punishment. Most issues aren't going to be relevant to prisoners anyway.

Originally Posted by Twilight Joker

March 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights; the European Court’s Grand Chamber rejected the British government’s appeal in October 2005. As of June 2006, however, there has been no change in UK law on the matter. I'm not entirely sure what are the current issues surrounding the case above so feel free to correct me if I had made any mistakes.

So do you think convicted prisoners should have the right to vote?

**** me, normally I'll be all for the EUCHR but criminals are criminals. The UK isn't in violation, the EU is in violation of common sense. It's not like a serial killer would vote for more police on the streets now will they.

^ The views and needs of prisoners are currently not represented. Issues such as prison overcrowding and abuse by warders are not treated seriously as political issues, since those most directly affected cannot vote and the public generally has little interest in prisoners’ well-being.

Originally Posted by Icky

**** me, normally I'll be all for the EUCHR but criminals are criminals. The UK isn't in violation, the EU is in violation of common sense. It's not like a serial killer would vote for more police on the streets now will they.

If the UK breached the European Convention of Human Rights (not EUCHR because the ECHR has absolutely nothing to do with the EU), THEY would be criminals.

Actually having read the OP post properly and slightly more aware of the reference to a case, I'd like a link to that case and the legislation cited if you'd be so kind, Twilight Joker.

Depends on the seriousness of the crime, I think. People convicted for petty theft or abuse of drugs are as much victims of society as they are criminals, and should be allowed to vote. More serious things like murder and crimes against the state should remove the voting right.

Originally Posted by Twilight Joker

^ The views and needs of prisoners are currently not represented. Issues such as prison overcrowding and abuse by warders are not treated seriously as political issues, since those most directly affected cannot vote and the public generally has little interest in prisoners’ well-being.

Oh yes I don't want those child molesters to be uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

If the UK breached the European Convention of Human Rights (not EUCHR because the ECHR has absolutely nothing to do with the EU), THEY would be criminals.

Actually having read the OP post properly and slightly more aware of the reference to a case, I'd like a link to that case and the legislation cited if you'd be so kind, Twilight Joker.

Isn't the EU that put these organs there in the first place?

And I'm aware of the laws and regulations but they are stupid in this case and should not be followed.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

If the UK breached the European Convention of Human Rights (not EUCHR because the ECHR has absolutely nothing to do with the EU), THEY would be criminals.

Actually having read the OP post properly and slightly more aware of the reference to a case, I'd like a link to that case and the legislation cited if you'd be so kind, Twilight Joker.

Here you go

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Depends on the seriousness of the crime, I think. People convicted for petty theft or abuse of drugs are as much victims of society as they are criminals, and should be allowed to vote. More serious things like murder and crimes against the state should remove the voting right.

This is reasonable, much the same way we don't execute thieves.

Originally Posted by Icky

Oh yes I don't want those child molesters to be uncomfortable.

And those filthy disgusting squatters who broke into an empty home because they had no place else to go, or those morally bankrupt thieves who stole to feed their families, or those dirty bastards who accidentally hit people while driving under circumstances which render their behaviour unlawful and thus manslaughter, how dare they expect basic human rights from a supposedly civilized nation's government?

Isn't the EU that put these organs there in the first place?

No, the European Court of Human Rights is the result of the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states (every country in Europe apart from Belarus), and entirely unrelated to the European Union.

And I'm aware of the laws and regulations but they are stupid in this case and should not be followed.

Which is exactly the same reason that a criminal might be in prison, yet you would deny them the right to vote based on nothing more than the fact that they have breached the law, while at the same time advocating that the state should breach the law. If a person is expected to abide by the law, then the least they can expect is that the authority applying the law to them will abide by the law as well. That is the very essence of the Rule of Law, and a government that refuses to abide by it is detestable.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Depends on the seriousness of the crime, I think. People convicted for petty theft or abuse of drugs are as much victims of society as they are criminals, and should be allowed to vote. More serious things like murder and crimes against the state should remove the voting right.

I like this idea actually, a form of discretionary vote-block. Maybe a sentence upwards of so many years, or even at the time of trial the judge may have the option of adding it as a further penalty.

Originally Posted by Twilight Joker

Here you go

That doesn't tell me under what ruling or what reason the court found it was a breach of his human rights. There's no article in the ECHR that comes to my mind instantly that states that voting is a human right, but it does say that free elections must be provided somewhere.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

And those filthy disgusting squatters who broke into an empty home because they had no place else to go, or those morally bankrupt thieves who stole to feed their families, or those dirty bastards who accidentally hit people while driving under circumstances which render their behaviour unlawful and thus manslaughter, how dare they expect basic human rights from a supposedly civilized nation's government?

Homeless centres - Food banks - you don't end up in jail for an accident

Civilized nations give enough opportunities for people to be sheltered and fed.

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

Killing while driving is manslaughter when e.g. you drive while drunk, drive without a license, drive too fast.

If you kill someone by accident e.g. you lose control of a vehicle while driving under the speed limit that's not manslaughter.

Originally Posted by Icky

Homeless centres - Food banks - you don't end up in jail for an accident

Civilized nations give enough opportunities for people to be sheltered and fed.

Meanwhile back in the real world, not all of these are available in every area and not every homeless person or starving person can possibly be provided for by the system as it stands, or indeed as it ever will stand. No, you do not end up in jail for an accident, you end up in jail for breaking the law, regardless of the morality of your actions. Do not advocate the breaking of law for the sake of morality when it comes to the state if you are not willing to advocate it in the case of the individual.

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

Killing while driving is manslaughter when e.g. you drive while drunk, drive without a license, drive too fast.

If you kill someone by accident e.g. you lose control of a vehicle while driving under the speed limit that's not manslaughter.

Manslaughter simply requires an unlawful or reckless act which has resulted in someone's death, which may be sufficient to put someone in prison, but sometimes (such as the case of a person who is a perfectly good driver who doesn't have a licence, I knew one such person who'd been driving for thirty-five years, not once had an accident, and only last year actually earned his licence) this isn't enough to be cast into the pits of hell, or a prison with a complete and total disregard for health and safety. Further, doing something "reckless" which you may think you have under control but do not, and results in someone's death, will get you a manslaughter conviction. I don't dispute that this is possibly deserved, but I'm sure you of all people with your almost admirable moral outrage would be the first to shout "I DIDN'T THINK I'D KILL ANYBODY!" when the judge slams his gavel down, and when you consider that it's not only liberty you'd be losing this mite seem a tad unjust.

I'm not saying these people shouldn't be put in prison, that isn't the discussion we're having here. I'm saying that you want morality to supercede the law in one instance, and the law to supercede morality in the other. If we are going to apply the law strictly, we should be expected to abide by it just as strictly.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Meanwhile back in the real world, not all of these are available in every area and not every homeless person or starving person can possibly be provided for by the system as it stands, or indeed as it ever will stand. No, you do not end up in jail for an accident, you end up in jail for breaking the law, regardless of the morality of your actions. Do not advocate the breaking of law for the sake of morality when it comes to the state if you are not willing to advocate it in the case of the individual.

So because you are homeless you must ruin other people's lives by breaking in to their homes and stealing their stuff? You do know what severe emotional damage a break in can have on a person, don't you?

I said stupid laws. Not laws that protect people. Non serial killer people. Furthermore if you steal an apple from your local grocery you don't end up in jail for years.

Manslaughter simply requires an unlawful or reckless act which has resulted in someone's death, which may be sufficient to put someone in prison, but sometimes (such as the case of a person who is a perfectly good driver who doesn't have a licence, I knew one such person who'd been driving for thirty-five years, not once had an accident, and only last year actually earned his licence) this isn't enough to be cast into the pits of hell, or a prison with a complete and total disregard for health and safety. Further, doing something "reckless" which you may think you have under control but do not, and results in someone's death, will get you a manslaughter conviction. I don't dispute that this is possibly deserved, but I'm sure you of all people would be the first to shout "I DIDN'T THINK I'D KILL ANYBODY!" when the judge slams his gavel down, and when you consider that it's not only liberty you'd be losing this mite seem a tad unjust.

I think you just only confirmed what I said.
"Saying: but I drove countless of times while I had drunken 5 glasses of beer IT ALWAYS WENT PERFECT!"
OR
"I ALWAYS TAKE THAT CURVE AT 90 KPH!"
Doesn't take away the fact that you did something reckless.

Also you don't have an idea how I drive. So there is that.
But perhaps I would scream that. BUT I would have done something reckless.

I'm not 100% sure what the laws are here in the US, but I am pretty sure criminals can't vote. Either way, my position is that they shouldn't as they are being punished.

Originally Posted by Icky

So because you are homeless you must ruin other people's lives by breaking in to their homes and stealing their stuff? You do know what severe emotional damage a break in can have on a person, don't you?

I specifically stated abandoned homes. Squatters are a type of person who break into empty houses, houses with no one living inside them yet are still owned legally and thus they are still technically breaking the law.

And as I said, I'm only trying to argue that the law is the law, whereas you're the one trying to argue that the law is only the law when it's convenient for you.

I said stupid laws. Not laws that protect people. Non serial killer people. Furthermore if you steal an apple from your local grocery you don't end up in jail for years.

You still might end up in jail, and "stupid" is entirely a matter of subjectivity. It could be the thief's opinion that any law prohibiting him from stealing to feed his family is stupid, but we will still arrest him, and we will still sentence him, because we expect him to abide by our laws. Likewise, the state should abide by all laws that it is subject to, including (as a result of the Human Rights Act of 1998) its own.

I think you just only confirmed what I said.
"Saying: but I drove countless of times while I had drunken 5 glasses of beer IT ALWAYS WENT PERFECT!"
OR
"I ALWAYS TAKE THAT CURVE AT 90 KPH!"
Doesn't take away the fact that you did something reckless.

Also you don't have an idea how I drive. So there is that.
But perhaps I would scream that. BUT I would have done something reckless.

As long as you acknowledge that you would deserve every ounce of the discomfort you wish yourself to experience when you hit the cell. I am fully aware that I used the word "reckless" because that is the second key word to look for in any manslaughter case, but my point is that "reckless" doesn't always mean "immoral", yet you would have anyone who acted recklessly be punished as if they had done something immoral, while I bet you'd be the first to complain if you were treated like the scum of the Earth for taking a risk.

I think they should be able to vote. They are still citizens of whatever country they're in. Therefore, they should be aloud to vote.

My knee-jerk response is no. We want law abiding citizens of good standards voting, to raise the chance of getting good people into office.

But as I think about it, I guess it should depend on the circumstances. Just because someone got arrested for stealing a TV, or doing a bit of pot, doesn't mean that they're completely horrible judges of right or wrong. It just means they do some shady stuff. And they should be given a voice in what goes on in prisons and the like.

Though part of me also would rather only the most informed vote at all, regardless of who or where they are. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I specifically stated abandoned homes. Squatters are a type of person who break into empty houses, houses with no one living inside them yet are still owned legally and thus they are still technically breaking the law.

In this country it isn't illegal in all cases, properties that are abandoned for longer than a year can be squatted.

And as I said, I'm only trying to argue that the law is the law, whereas you're the one trying to argue that the law is only the law when it's convenient for you.

You still might end up in jail, and "stupid" is entirely a matter of subjectivity. It could be the thief's opinion that any law prohibiting him from stealing to feed his family is stupid, but we will still arrest him, and we will still sentence him, because we expect him to abide by our laws. Likewise, the state should abide by all laws that it is subject to, including (as a result of the Human Rights Act of 1998) its own.

I understand this is kind of a slippery slope. But if tomorrow the government would implement a tax rate of 50% would you obey it? Because most civilised countries are democracies I feel that people may advocate to remove "stupid" laws.

As long as you acknowledge that you would deserve every ounce of the discomfort you wish yourself to experience when you hit the cell. I am fully aware that I used the word "reckless" because that is the second key word to look for in any manslaughter case, but my point is that "reckless" doesn't always mean "immoral", yet you would have anyone who acted recklessly be punished as if they had done something immoral, while I bet you'd be the first to complain if you were treated like the scum of the Earth for taking a risk.

Taking a risk with someone else's life? Than yes.



But because life and politics is compromise: What if the law said that anyone that gets imprisoned for longer than 2 years loses their right to vote for the remainder of their imprisonment?