[ukip72]

(Original post by Rosalind)
Can I suggest we disregard any threads involving the pro/anti europe arguments that are started by someone with 'UKIP' in their username

No you can't.

[barnetlad]

One option would be to allow some prisoners to vote but make it unlikely that many are actually eligible. A bit like the pub notice' credit will be given to those over 85 accompanied by both parents'.

Given you have fixed term parliaments and elections for the European Parliament are every five years, you could probably do the same as with standing for parliament where you are able to do so with a sentence of under 12 months. Makes no difference to 60% plus of those with a short sentence as they are released before the election in any case.

Alternatively have a referendum on the issue.

[FDR]

(Original post by ukip72)
The state does not have the ability to chose the electorate at all. The INDEPENDENT and NEUTRAL judiciary decides who goes to prison, not the state. Allowing prisoners to vote would do nothing to enhance democracy. I'm afraid I believe Cameron's pro-Europe instinct is what is preventing him from ignoring this ruling as he should do.

And who writes the law? The State does.

In an ideal democracy, all the people can vote. If you are stopping one particular group of people from voting (in this case, prisoners) then you are preventing them in having a say, and the democratic process is not representative of everyone.

Why do people who follow the law have any more right than those who do not to decide what the laws should be? Perhaps, if everyone in prison could vote, they would elect a government that would change the law so that they hadn't broken the law in the first instance, and were thus not criminals.

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by JacobW)
1.) It wasn't an ad hominem. It was an assertion as the unfitness of the ECHR judges to decide whether or not prisoners should have the vote, followed by an argument intended to establish their unfitness.

I read it as an ad hominem, especially given the inflammatory language used:
'Gang', 'lecture', 'utterly revolting', all in the first sentence.

You make reference to the fact that Europe was backward in times when Britain was progressive (which is both in the past, and not entirely true), and that Hitler ruled much of Europe. You imply that because of these, Europeans cannot make judgement on the running of Britain. Why not? Especially as in this case, they are right.\

2.) Unjustified, not unjustifiable. I don't feel inclined to get into an argument about ethics now, but essentialy I don't believe that natural rights exist because a right a is a relation between people in a society and so cannot exist prior to and independently of a particular set of social arrangements, and I don't believe prisoners should have a legal right to vote because, as a rule, they are ignorant, irrational, and impulsive and consequently not fit to decide who should represent them in Parliament.

I'd argue unjustifiable. Let's break down what you've said...

I don't believe that natural rights exist because a right a is a relation between people in a society and so cannot exist prior to and independently of a particular set of social arrangements, ...

Admittedly, but rights are there to mitigate suffering and promote liberty... I don't suppose you'll argue against that?

...and I don't believe prisoners should have a legal right to vote because, as a rule, they are ignorant, irrational, and impulsive and consequently not fit to decide who should represent them in Parliament.

So stupid people can't vote? That's horrible! I acknowledge that some people are easily manipulable, and don't know much about politics. However, they have a right for their views to be represented in Parliament. Even given that stupid people shouldn't vote, which they should, are prisoners 'as a rule' ignorant and irrational? What about journalists in gaol for libel? High-brow stockbrokers gaoled for fraud? These people make up a fair proportion of inmates...

(Original post by ukip72)
No I don't believe any prisoners should be entitled to vote.

The EU is certainly not good for us all, I won't go into the arguments now unless you want me to?

Justify why prisoners shouldn't vote. And sure, justify why you think the EU is bad. I've watched Farage on YouTube, I've heard some eloquently put but inherently flawed arguments... I do know what I'm talking about, and I am very pro-EU. If you want, we can do this via Private Messages--instead of getting side-tracked.

[ukip72]

(Original post by FDR)
And who writes the law? The State does.

In an ideal democracy, all the people can vote. If you are stopping one particular group of people from voting (in this case, prisoners) then you are preventing them in having a say, and the democratic process is not representative of everyone.

Why do people who follow the law have any more right than those who do not to decide what the laws should be? Perhaps, if everyone in prison could vote, they would elect a government that would change the law so that they hadn't broken the law in the first instance, and were thus not criminals.

They are still not choosing the electorate as people have a choice whether to break the law or not, Cameron doesn't want to stop people in prison voting because he doesn't think there Tory voters.

Having broken your connection with civilised society by breaking the law you should give up some of the rights afforded to ordinary citizens.

[meenu89]

(Original post by Rosalind)
Can I suggest we disregard any threads involving the pro/anti europe arguments that are started by someone with 'UKIP' in their username

Can we disregard this stupid post?

[FDR]

(Original post by ukip72)
They are still not choosing the electorate as people have a choice whether to break the law or not, Cameron doesn't want to stop people in prison voting because he doesn't think there Tory voters.

Having broken your connection with civilised society by breaking the law you should give up some of the rights afforded to ordinary citizens.

So if the government introduced a law that made it illegal for anyone to criticise the government, then you'd be fine with them putting away those evil dissenters, and only letting the do gooder supporters of the government vote? Hmm, seems dubious.

You can laugh this off, and say that there is little chance of this realistically happening, but this has happened around the world, in the past, and in the present (it's happening in Hungary), and the point is, laws can be ludicrous - we like to think that the law is right, and in our society, it almost usually is, however the principle is the same. It is yet another safeguard of democracy.

[Kennedy7697]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Why don't you think that any prisoners should vote?



1) They have no Free Will; their actions were due to causes beyond their control, and so should not be punished by losing rights, just rehabilitated.
2) They are still citizens, their welfare is controlled by whoever is in power, they should have the chance to have an influence.
3) Innocent people are prisoners.

In response:
1)So, a serial killer's actions were, according to you, 'beyond their control'.
2)So, someone who is an arsonist for example, who is in prison for destroying many buildings, should have a right to vote on the way the country they have contributed to the destruction of, is run.
3)Well, the majority are not, and if they are in prison, there was obviously some sort of evidence connecting them to the crime.

Care to elaborate on your points?

[Carecup]

(Original post by ChapelTom)
The answer is NO. We should just ignore Europe for once, no-one in Britain wants to give prisoners the vote, so why should we have some unelected European bureaucrats tell us we should?

No one?

Can I say one thing that I hope will make you reconsider that position?

The war on drugs.

[Zeffy]

No

Prisoners waived their right to vote when they commited crime. Plus they can't be trusted to make an honest decision, their decision will be based on whichever political party wants to reduce prison sentences and panders to the criminal generation.

[Carecup]

(Original post by Zeffy)
No

Prisoners waived their right to vote when they commited crime. Plus they can't be trusted to make an honest decision, their decision will be based on whichever political party wants to reduce prison sentences and panders to the criminal generation.

Can you provide me with a link to a political party that is willing to commit political suicide by saying that they'll be soft on crime. And no parties that advocate rehabilitation don't count.

[Muscovite]

(Original post by Rosalind)
Can I suggest we disregard any threads involving the pro/anti europe arguments that are started by someone with 'UKIP' in their username

hahaha indeed

[patrickinator]

Go UKIP!

[FDR]

(Original post by Zeffy)
No

Prisoners waived their right to vote when they commited crime. Plus they can't be trusted to make an honest decision, their decision will be based on whichever political party wants to reduce prison sentences and panders to the criminal generation.

if the law is changed so that it is a crime to criticise the government, then do lawbreakers deserve to be imprisoned, and thus lose their right to vote?

[Muscovite]

(Original post by meenu89)
Can we disregard this stupid post?

nope. Democracy and free speech is the way of life and has been since the fall of the Soviet Union. Go to China if you don't like it

[ras90]

(Original post by Muscovite)
nope. Democracy and free speech is the way of life and has been since the fall of the Soviet Union. Go to China if you don't like it

You have more free speech in China tthan the UK now.

[Muscovite]

(Original post by ras90)
You have more free speech in China tthan the UK now.

put those claws away

[ukip72]

(Original post by Muscovite)
She has a point. If you had a neutral or centrist position rather than with a specific anti-EU party then I'd take what you said and consider it more - your user name instantly tells me you'l be biased and that there's no point debating it. It just becomes a thread for little-Englanders to congregate rather than for people to actually debate.
And as for my views - I dislike overpaid Eurocrats too to some extent but I think prisoners should definitely get the vote

Why is there no point in debating it? I am entitled to my own view and therefore yes I am "biased" as you say but that can be said of anyone. I was just wondering the views of the people on TSR, the fact that my own view is obvious due to my username is irrelevant. This is not a thread for "little-Englanders" just because I am a UKIP supporter and you should not call UKIP little-Englanders as it is not true.
I do not think less of people who believe prisoners should get the vote, you are entitled to your view as I believe in freedom of speech.

I will not be ashamed of my UKIP membership.

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by Kennedy7697)
In response:
1)So, a serial killer's actions were, according to you, 'beyond their control'.
2)So, someone who is an arsonist for example, who is in prison for destroying many buildings, should have a right to vote on the way the country they have contributed to the destruction of, is run.
3)Well, the majority are not, and if they are in prison, there was obviously some sort of evidence connecting them to the crime.

Care to elaborate on your points?

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) The some innocents justify the rights to them all, even if you neglect the above.

I'll elaborate if you wish... For point 1), read Sam Harris' article 'Morality Without Free Will' and you'll get a good idea. I can go further, but I'm tired.

For point 2), yes they should. Especially for the lack of free will--there is obviously something psychologically wrong with them, they shouldn't be punished but rehabilitated and educated.

I shall continue to-morrow if you reply with a quote of me.


I can't believe how much neg rep I'm getting for this...

[ChapelTom]

(Original post by Carecup)
No one?

Can I say one thing that I hope will make you reconsider that position?

The war on drugs.

Very few people want prisoners to be allowed the vote.

I am absolutely 100% against the war on drugs which is a waste of time, money and effort.