[meenu89]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Criminals don't cease to be humans. The whole point of fundamental human rights is that they attach unconditionally to all humans.

I'm standing by everything I have said in this thread.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by ArtGoblin)
No, because everyone is expected to reach the age of 18. Many people under the age of 18 are incapable of making a rational decision, although whether the limit is too high is another discussion. There is a specific reason for excluding them, unlike prisoners which just seems to stem from the hatred of anyone who is in prison.

Many people 18 and over are incapable of making a rational decision. So to draw the line at 18 is arbitrary. Should we impose an upper limit of voting rights because of illnesses that pensioners suffer from that affect their cognitive ability, such as dementia? If not, that is ageist against the young and worse than denying a bunch of scrotes a tick on the ballot. That said, I don't know if it's only prisoners that are currently denied the right to vote. Many people aren't in prison long enough and some people deserve prison but escape it. There is no such thing as a true representative democracy unless everyone is represented in some form or another. In my experience, the most "rational" voters are those who are currently studying for a doctorate, or 'post-doc' but I doubt limiting the right to vote to the educated elite will go down too well with the prawn sandwich brigade at Strasbourg.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by meenu89)
I'm standing by everything I have said this thread.

I know you've said you don't think prisoners should have the right to vote, but I just can't see any rationale for the blanket ban. More specific rules, fine, but a blanket ban makes no sense. It means you're disenfranchising the serial rapist, the electoral fraudster, and the old man who protested against paying his council tax - without considering the circumstances of each case.

[Silver Aurora]

Prisoners essentially have broken the law in which they and the rest of society live following; breaking these laws should not entitle you to vote or participate in such a society. When you go to prison you lose your rights. Besides, in terms of trivia, how many prisoners WANT to vote? They have such an easy time as it is, benefits, education, luxury etc, in the grand scheme of things, their materialistic wants outweigh their political desires of which they have failed to demonstrat basic citzenship; following the law so why on Earth should they be entitled to voting rights.

[v22]

I think one topic that need to be raised here is that there are different types of prisoners, perhaps the question should be should some types of prisoners be allowed to vote and others not?
Obviously prisoners in for life or over 25 years i don't think should, it isn't going to affect them.
But prisoners in for 3 years or even just 6 months should be allowed to vote they will be released into society why shouldn't they get a say in for society is run, it's not like people voting now are all innocent!, ex-con's vote, people who have committing crime but not been caught vote, seriously if we start to decide who should vote and who shouldn't we'd have to look at all of society and there'd probably be about 100 people that we could all agree on that deserve to vote everyone else would have something in their past etc that would go against them when it came to the decision of whether they should vote or not.

[SmileAway]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Criminals don't cease to be humans. The whole point of fundamental human rights is that they attach unconditionally to all humans.

Actually, the universal declaration of human rights is: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Criminals have not acted in 'a spirit of brotherhood', also it states that we are 'born' that way; which suggests that your actions then affect your rights.

[morecambebay]

I want prisoners to have the vote. If not, people start getting locked up for political purposes. The conservatives spend all of their time trying to lock up the typical labour voter, and labour spends all of its time trying to lock up the typical conservative voter. Also, there are lots of ways to go to prison without being immoral, and lots of immoral people who dont go to prison.

[barnetlad]

Just make a mockery of the ECHR by removing the blanket ban which is what they object to, perhaps by allowing prisoners over 100 years of age to vote.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by barnetlad)
Just make a mockery of the ECHR by removing the blanket ban which is what they object to, perhaps by allowing prisoners over 100 years of age to vote.

Why not do something sensible and leave it up to the judge?

[Carter78]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
I'm not saying you did refer to poor people. I was the asking question generally and simply reiterated it.

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
Unless of course you're trying to say that stupid and poor people shouldn't be able to vote.

You're right, you didn't say I meant poor people, you just heavily implied it.

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
If you misunderstood my question, I thought it was made fairly clear that there was an element of polemic but perhaps you didn't detect that. As a matter of fact, I was contributing to the discussion but unfortunately, you took my question in the wrong way. Now you understand what I was asking, perhaps you could answer me.

You may have been "contributing to the discussion" but you quoted my post and directed that question towards me. Hence why I responded to it. When challenged, please don't hide behind professions of "I was asking a question generally" if you directly quote me when doing so.

You'll find that I have no case to answer for when it comes to whether poor people should vote because that was a point I did not make.

For the sake of splitting hairs, I believe they of course should - and rightly do so.

My original response referred to the whether mentally ill people have the right to vote, can they? To be fair, this was a point that you failed to respond to.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Carter78)
You're right, you didn't say I meant poor people, you just heavily implied it.

Originally Posted by ANARCHY__

I'm not saying you did refer to poor people. I was the asking question generally and simply reiterated it.

Originally Posted by ANARCHY__

Unless of course you're trying to say that stupid and poor people shouldn't be able to vote.

You may have been "contributing to the discussion" but you quoted my post and directed that question towards me. Hence why I responded to it. When challenged, please don't hide behind professions of "I was asking a question generally" if you directly quote me when doing so.

You'll find that I have no case to answer for when it comes to whether poor people should vote because that was a point I did not make.

For the sake of splitting hairs, I believe they of course should - and rightly do so.

My original response referred to the whether mentally ill people have the right to vote, can they? To be fair, this was a point that you failed to respond to.

Sorry. Let me just reiterate that again. You've quoted what I've said so that will make it far easier. I have no idea why you're trying to be condescending but it's a little tiresome. Anyway, take a look at the highlighted parts. I make no apology for simply restating my question and that is exactly what I did. I am not putting you at fault for somehow confusing stupid with mentally ill so I don't understand why this symantic analysis is coming from your side.

You, in fact, quoted my post where I originally asked my two questions. You tried to answer one, you didn't answer the other. Hence the reiteration. I'm not hiding behind anything but I think it is rather you who have only now answered my question in part.

(Original post by Carter78)
Aren't the mentally insane not allowed to vote? (Throws himself onto the better wisdom of his peers)

I did some two-second Google research and the best I could find was this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/479892.stm

That's the quote in question.

Despite it not being a point you did not make, I was only asking the question again (or stating it within my following response) so that you could either state you had no opinion or say what it was if you did have one.

I will answer your point about the mentally ill (although this was not what I was asking) considering you answered my point about the poor. I do not believe people who are mentally ill should be able to have the vote simply because they are not of sound mind and the term is far too broad and far too affecting to allow for a case by case analysis of everybody who has poor mental health on whether they should vote.

If you would please tell me if and why you think prisoners and people with a low IQ should or should not have the vote, I would appreciate that.

EDIT: Just to let you know, if you were wondering what the law is, the mentally ill can apparently vote in most cases according to a governmental website.

[Carter78]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
Sorry. Let me just reiterate that again. You've quoted what I've said so that will make it far easier. I have no idea why you're trying to be condescending but it's a little tiresome. Anyway, take a look at the highlighted parts. I make no apology for simply restating my question and that is exactly what I did. I am not putting you at fault for somehow confusing stupid with mentally ill so I don't understand why this symantic analysis is coming from your side.

You, in fact, quoted my post where I originally asked my two questions. You tried to answer one, you didn't answer the other. Hence the reiteration. I'm not hiding behind anything but I think it is rather you who have only now answered my question in part.


That's the quote in question.

Despite it not being a point you did not make, I was only asking the question again (or stating it within my following response) so that you could either state you had no opinion or say what it was if you did have one.

It is you who brought poverty into this equation not me. We could spend all day quoting past posts at each other. I think you heavily implied I thought poor people shouldn't vote and showed your previous remarks to back that up. - An assertion that was completely absent from my original question. However we can agree to disagree on that point.

Secondly, the reason I avoided your bait (about whether poor people should vote) was because it had nothing to do with my question about whether or not mentally ill people can vote.

If you and I are to enter a debate about an issue and then you chuck a random question into the equation that serves no purpose to our debate, I'm sorry if you feel offended that I didn't answer this. To paraphrase Dawkins; Just because your question was correctly phrased grammatically, this doesn't mean it was a legitimate one. You may as well have asked what the colour of Thor's pants are for all the purpose that your baited poverty question served. - Why would income affect your capacity to vote when quite obviously mental state can?

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
I will answer your point about the mentally ill (although this was not what I was asking) considering you answered my point about the poor. I do not believe people who are mentally ill should be able to have the vote simply because they are not of sound mind and the term is far too broad and far too affecting to allow for a case by case analysis of everybody who has poor mental health on whether they should vote.

If you would please tell me if and why you think prisoners and people with a low IQ should or should not have the vote, I would appreciate that.

Thanks for the link that you provided! My views on whether mentally ill people can/should vote are not set in stone. There are too many shades of grey to make a blanket judgement across all cases, however whilst I'm no lawyer, I'm pretty sure that the term "mentally ill" is supposed (in purpose) to apply to people who suffer paranoid schizophrenia, hallucinations or delusional beliefs that they are Napoleon. Depression - whilst a mental illness - is not a condition that I personally would characterize as making an individual unfit to caste a vote.

My views on voting and prisoners are based on my view of what citizenship constitutes. If the ability to cast a vote is considered a human right, then the logic goes that it is inhumane to strip a prisoner of their voting rights - no matter what their crime. - This is not my view. Mainly because I see voting as inherently linked to citizenship not to human rights. There's a reason why I cannot vote in the USA - because I'm not a US citizen.

The UK state grants citizenship rights to immigrants who have earned the right to become citizens. They live and work here and abide by the laws of society and of the state so are subsequently granted citizenship and voting rights. Therefore the ability to vote in UK elections is a privilege that they have earned. - I would therefore like the concept of the right to vote to be seen as a privilege of citizenship for all - naturalized citizens or otherwise. (Not simply as a basic human right for all).
In that way, if you break the laws of the state and go to prison, you lose the right to vote (which is then returned upon release).

We already strip the right to benefits from prisoners. Does that mean that benefits are a human right or a privilege of citizenship? Clearly, the UK state takes the view that benefits falls under the latter category. I would like voting to fall under the latter category as well.

[AntisthenesDogger]

I think they should be allowed to vote.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Carter78)
It is you who brought poverty into this equation not me. We could spend all day quoting past posts at each other. I think you heavily implied I thought poor people shouldn't vote and showed your previous remarks to back that up. - An assertion that was completely absent from my original question. However we can agree to disagree on that point.

Secondly, the reason I avoided your bait (about whether poor people should vote) was because it had nothing to do with my question about whether or not mentally ill people can vote.

If you and I are to enter a debate about an issue and then you chuck a random question into the equation that serves no purpose to our debate, I'm sorry if you feel offended that I didn't answer this. To paraphrase Dawkins; Just because your question was correctly phrased grammatically, this doesn't mean it was a legitimate one. You may as well have asked what the colour of Thor's pants are for all the purpose that your baited poverty question served. - Why would income affect your capacity to vote when quite obviously mental state can?



Thanks for the link that you provided! My views on whether mentally ill people can/should vote are not set in stone. There are too many shades of grey to make a blanket judgement across all cases, however whilst I'm no lawyer, I'm pretty sure that the term "mentally ill" is supposed (in purpose) to apply to people who suffer paranoid schizophrenia, hallucinations or delusional beliefs that they are Napoleon. Depression - whilst a mental illness - is not a condition that I personally would characterize as making an individual unfit to caste a vote.

My views on voting and prisoners are based on my view of what citizenship constitutes. If the ability to cast a vote is considered a human right, then the logic goes that it is inhumane to strip a prisoner of their voting rights - no matter what their crime. - This is not my view. Mainly because I see voting as inherently linked to citizenship not to human rights. There's a reason why I cannot vote in the USA - because I'm not a US citizen.

The UK state grants citizenship rights to immigrants who have earned the right to become citizens. They live and work here and abide by the laws of society and of the state so are subsequently granted citizenship and voting rights. Therefore the ability to vote in UK elections is a privilege that they have earned. - I would therefore like the concept of the right to vote to be seen as a privilege of citizenship for all - naturalized citizens or otherwise. (Not simply as a basic human right for all).
In that way, if you break the laws of the state and go to prison, you lose the right to vote (which is then returned upon release).

We already strip the right to benefits from prisoners. Does that mean that benefits are a human right or a privilege of citizenship? Clearly, the UK state takes the view that benefits falls under the latter category. I would like voting to fall under the latter category as well.

Cool. The reason I bring up the point about poor people was probably not explained properly. My apologies for that. In the past, poor people were not allowed the vote on the basis that because they don't have a stake in the country (i.e. they do not own a part of it), then they therefore should not be allowed to vote. I have my own views on this matter but I was trying to show a parallel between this lack of ownership between poor people and the same between prisoners and was asking to see what kind of correlation there would be between the two. Again, I did not state this even nearly clearly enough so my apologies for that.

No problem for the link. I did a little bit of searching but the fact seemed to be quite hidden. However, it appears that, so long as these people aren't registered under the Mental Health Act of 2003 and/or aren't criminals, the right to vote is granted to them.

It is an interesting point you make about citizenship and human rights. I do believe that voting should not be cast in either of the two categories actually, for clarity. Simply because in some cases it may overlap into both and in others, it may fall into neither. Therefore, I believe voting should be considered as a wholly serpeate institution and judged by the state itself (I know this may sound like citizenship but what I mean to say is that the state judges voting rights as seperate to citizenship of the country in question).

Technically and legally, the prisoners would be considered citizens of the UK, although in incarceration. My view is that, whilst someone who is an obvious detriment society (say a serial rapist, murderer, child molestor and known hardline racist) should be stripped of the vote, it does not follow that someone who is imprisoned for theft should be removed of the vote. I can understand the argument that someone who has broken the laws of the state should be stripped of the benefits (in all its forms) it provides but there are many of us who, on a daily basis commit crime and many of them gaolable offences.

Thus, I'd like to see a more tempered view of prisoners and a scale of sorts applied to the amount and degree of benefits they would recieve, following the conviction of an offence. Just as it would be unfair to blanket ban those with a registered mental condition, I believe the same should be said of prisoners. What's more, I believe it be somewhat illogical that this same sort of blanket mentality is applied to the judicial system as a whole; where a fraudster faces the same environment as a murderer, yet for less time

[Carter78]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
Cool. The reason I bring up the point about poor people was probably not explained properly. My apologies for that. In the past, poor people were not allowed the vote on the basis that because they don't have a stake in the country (i.e. they do not own a part of it), then they therefore should not be allowed to vote. I have my own views on this matter but I was trying to show a parallel between this lack of ownership between poor people and the same between prisoners and was asking to see what kind of correlation there would be between the two. Again, I did not state this even nearly clearly enough so my apologies for that.

No problem for the link. I did a little bit of searching but the fact seemed to be quite hidden. However, it appears that, so long as these people aren't registered under the Mental Health Act of 2003 and/or aren't criminals, the right to vote is granted to them.

No worries, my apologies for being so squirmy.

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
It is an interesting point you make about citizenship and human rights. I do believe that voting should not be cast in either of the two categories actually, for clarity. Simply because in some cases it may overlap into both and in others, it may fall into neither. Therefore, I believe voting should be considered as a wholly serpeate institution and judged by the state itself (I know this may sound like citizenship but what I mean to say is that the state judges voting rights as seperate to citizenship of the country in question).

Technically and legally, the prisoners would be considered citizens of the UK, although in incarceration. My view is that, whilst someone who is an obvious detriment society (say a serial rapist, murderer, child molestor and known hardline racist) should be stripped of the vote, it does not follow that someone who is imprisoned for theft should be removed of the vote. I can understand the argument that someone who has broken the laws of the state should be stripped of the benefits (in all its forms) it provides but there are many of us who, on a daily basis commit crime and many of them gaolable offences.

Thus, I'd like to see a more tempered view of prisoners and a scale of sorts applied to the amount and degree of benefits they would recieve, following the conviction of an offence. Just as it would be unfair to blanket ban those with a registered mental condition, I believe the same should be said of prisoners. What's more, I believe it be somewhat illogical that this same sort of blanket mentality is applied to the judicial system as a whole; where a fraudster faces the same environment as a murderer, yet for less time

I don't think all prisons are like OZ, and day-prisons are I'm sure much better environments than prisons designed for long-term incarcerations. However, I really like your point about how the same blanket environment is applied to all prisoners despite the varying levels of offense they have committed. A prison is a prison to all who spend time there and the harshness of this new environment will be felt by all inmates, no matter what crime they committed or for how long they are there.

I would support some kind of "prison-lite" (copyright Carter78 2012 ) for fraudsters etc, which ideally would not subject them to the brutalities of the prison system in the same way that murders/violent gangsters are. However, I would still expect their liberties to be reduced (as fits the seriousness of the crime committed). Although I'm sure the practicalities of building "harsher" prisons than others - and exactly which crimes would lead to a placement in which kind of institution - are open to debate.

Moreover, an immigrant has to work to earn the right to citizenship (and the associated benefits such as the right to vote) yet there is no citizenship test for people who happen to be born here/born to British parents. That doesn't seem fair does it?

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Carter78)
No worries, my apologies for being so squirmy.



I don't think all prisons are like OZ, and day-prisons are I'm sure much better environments than prisons designed for long-term incarcerations. However, I really like your point about how the same blanket environment is applied to all prisoners despite the varying levels of offense they have committed. A prison is a prison to all who spend time there and the harshness of this new environment will be felt by all inmates, no matter what crime they committed or for how long they are there.

I would support some kind of "prison-lite" (copyright Carter78 2012 for fraudsters etc, which ideally would not subject them to the brutalities of the prison system in the same way that murders/violent gangsters are. However, I would still expect their liberties to be reduced (as fits the seriousness of the crime committed). Although I'm sure the practicalities of building "harsher" prisons that others - and exactly which crimes would lead to a placement in which kind of institution - are open to debate.

Moreover, an immigrant has to work to earn the right to citizenship (and the associated benefits such as the right to vote) yet there is no citizenship test for people who happen to be born here/born to British parents. That doesn't seem fair does it?

Totally agreed, not all prisons are harsh by any standard. However, I am concerned that, whatever the condition, either the worse offender is getting a better treatment then they deserve and vice versa.

I really believe that sentences should be scaled, with some not featuring gaol at all. I agree with you that prison or any kind of sentence would mean some reduction in liberty. However, I think a lot more emphasis needs to be placed on rehabilitation. I think it's very telling that on this forum, the response to a rising reoffending rate was 'MAK DA PRISOZONZ HARSHER KIL AL DA PRISOZNONERRS'. Of course, you are right the practicalities will need to be worked but if it leads to a more mature, cohesive society, I believe it is a worthy investment.

In terms of immigrants, I don't believe there should be a 'test' to ascertain whether a person can live or work in this country. In fact, I think those kinds of things are counter-intuitive. Our culture is built upon the mass immigration of many over the centuries and it seems odd to me to kind of halt and almost picture frame an image of our culture and then test people in it. Rather, would it not be better for people to come into the country and then allow them to make a contribution, in whatever they can and will? Eventually, they will assimilate into the broader culture and bring elements of their own into it. Isn't it a shame that, recently, we have been so vehemently opposed to immigration (I believe it was less prevalent during the years of the NF etc) that the government has to seek to appease the people in populist forms of legislation and start 'cracking down on immigration'? I think so.

[Foo.mp3]

Prisoners can vote when they come out; they're lucky the fact they have a criminal record doesn't bar them from ever voting again tbh

[M1011]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
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.

Oh dear...

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by M1011)
Oh dear...

Care to argue in favour of free will? I'd be happy to pursue this.

[OSharp]

(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?

Even if I am incorrect your argument is invalid because I would happily give inmates the vote.

To be honest only around 30 % of the people in this country vote anyway and of that 30% of those people voted for the Tories so infact only %10 of people voted for the government anyway as a very rough figure

If 70% of the public can't be bothered to get of their backsides and vote then that %70 have no right to deny that same vote to prisoners.

(Original post by JacobW)
I think the idea that a gang of European judges can presume to lecture Britain on liberty is utterly revolting. The abhorrent nature of their particular greviance only makes the situation worse. Britain was a liberal constitutional state at a time when the rest of Europe laboured under despotic absolutist monarchs;
.

So your argument is because we where previously more liberal we no longer have to be ?

(Original post by JacobW)
Nobody has a moral right to vote, particularly not convicted criminals.

Yeah absolutely because its absolutely immoral to give people the right to self governance.
Look at how cocky the slaves got after they where freed.
The right to be able to self govern no body is promoting the idea of endangering dangerous individuals to run free , no one has bothered to mention that if some of these groups had more representation they might be less inclined to commit crime. There is plenty of evidence for a link between social integration and the rate of criminality within societies.