[JoeLatics]

(Original post by M4LLY)
By 'prisoners' i am referring to rapists, paedophiles and violent criminals. Would you want a rapist to have a say in who runs the country?

That isn't what the ECHR was referring to. Not only rapists go to prison, you know!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[MacDaddi]

The whole idea of going to prison is to have your freedom taken away from you as you broke the law.

It does not make any sense to allow them the vote. We need to ignore the un-elected body that is the ECHR.

[Patriot Rich]

Well the ECHR has said we can deny voting for those in prison for certain crimes, but a blanket ban is illegal.

My simple suggestion, we allow voting for those guilty of one really obscure crime, and no others, perhaps even create a fun new one with a decent prison sentence such as conspiring with Martian invaders. An easy, and legal, way of sticking a big middle finger up at the ECHR.

[OSharp]

I don't know if it is more the idea of the blanket ban that upsets me or if its the principle, I could see the reasoning behind not allowing criminals who are serving life without any chance of release to vote but otherwise I strongly disagree with it.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by M4LLY)
No, they have violated the laws of this country so therefore, they should not be allowed to have a say in who runs it. Also, would anyone care to tell who the 65 total lunatics who voted 'yes' are?

Me, for one.

If you want to disenfranchise an individual when they're convicted because they're a danger to society, that's a matter for the sentencing judge - just like suspending their right to free movement, free association and so on is. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with arbitrarily disenfranchising great swathes of people. The old lady who refuses to pay her council tax in protest and the serial rapist should not be treated the same. So I think that criminals should in principle have the right to vote, unless there is a specific reason to take it away from them for a time. Just like they retain in principle their right to free movement, unless there is a specific reason to take it away from them for a time.

[Pindar]

(Original post by alj123)
A crime is a crime. Victimless or not. and tyranny of the majority? The fact that the majority think it makes it more important than the minority. Everyone gets a clean slate when they are born, they were the ones who chose to abuse it.

The fact that you think everyone "chooses" to do crime shows you don't know that much at all about the causes of crime.

Regardless, yes a crime is a crime. But whether some things should be crimes is hotly debated. If those people against something being a crime are put in prison then they can't voice their opposition towards it can they?

For example if most sufferers of disease who need marijuana to live are thrown in prison then how can they then vote for medical marijuana being made legal? It would just look like they're criminals and that there isn't any opposition to this victimless crime.

It encourages the state to throw those in prison who oppose them to take away their vote. It only encourages abuse of power, strips people of their human rights and does not really serve any valid purpose. Therefore it is illogical and stupid.

[Pindar]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
The whole idea of going to prison is to have your freedom taken away from you as you broke the law.

It does not make any sense to allow them the vote. We need to ignore the un-elected body that is the ECHR.

The point of prison is to separate dangerous elements of society from the rest and rehabilitate them. Taking away their human right to vote against the people who put in place the laws they don't agree with, doesn't make sense.

What benefits does taking prisoners human rights give?

[alj123]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
The fact that you think everyone "chooses" to do crime shows you don't know that much at all about the causes of crime.

Regardless, yes a crime is a crime. But whether some things should be crimes is hotly debated. If those people against something being a crime are put in prison then they can't voice their opposition towards it can they?

For example if most sufferers of disease who need marijuana to live are thrown in prison then how can they then vote for medical marijuana being made legal? It would just look like they're criminals and that there isn't any opposition to this victimless crime.

It encourages the state to throw those in prison who oppose them to take away their vote. It only encourages abuse of power, strips people of their human rights and does not really serve any valid purpose. Therefore it is illogical and stupid.

Using your example there; if the drug was known to cure the serious illness then shouldn't it be approved by the NHS?
Also, your last sentence. "therefore it is illogical and stupid." that is merely an opinion, I don't agree with it.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by M1011)
Sigh.. I don't know why I'm bothering, but I suppose this means you believe that punishment isn't a deterrent to committing crime? Do you really, honestly, genuinely believe that people aren't deterred from stealing, because they know the consequence is jail? Honestly?

It is a deterrent (capital punishment, as if happens, is not), to some extent. However, it does not fix the problem of the people who commit these crimes. Rehabilitation, or Citizen Training Bureaus, say, could find out what was wrong with this person or their life and led them to commit the crime. If it is personal reasons, they can be dealt with, and if psychological, likely they can be also. Whilst there, these patients could also be educated to a level beyond where they are, to make them more valuable to society. Currently, having been to gaol removes all chance of a job. This system might make you more desirable.

But there's a danger there; people commit crimes in order to get to a CTB. However, opening these up to anyone who feels they need it or could benefit from it, at public expense, would solve that.

If you do something wrong, you deserve the consequences. You made a choice, live with it. Nobody forced you to do it. Don't start arguing that free will crap with me..

A man with a tumour in his prefrontal cortex will have lost much sense of how to behave in society and morality... Does he have to suffer for this? There is really no difference between him and others.

[M1011]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
It is a deterrent (capital punishment, as if happens, is not), to some extent. However, it does not fix the problem of the people who commit these crimes. Rehabilitation, or Citizen Training Bureaus, say, could find out what was wrong with this person or their life and led them to commit the crime. If it is personal reasons, they can be dealt with, and if psychological, likely they can be also. Whilst there, these patients could also be educated to a level beyond where they are, to make them more valuable to society. Currently, having been to gaol removes all chance of a job. This system might make you more desirable.

But there's a danger there; people commit crimes in order to get to a CTB. However, opening these up to anyone who feels they need it or could benefit from it, at public expense, would solve that.

Why should we feel the need to make prisoners more valuable? Why should we 'rehabilitate' them at public expense? Where will all this money to open up qualifications for all come from? I'm also willing to bet you'll find capital punishment is a bloody great big deterrent, not that I'm necessarily supporting that.

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
A man with a tumour in his prefrontal cortex will have lost much sense of how to behave in society and morality... Does he have to suffer for this? There is really no difference between him and others.

Of course there is a difference, he has a medical condition. That is not the same as making a reasoned choice to commit crime.

[tory88]

Human rights come with responsibilities, those responsibilities have been breached so some fo the rights should be forfeited to. There are some rights that are inalienable - a right to life, freedom from torture, education etc. - but I don't personally believe this includes the right to vote.

[SmileAway]

(Original post by tory88)
Human rights come with responsibilities

Other than the fact I agree with everything you said...that really reminded me of that spiderman speech



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by M1011)
Why should we feel the need to make prisoners more valuable? Why should we 'rehabilitate' them at public expense?

Because useful members of society solve problems. A useful member of society both contributes to society and raises children who will more likely do in the same fashion. It also is much better for the individual.

Where will all this money to open up qualifications for all come from?

Higher taxation, and better public spending; make it more difficult to achieve charitable status, and don't give tax cuts to churches.

I'm also willing to bet you'll find capital punishment is a bloody great big deterrent, not that I'm necessarily supporting that.

Oh is it really?

Of course there is a difference, he has a medical condition. That is not the same as making a reasoned choice to commit crime.

There is no real difference, that's why I raised the issue of 'Free Will'

[M1011]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Because useful members of society solve problems. A useful member of society both contributes to society and raises children who will more likely do in the same fashion. It also is much better for the individual.

Higher taxation, and better public spending; make it more difficult to achieve charitable status, and don't give tax cuts to churches.


Oh is it really?

There is no real difference, that's why I raised the issue of 'Free Will'

1) However the individual is less likely to become a burden to society if deterred by punishment in the first place. I still maintain it is not the responsibility of decent citizens to looks after, rehabilitate or do anything else for criminals. If they want to change their ways that is fine, good even, but it's not our responsibility to drive them to do that.

2) Yes lovely, decent individuals and charities should get taxed more to give an unfair level of assistance to prisoners. Great. Love that idea...

3) I'm not really here to argue the pro's and con's of the death penalty. After all I know very little about it. However I'm sure I could Google and find four sites pushing the exact opposite opinion, don't you think? But in retrospect, I presume most death penalty cases are murders, which are usually not premeditated, so no deterrent really applies as they 'happen in the moment'. That's an assumption, but I assure you that if we gave the death penalty for stealing any moron can work out that would be a deterrent to theft. Again, not saying we should be any means, just pointing out that the pro/con death penalty deterrent argument is massively skewered by the severity of death penalty crimes.

4) There is a real difference. I might be tempted to steal something I want that I can't afford, but I make the choice not to, because that is the rules of the society we live in. Someone who is not in a sane state of mind (medically ill) and someone who chooses to ignore the rules to get whatever it is they want (criminal) are not the same.

[Alexr115]

It wouldn't distress me if prisoners got the vote to be honest and I cant see how society would be any worse off if prisoners were given the vote.

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by M1011)
1) However the individual is less likely to become a burden to society if deterred by punishment in the first place. I still maintain it is not the responsibility of decent citizens to looks after, rehabilitate or do anything else for criminals. If they want to change their ways that is fine, good even, but it's not our responsibility to drive them to do that.

'The tenet that harsher penalties could substantially reduce crime rates rests on the assumption that currently active criminals weigh the costs and benefits of their contemplated acts. Existing and proposed crime strategies exhibit this belief, as does a large and growing segment of the crime literature. This study examines the premise that criminals make informed and calculated decisions. The findings suggest that 76% of active criminals and 89% of the most violent criminals either perceive no risk of apprehension or are incognizant of the likely punishments for their crimes.'

I really think that if the rehabilitation I suggested is incorporated, crime will virtually disappear over the next 50-100 years. Rehabilitating and repairing criminals makes these 'decent citizens' safer.

2) Yes lovely, decent individuals and charities should get taxed more to give an unfair level of assistance to prisoners. Great. Love that idea...

I was referring to getting charitable status for quote:

'c. the advancement of religion;'

Which I find ridiculous. It's not an unfair level of assistance. Society has failed these prisoners, it's our duty to bring them back to have a chance. As I see it.

3) I'm not really here to argue the pro's and con's of the death penalty. After all I know very little about it. However I'm sure I could Google and find four sites pushing the exact opposite opinion, don't you think? But in retrospect, I presume most death penalty cases are murders, which are usually not premeditated, so no deterrent really applies as they 'happen in the moment'. That's an assumption, but I assure you that if we gave the death penalty for stealing any moron can work out that would be a deterrent to theft. Again, not saying we should be any means, just pointing out that the pro/con death penalty deterrent argument is massively skewered by the severity of death penalty crimes.

You can see my quotation above.

4) There is a real difference. I might be tempted to steal something I want that I can't afford, but I make the choice not to, because that is the rules of the society we live in. Someone who is not in a sane state of mind (medically ill) and someone who chooses to ignore the rules to get whatever it is they want (criminal) are not the same.

I insist that they are similar enough, because of my argument re: Free Will. Look for Sam Harris's article 'Morality without "free will"', and you might get a better picture of what I mean (not that I entirely agree with Dr. Harris).

[internetguru]

(Original post by Patriot Rich)
Well the ECHR has said we can deny voting for those in prison for certain crimes, but a blanket ban is illegal.

My simple suggestion, we allow voting for those guilty of one really obscure crime, and no others, perhaps even create a fun new one with a decent prison sentence such as conspiring with Martian invaders. An easy, and legal, way of sticking a big middle finger up at the ECHR.

The ECHR has no authority over British laws so whether it is legal or not is irrelevant as technically whatever our government decides is legal will be legal. The ultimate authority over our laws are the people if the people want it then they shall have it.

[M1011]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
'The tenet that harsher penalties could substantially reduce crime rates rests on the assumption that currently active criminals weigh the costs and benefits of their contemplated acts. Existing and proposed crime strategies exhibit this belief, as does a large and growing segment of the crime literature. This study examines the premise that criminals make informed and calculated decisions. The findings suggest that 76% of active criminals and 89% of the most violent criminals either perceive no risk of apprehension or are incognizant of the likely punishments for their crimes.'

I really think that if the rehabilitation I suggested is incorporated, crime will virtually disappear over the next 50-100 years. Rehabilitating and repairing criminals makes these 'decent citizens' safer.



I was referring to getting charitable status for quote:

'c. the advancement of religion;'

Which I find ridiculous. It's not an unfair level of assistance. Society has failed these prisoners, it's our duty to bring them back to have a chance. As I see it.



You can see my quotation above.



I insist that they are similar enough, because of my argument re: Free Will. Look for Sam Harris's article 'Morality without "free will"', and you might get a better picture of what I mean (not that I entirely agree with Dr. Harris).

While I'm sure your arguments are very valid, you're not going to convince me that it's worth spending a dime of my tax money on criminals, other then to lock them in a room.

They can make their own chances in life, just like the rest of us IMO. I'm nowhere near committed enough to look up a paper on this, but on a side note doesn't physics tell us (I think?) that all our actions are predetermined at an atomic level or some such? That what was going to happen will happen and all of that confusing blurb? Well perhaps that is the case, but nevertheless we have formed a society with certain boundaries and if you operate outside of those then you face consequences. We don't decide many of our characteristics (how naturally intelligent we are, how committed we are, how sociable we are), yet that doesn't mean society doesn't restrict us based on those attributes. If we can't punish a criminal for committing crime because 'they didn't choose to do it', then why can we reward someone for hard work as 'they didn't choose to do it' either?

I think it's time to agree to disagree either way. Neither of us operates a prison (well I assume you don't) so our opinions are pretty meaningless anyway

[alj123]

(Original post by Alexr115)
It wouldn't distress me if prisoners got the vote to be honest and I cant see how society would be any worse off if prisoners were given the vote.

Because they were put in prison for a reason ... Does that not mean anything to you?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Igrisok]

If you treat prisoners like inferior non-citizens, they'll leave feeling like they're inferior non-citizens. The whole system in the UK right now is a complete joke - the prevailing ideology seems to be "lock more of them up for longer" while we watch prisons become overcrowded wrecks and reoffending rates soar. You have to treat prisoners like people if you want any chance of rehabilitation. That includes giving them the vote.