I'm still having an extended "is it me?" moment over this.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164
Criminals by definition are anti-society. How they they possibly have a right to vote on how it's run?
Is it me?
|
|
I can see both sides of it really.
|
I don't think you're alone. I half-listened to something on Radio 4 about it tonight, the logistics could be interesting to put it mildly.
It used to be the case that only criminals, lunatics and peers of the realm were denied the vote; the latter allegedly because it was difficult to distinguish some of them from the other two categories.
Surely one of the basic things about prison is that it is a restriction of freedoms, on of which is the right to vote.
Woudn't be at all surprised to find that the European Union's behind this. Enough crooks running that particular show.
|
I seem to spend half my time thinking 'that's it i've heard the lot now'...without fail i'm proved wrong.
Careful HM, you'll be extradited to some eu gulag for thought re-evaluation.
|
I am sure they are all delighted they will get the vote, it will make life inside so much better.
|
i see the cost perspective of giving convicted felons the vote
frankly i dispair
really wish my parents went on assisted passage
|
|
Let them vote they may have some common sense.
|
well they do get free rail passes
apparently
;-)
|
well they do get free rail passes
apparently
:-)............!!
|
...well they do get free rail passes...
As far as I know, a prisoner on release gets a small sum of money - about £40 - and a rail warrant.
Any ex-cons on here should feel free to correct me.
|
I am tempted to say: what about the other toerags?
But I won't.
What about the queen though, and all the lunatics shut up in asylums gibbering and moaning?
Is there no justice, no equality in our country? It's enough to make you join the tea party or el qaeda.
|
I am tempted to say: what about the other toerags?
Yes and a few on this site.............
|
>> and a rail warrant.
Which they usually flog for cash for drink/drugs and then try to fare dodge... Speaking from experience!
Another vote for "no vote" for them...
|
>> really wish my parents went on assisted passage
>>
Presumably to Australia, which IIRC was one of the first countries to give convicts the vote? ;-)
|
All down to the EU and 'uman rights apparently.
The UK has fought the proposal for about five years but now conceded, due to the warning of heavy financial penalties if it doesn't comply.
But you'll have to ensure you are in prison in 2015 to be able to take advantage of the concession.
Don't know if local elections also apply..:-)
Last edited by: Stuartli on Tue 2 Nov 10 at 23:56
|
...Don't know if local elections also apply..:-)...
Presumably, the prisoners' votes will apply to the constituency in which their jail stands.
This could have some impact in the City of Durham constituency, which has three jails - Durham town jail, Frankland high security, and Low Newton for women.
I reckon that's about 2,000 voters added to the electoral roll.
The seat is currently held by Labour with a majority of not many more than that.
|
|
Although it's plainly bonkers, there is one small positive glimmer to this farce. I guess most of those locked up are those not overly supportive of society and the general good. They are likely to be selfish and many will have an entrepreneurial approach to life - like right wing, Tory voting, businessmen you might think.
Last edited by: Dulwich Estate on Wed 3 Nov 10 at 00:22
|
|
The hustings could be interesting and who's going to be the official in charge of the voting?
|
Apparently it will likely be done by postal vote, with a system similar to that employed for our servicemen on active duty.
It's a nefarious complication in my opinion; if you've done something deserving of a custodial prison sentence, you don't deserve the right to vote. There are enough crooks in parliament already without them having the support of their professional colleagues!
Last edited by: Harleyman on Wed 3 Nov 10 at 00:43
|
Oh well, they'll have to bring back hanging instead.
BTW, as well as peers, I thought clergymen of the Church of England didn't have a vote either? On the grounds that they are represented through their bishops in the House of Lords.
|
Two quick thoughts.
Does it matter? - I cannot imagine they were dancing on the landing of B wing last night
and
At least the coalition got to grips with the issue. The last lot sat on it for years 'cos it was 'too difficult'.
|
|
...it was a guaranteed vote loser in the General Election...
|
Seems to me that breaking the law these days has fewer and fewer consequences.
It follows therefore that the erosion of rights a prisoner suffers will eventually be reversed and the worse sentance they will get is 10 years working in McDonalds.
I despair. Its bad enough that sentances are woefully short, now the taxpayer is expected to make their life as cushy as possible. No wonder they arent bothered about going back, it seems an open prison atleast has more freedoms than marriage. That cant be right can it?
|
|
I wonder how many of the prisoners who qualify will (a) Vote when they are allowed and (b) would have voted if they weren't banged up ?
|
I wonder if votes will acquire any currency in prison.
No, scrub that, I wonder what the value of a vote will be.
|
|
I think its much ado about nothing in all honesty and there are other things to worry about.
|
As c 10% of prisoners are ineligible to vote - being non residents and another 10% are mentally ill, and turnout in GEs is around 65%, that equates to roughly half the prisoners actually voting.
Who cares? i don't. If it makes them better citizens - which I doubt - some upside.
Downside? nil .
Could not care either way.
|
"It will make no difference" is not an ideal premise to base an important policy on, even if the premise is correct.
There are similar arguments about prosecuting prisoners who assault each other.
Slasher Harris is already doing life, so what's the point of nicking him for breaking a fellow con's jaw when the sentence will not add to the time he's going to serve.
Such assaults are often not proceeded with, although assaults on prison staff tend to be.
|
Here's me thinking that a prison sentance was a form of punishment by withdrawing the person's freedom and all that entails... now I read of ex cons actually wanting to go back 'cause its nicer inside...surely a "punishment" should mean just that?
Perhaps I have got things wrong... perhaps its me being the fool for thinking that they would rather stay outside jail?
Or perhaps its the "system" thats wrong???
|
>> now I read of ex cons actually wanting to
>> go back 'cause its nicer inside...
That statement may say more about their chaotic lives outside than conditions in prison!!!
|
...now I read of ex cons actually wanting to go back 'cause its nicer inside...
I would take those reports with a pinch of salt.
I've seen hard men who are all swagger in the dock when the judge locks them up, but are literally in tears a few minutes later down in the cells when the reality hits home.
You only have to see how much effort the barristers go to - on instruction - to keep the defendants out of jail to realise none relish the prospect of going inside.
Open prisons might be a bearable option for some, but all sentences begin in a closed jail, and none of the cons like being in one of those.
|
I don't see what all the fuss is about. There are around 80,000 people in prison, at the very optimistic guess only half will bother to vote and those votes will be spread throughout their home constituencies.
It's easy to get all Daily Mail foaming at the mouth about feather-bedded lags, but the only difference between those inside and the rest of us are they are the ones who got caught, we've all been lucky so far.
|
...and those votes will be spread throughout their home constituencies...
But will they?
Many of the cons I see are NFA - no fixed abode.
I've not looked into it, but to me the only way to apply this would be for the prisoner's vote to count in the constituency in which he is 'living', albeit in a close environment.
|
>> the constituency in which he is 'living',
>>
>>
Are prisons actually "in" a constituency at all? As the ordinary laws and priviledges of citizenship have never applied there, perhaps they are extra-territorial?
|
Iffy,
Interesting point about NFA but how do 'NFA' citizens vote anyway?
I think the only practical argument is about ensuring their votes are not in the prison constituency. Having the Isle of Wight's MP determined by the citizens of Parkhurst and Albany would be a step too far!!
|
>> ensuring their votes are not in the
>> prison constituency. Having the Isle of Wight's MP determined by the citizens of Parkhurst and
>> Albany would be a step too far!!
>>
Isn't that a little bit like gerrymandering concentrations of, say, labour voters, so that they don't dominate voting in a particular seat?
If the logic is that they are entitled to votes, then they are surely entitled to have votes that stand a chance of influencing something? I don't think we would apply the same dispersal policy to concentrations of other categories of voter.
|
...Interesting point about NFA but how do 'NFA' citizens vote anyway?...
I also wonder about long-term prisoners.
Ian Huntley, for example, was a citizen of Cambridgeshire, but he has no prospect of release.
So are we going to say he forever votes in Cambs?
Even though in 20 years' time he will have spent more of his life away from the county than in it.
Then there's local elections.
Is a prisoner going to vote for the party that wants to keep this school open, or clean-up that park, when there's no prospect of him ever seeing either?
I'm not strongly against prisoners having the vote, but I wonder if it's been thought through.
With all the various anomalies, there's a danger of bringing the electoral system into disrepute.
|
>> ...now I read of ex cons actually wanting to go back 'cause its nicer inside...
>>
>> I would take those reports with a pinch of salt.
I have also spoken to quite a few on the train who were looking forward to going back... Its not just reports! Though I agree with B that it probably says more about their potential lives outside...
Last edited by: hobby on Wed 3 Nov 10 at 16:27
|
...I have also spoken to quite a few on the train who were looking forward to going back... Its not just reports!...
A lot of criminals I come across couldn't lie straight in bed, so I am unable to believe a word they say.
The story kicking around today is about a 19-year-old who wants to go back.
Worth pointing out he will do his time in a Young Offenders' Institution, where at 19, if he's switched on, he might have some influence over the other inmates.
I don't suppose he will be quite so keen to go inside when he's 21 and has to go to a proper adult jail - the so-called Big House - where he will amount to nothing more than bully fodder.
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 3 Nov 10 at 17:43
|
The main issue here, as I see it, is what rights prisoners should have.
I don't think you can assume that someone who has been given a jail sentence automatically forfeits all their rights. You certainly can't assume that someone who has broken the law even in quite a serious way automatically forfeits all their rights. In some ways, the fact that someone is in jail is besides the point. As has been said, a convict who has been deprived of his liberty could still vote by post without being released.
As regards the right to vote, I am not bothered about whether a prisoner should retain it or not, but, to be scrupulous about it, you should really think about whether the original offence is a reason for disenfranchisement - or whether disenfachisement should be part of the punishment.
|
>> like right wing, Tory voting, businessmen you might think.
My very thought Dulwich Estate. Professional thieves are indeed a conservative lot. After all, they want to be rich without working.
Of course there are people in jail who aren't professional thieves. But probably not many of those will bother to vote.
|
|
John Hirst is named in the Guardian as well but apprently 1300 or so others ar also interested parties. Specualtion that there might be compensation of £750 per head for those denied the 'right' is, I'm sure, not an influenceing factor.
|
|
If prisoners continue to be denied the vote who will be next? People in homeless hostels, people on medication for mental health issues, people on suspended jail sentences or ASBOs, Big Issue sellers? The possibilities are endless. No point in disenfranchising any of the 40% or less of the public who can even be bothered to vote as things are at moment!
|
First make voting compulsory, as in Australia.
Then it will be worth starting to disenfranchise people, but only for good reason: illegal parking, dropping dog-ends, straying over the limit, really anti-social crimes of that sort.
It could be argued that murder, rape and other crimes of violence have a positive effect by keeping the timid indoors, and thus making the streets look tidy. Indeed the unpleasant, boastful idiot whose lawyers have brought about this (to me) total non-event should probably be ennobled and have a bronze statue put up to his memory.
|
Dropping a dog-end is a far too serious crime to be dealt with by disenfranchisement.
It demands a hefty fine at the least, and incarceration for repeat offenders.
I would introduce a sliding scale of harsher penalties for older offenders, on the basis they are old enough to know better.
|
>> If prisoners continue to be denied the vote who will be next? People in homeless
>> hostels, people on medication for mental health issues, people on suspended jail sentences or ASBOs,
>> Big Issue sellers? The possibilities are endless. No point in disenfranchising any of the 40%
>> or less of the public who can even be bothered to vote as things are
>> at moment!
>>
Disenfranchise everyone: except for current members of this site..
Then bribing the electorate by politicians will be MUCH cheaper...
I'll settle for £1 million tax free every year.. And if the disenfranchised want me to vote for a particular policy or politician, they can pay me: Bidding starts at £0.5million : taxable worst luck.. but open to competitive bidding...
Last edited by: madf on Wed 3 Nov 10 at 14:57
|
Relevant Hansard page form yesterday is tinyurl.com/2agc535
The answer given to Nr Nuttall hopefully clarifies the (lack) of any role for the EU in this farrago.
The sentence We have been a signatory to the European convention on human rights for the best part of 60 years. Indeed, British lawyers helped to draft it after the second world war. should be force fed to Fleet Street's finest.
They might then get the headlines that mislead everyone else right!!
Sorry; rant over!!!!!
|
To be able to vote, you have to be on the electoral roll. To get on the roll you have to pay council tax.
How many of those inside were honest enough to pay council tax?
and anyway, I doubt many are bothered about voting.
|
|
Funnily enough one of the few exemptions from paying Council Tax is whilst in a Prison ! :-) Something else to be rabid about !
|
|
SFAIK a 19 year old is entitled to vote, and if living at home with parents, will be on the electoral roll without paying council tax, unless parents ask for a contribution. Tax is per dwelling not per occupant.
|
>> To be able to vote, you have to be on the electoral roll. To get
>> on the roll you have to pay council tax.
The community charge came close to establishing that principle but I can't see how it extends to council tax. To get on the electoral roll your name has to go on the form that comes round every autumn. Every now and then some berk puts their dog or toddler on and then tries to blame the registration officer.
I cannot find the source immediately but I think the Information Commisioner felt it necessary to issue guidance to Councils about data matching between electoral roll and other records.
|
|
Have our government thought through the implications of this change ? It'll probably mean changing the rules of Monopoly where at present you miss three goes if in jail.
|
>> I seem to spend half my time thinking 'that's it i've heard the lot now'...without
>> fail i'm proved wrong.
>>
I read posts without looking at the poster's name first. In every case GB I know which are yours from the first line. Are you a long lost Brother??
Cheers Mate...............MD
|
Apart from the obvious disadvantages, some people in their later years might think the benefits of being in prison quite worthwhile.
1. No rent/mortgage council tax, TV Licence or gas /elec/water to pay
2. Free board and lodging
3. Free clothing and laundry
4. Free education or adult learning courses
5. Good medical services, and free dentistry (I think)
6. Sports and keep fit facilities.
7. No nagging about DIY and gardening from SWMBO - I don't have one!
November to February inside might suit me if I could think of a way of getting in! Suggestions not required, thank you!
|
|
...0r take soap on a rope of course.
|
Erwin James's stuff in the Guardian gives, IMHO, a pretty accurate take on prison. Doubt I'd last long but those who went to boarding school or were in the forces might have the 'right stuff'
And I don't mean that in an 'Arf Arf' homo joke sense.
|
PP you forgot:
8. Legal Aid to pursue the most bizarre claims as it relieves the boredom.
|
|
Thanks Fullchat - you have spotted the best financial perk of them all! ISTR recall some con got over a £1 million for injuries sustained falling out of a bed/bunk!
|
Prisoners get the vote - RattleandSmoke
