Be Excellent To Each Other

We haven't had a good old politics/human rights debate in a while, so let's do this one.

As the papers and news sites are trumpeting this morning, the European Court of Human Rights has made a wonderfully vague decision stating that yes, the UK is right to say that individual states are allowed to decide what types of prisoners can and can't vote, but they don't support the current blanket ban on prisoners voting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18157566

So, what are your views? Total ban? Total restoration of voting rights? A compromise depending on crime/sentence?

I'm of the opinion that a democracy requires that every item of policy be subject to the views of the populous on both sides. So those in favour of tax cuts, those against tax cuts, etc. The problem is that with the majority of law and order policy, by preventing people in prison from voting, you're effectively removing a section of society that will have a very direct and relevant opinion on the topic. Look at those who are in prison for cannabis offences, for example. That's a group of people that should be allowed to weigh in on an election between a party that supports legalisation/decriminalisation of cannabis versus one that doesn't, surely? Public spending on prisons and prisoner rehabilitation programmes - when the only people voting are those who aren't going to be directly affected, policy naturally leans towards spending less and less money on those items - whereas effective rehabilitation is an effective method of preventing reoffending in a large number of cases.

So, I think all prisoners should be allowed to vote. Not because it impinges on their human rights to prevent them from doing so, but because they are a section of society with a relevant opinion on certain matters of government, and should be allowed to express that opinion at the ballot box.

Yeah.

I think they should be allowed to vote, but the ballot box will be outside the prison as normal. If they're not able to get to it, then though.

Heh.

The one interesting practical consideration I heard was where would they vote? The numbers involved in a given prison would mean that they would have a very overwhelming effect on voting numbers in the constituencies where the prisons are located. And you can't have them vote from their 'home' location, because 60-odd percent of prisoners don't have a home address.

Seems to me, this strikes to the heart of what you think prison is for: to punish or to rehabilitate. Society's never had a consensus view on that, to my mind.

Some US states remove a person's voting rights for life after conviction of a federal crime, I believe (although I cannot now find a citation link, only states that say they do not do this).

And/Or to quarantine dangerous people away from the general public.

I honestly think it's all three, and don't see a reason why they should be distinct.

Agreed. However, is removing the vote really a punishment? It certainly pales into comparison with the loss of liberty. And that's why I think prisoners voting is more important for society than for the individual concerned.

I think that while you're actually in prison you've been effectively removed from society so you don't get an opinion. Once you've been released we assume you've paid your debt to society so should you get all your rights back, including the right to vote.

However there are people who will be in prison when an election happens but will be released at some point during the term of the goverment who were voted in, so when they're released they'll be subject to the rule of a government that they didn't even get consulted on which seems a bit wrong. Not a massive amount of wrong because there'll be another election along relatively shortly afterwards, but something that could be considered at least. The obvious answer would be for people to get a vote if the election term covers a period past their release, but I suspect that release date might not always be a straightforward thing to work given the parole system. And do you even get your vote back if you're only out on parole? You could do something stupid and get sent right back so maybe parolees shouldn't be considered for this and only people who are being 'properly' released?

The only other justification I can think of for prisoners voting is that, although they themselves are in prison, their family are not; and as the question of who's in government will effect how their family are treated should prisoners get a say because of that? Obviously any over-18 relatives get their own say via their own vote but what about prisoners' children? As a child your parents vote ostensibly takes into account your welfare, but that can't be the case for children who's parent' are in prison, so who's speaking for them in an election?

I used to think that a convicted prisoner should not get the vote, as they've committed a crime against society, and, as part of that punishment, doesn't get a say in the running of that society. Post conviction, the right to vote is reinstated, and everything resets back to normal. However, I'm not sure how this functions regarding those on suspended sentences. Or all crimes, for that matter. If I were to go out and gain myself a conviction for ABH, which results in a fine, once I've paid that fine, am I free to go and vote, having served the sentence?

This might be the single best argument against it, for me!

Oooh, oooh: maybe all the prisons will get a dedicated MP, and vote as a virtual constituency. That would be interesting. I wonder what the voting demographics would look like.

Wouldn't this imply life sentences for GBH?

I really can't say that I have a strong view one way or the other on this. Unlike America we don't have a large enough prison population for it to have much relevance. I think that however it is now they should just leave it and spend time on something more important.

Consider a government that might pass a deeply unjust law. Surely those who've been most affected by it (ie, they've been convicted under it) should have the right to influence whether that government gets voted in again?

Sure, there are those who haven't been convicted who will recognise an unjust law and want it overturned, but they are inherently less invested in it than those who've been locked up, aren't they?

Surely such a government would just cover themselves by removing the vote from prisoners. I mean, you're pretty much describing a police state there.

That depends on your definition of deeply unjust, of course. And I refer you back to the previous cannabis example.

GBH can carry a life sentence, if memory serves.

I'd say yes. Society, in the shape of the law/judges, considers your debt paid once the fine is so fair enough. Further to that though, there's some specific aspects of being physically in prison that, to me, make a better argument for removing your vote (1. your welfare is under the control of the prison system not your own choices so it's much less to do with you what's happening outside that sphere and 2. because you're physically removed from the world you're not directly interacting with it any more so your opinions and judgements of which political party can serve the country's needs best is likely to be flawed to say the least) and those arguments don't apply to people still out in the world paying a fine.

Part of me wants prison inmates to get the vote just to see if politicians will actually go and canvas votes there, thus resulting in some of the most awkward entertainment you're ever likely to see.

Depends whether you think someone who has served a sentence for GBH counts as a dangerous person upon their release.

Once they're rehabilitated, they're not dangerous any more.

In theory.

Hang on though -- that means your welfare is directly controlled by the government. That means prisoners have a stronger stake in the government's policies than I do, as a middle-class tax payer who's ineligible for any benefits.

I don't see any compelling reason why prisoners should not vote but I'm just not convinced that it's worth wasting any time on. It doesn't seem all that relevant. Most people are in prison because they are cunts and the subset of prisoners who aren't are not large enough to influence an election. So yeah, I can't really bring myself to feel too strongly one way or the other.

I was trying (badly!) to speak to the range of control you 'deserve' over goverment policy. The government's only real responsibilities to a prisoner is are food, water, shelter and safety. On the assumption that no government is going to, for example, ever decide to stop feeding prisoners there's really little in terms of government policy that a prisoner needs to be able vote on. Yes, their welfare relies directly on the government but as that's not something that's ever going to be threatened what exactly do we need a prisoner's opinion on via the ballot box? Practically nothing.

Conversely, your life as a citizen is affected in countless ways by who's in power and what they want to do so of course you get a vote on the subject.

Thinking about it more there probably is a slighly wider range of issues that effect prisoners (prison guard salaries for one thing) but it's a more subtle impact. Even then I don't think that a prisoner should get a chance to influence all the ways that government impact you just so they get a say in the very small impact an election has on them (if you see what I mean).

In terms of survival, sure. But in terms of quality of life and your chances of resuming life as a productive member of society when you're done? I'd argue that prisoners are significantly more affected by government policy than the average citizen. Everything about their life is controlled by government policy, from the food they eat to their access to libraries, exercise, etc. Even down to how long they end up spending inside.

Absofuckinglutely. Falls down on the postal vote though.

Knee-deep in criminal justice, rehabilitation and so on as I am, I honestly can't say that I think prisoners should have the vote. There are a few things to which we should have a right regardless of our responsibilities, but voting is not one of them.

There's an old saying about Turkeys and christmas.... If prisoners want to vote, let them vote on certain marginal things inside their nick... And maybe develop a bit more respect for the democratic society they were such cunts to it had to remove them.

I can't agree either that a prisoner should get a vote if they'll be out during that new parliament... W all know when elections are due and it is our responsibility not to be banged up at that point. The logical extension of that would be me refusing to pay current tax rates because I voted Labour.

As always with this sort of thing, when I hear anyone going on about knowing their rights, the first thing I ask of them is to tell me what their responsibilities are, in the context of the issue at hand. At this point most people shut the fuck up.

Next best thing... When someone starts on about "I've got a right to x,y,z..." ask them why. If you get anything better back than a wholly bemused stare, you'll be lucky.

Well, that is all rather why I said I don't think it's anything to do with their rights. It's our right as a society to have an electorate with a balanced view on criminal justice, and I think by excluding prisoners we don't get that.

Personally, I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that just because you are in prison and suffering curtailment of your liberties as a regular, free citizen, you should somehow also be denied your vote as well?

Like it as not, prisoners are still members of, and stakeholders in, our hard won democratic society. In fact, we very much want them to think along these lines, as part of their rehabilitation. They are already being punished in a specific way that's designed to address the actual crime; I don't think that further non-specific punishment in the form of denying their vote is liable to help in any way, or even be relevant? In fact, I think we should do all that we reasonably can to encourage prisoners to re-engage as stakeholders; to re-buy into our society, not further isolate and antagonise for no good reason that I can see.

I accept that there are logistic issues here, in that a relatively large, localised prison population in a given area could skew what would have otherwise been the result returned. But I suppose that's democracy for you - I'd say go with it anyway.

That's pretty much my stance. We penalise by removing liberty, not citizenship.

I'm coming down on the "no" side, personally.

Isn't that the same as saying

or

Yes, it is the same. A crime is a crime because society says it is. If there are murderers who want to vote on the basis that they want murder to be legal, why should we stop them doing so? It's not like there aren't plenty of people outside of prisons who have pretty abhorrent reasons for voting the way they do.

If that is what the majority want, who are we to argue?

Let's talk about if there are moral absolutes against the face of majority opinion and really get people wound up

Death penalty? Most people would bring it back tomorrow; doesn't make it morally correct.

Sames goes for the proverbial chopping the bollocks off of repeat sex offenders, come to that.

Who gets to decide what is morally correct then?

Jesus? The Pope? The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice? Jeremy Kyle?

Good question.
The intelligent, educated and enlightened, I presume. Although quite how you reconcile these ideals with the current Political Class is anyone's guess.

It's not ideal, but what's the alternative?

Only you can decide what's morally correct, because everyone's idea (or 'amount') of morality is different.

It's a government's job to work out what the masses want.

No, supposed 'moral absolutes' are universal, not relative/subjective to a given individual. And if it were simply the job of government to give the masses what they wanted, our society would look vastly different than it does in actuality; the death penalty is but the tip of an enormous iceberg.

Government must surely transcend merely what the average guy on the street may, or may not want. But there's the rub, and the inevitable democratic deficit.

A moral abolute is 'always right or wrong, no excuses', but is in the eye of the beholder. A moral universalism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism ) is what you're describing, but I honestly don't think any exist. All it takes is someone, somewhere to disagree, and it's not universal any more.

And some people be crazy, yo.

Also, I'm not convinced the UK public would bring back the death penalty. I'll ask our stats guys if they fancy asking, but it might be a bit to far.
[edit]Turns out they have, and I'll shut up now - 65%

But (tangent time) isn't that undemocratic? If 65% of people was the death penalty back, how do the other 35% get to say "no, actually"?

There is no part of Parliamentary Democracy that says the politicians have any obligation to enact the will of the people.

I guess that makes sense - otherwise no-one would pay any tax.

Quite. The population at large don't tend to typically be skilled macro-economists.

Of course, history would suggest the same is true of politicians.

I'm with the no camp for selfish reasons.

I abide by the law, generally speaking, because without it bad stuff would happen to me. Those people who break the law, at least those laws that land you in prison, would in theory be for voting for a government that does not land them in prison. I am against those people achieving that and so it suits me that they dont get the chance to vote.
While I can see that they are part of democratic society and as such should, theoretically be allowed a say in who is in power the above reason completely over rides that for me. Not allowing them the vote I think would be good sense while allowing them to vote would be blindly adhering to the rules.

Also why are people being paid to beat britain around the head with technicalities while children are made to bake bricks in china? (etc.)

I think there should be some granularity, some people end up in Jail for breaking the law but otherwise have lived a law abiding life to the date of the offence. Maybe if they were in jail for an election they could vote.

Others spend their life’s breaking the law or kill, rape or abuse kids. I think that this sort of offender has broken their bond with society and should have no vote. Or life for that matter but that’s another debate

And economists.

I find the idea that voting has any relevance to the way the country is governed to be laughable. No party fairly represents my views, and they legislate on party lines anyway. The media has more influence than a vote, and one pointless vote for one bunch of priveliged arsewipes over another is neither here nor there. Give crims a vote, hell give em two for all the difference it will make. We will still send our soldiers to bleed when America says jump, we will still tax fags and petrol to astronomical levels, and we will still moan about whoever is in power anyway so bollox to the lot of em.

Is there any indication if the crims actually want to vote? I have a feeling that like the rest of the country, a large number simply wouldn't care enough to bother - and you couldn't force them to do it, as the rest of the country isn't forced.

I may be doing them a disservice here, but I've got it in my head that there'd be proportionally a lot more spoiled (or soiled) vote papers returned by crims looking for lulz.

in which case I endorse your standing as candidate at the next election.

[vote:Mr Dom]

I think I am on the side of 'No'.

If the vote is that important to you, don't do anything that gets that taken away from you.

You brake the law and you go to prison, and you don't get to vote.