A fairly simple distinction could be that anyone who is sentenced to over 5 years loses the right to vote
since they will definitely be inside during a general election.

But anything less and it's purely arbitrary timing wise from when they start their sentence as to whether they would miss an election so you could let them keep the vote.

Problem solved, lets move on.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:17, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

There is another suggestion which makes sense to me.
Is that the Judge while sentencing can decide to revoke the right to vote from the convict.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:19, Reply)

Based on what criteria?

(Bazongaloid, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:20, Reply)

No idea, that'll have to be sorted out.
But at least it takes away an arbitary line for it and puts it into a more case by case basis.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:21, Reply)

That risks a whole mess of appeals when people who are convicted of similar crimes get treated differently though.

( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:21, Reply)

Nah, if someone gets convicted for rape and gets 6 years
they can't appeal that someone else got 5.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:22, Reply)

Specifically, no you're right.
But this is a different issue to length of sentence. These would be appeals on Human Rights grounds.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:28, Reply)

Now you'll have different grounds for appeal
People will be appealing not on the length of their sentence, but on being refused the right to vote.

Congratulations Chompy, you've just thought of a way of making one of the most tortuous legal systems in the word even more ridiculous.
(Reverend Fister "a disciplined fuckwit", Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:53, Reply)

Well then just let them have a fucking vote.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:54, Reply)

How about we let our own government decide how we treat our own prisoners
rather than listening to some shower of Euro-wanks.
(Reverend Fister "a disciplined fuckwit", Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:00, Reply)

See chompy's point below about our own government signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:10, Reply)

This would be in line with the EU I think.
Would that be 5 years sentenced or 5 years actual time inside?
To do 5 years inside you'd have to have been sentenced to 10 or more, these days.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:22, Reply)

Bollocks.
It's about eligibility for parole, it's not automatic 50% off prison time. Newspapers lie to you.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:23, Reply)

I thought I'd google this to see what the average difference between sentenced and served was.
I got distracted by the fact that one of the first results is people asking 'What is the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentencing'.

Fuck me. THOSE are the people that shouldn't be allowed to vote.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:25, Reply)

Are you suggesting some sort of intelligence test
that has to be passed before you're allowed to vote?
Wonder how many MPs would pass...
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:32, Reply)

No, not really I'm not.
As tempting as the idea is sometimes, I don't actually believe in it.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:33, Reply)