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, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

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)