The whole point of imprisoning somebody is to remove their rights and privileges
as a member of society. That is the punishment that society deems appropriate for the crimes committed. The right or privilege to vote should therefore also be removed for the period of their incarceration and restored along with the rest on their release.

If somebody does not go to prison, they do not have their right to vote removed.

There. Problem solved. Everybody can go back to talking about food now.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:36, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

The whole point?
What about rehabilitation?
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:37, Reply)

Yes, that is what prison does.
All those people that come out of prison are much less likely to reoffend.

You are such a hippie.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:38, Reply)

You forgot the \sarcasm tag

(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:39, Reply)

You think the solution to this is to further alienate them from society?
And yes, I am.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:40, Reply)

I think that if you're going to remove somebody from society as a punishment
then you should remove them from society. If you don't think that's a fair punishment, then don't imprison them.

Whether imprisoning somebody is fair or not is a different argument.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:41, Reply)

What about visiting rights?
Phone calls?
(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:46, Reply)

What about them?
You can't stop them an ordinary prisoner speaking to their family, that's solitary confinement. You stop those if they end up in solitary. You remove their civil rights, not their human rights, in prison and voting is a civil right.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:48, Reply)

Not according to the highest court in the EU

(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:53, Reply)

How about the highest court in the UK?
Because you'll find that we don't necessarily follow the EU in all things and we've shown by our actions as a country that we don't agree with the EU being the final arbiter on what happens to our citizens so, really, saying that the highest court in the EU disagrees is as useful as saying the highest court in the US or Namibia disagrees i.e. not at all.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:56, Reply)

We're not a ratified signatory to any US or Namibian legal system.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:58, Reply)

If the EU allows their prisoners to vote and we don't
then we haven't ratified or signed anything that gives the EU the right to tell us how our prisoners should vote, or not.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:00, Reply)

We have signed up to abide by the european court of human rights judgments.
Not letting prisoners the vote, isn't just saying "our problem not yours" it's breaking an international treaty we signed. It's not the end of the world, no, but it's not simply ignoring someone who has no authority.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:03, Reply)

I don't intend to comment on whether or history of picking and choosing
which parts of signed European agreements that we actually follow is right or not, I'm just pointing out that we've decided not to follow this one so it's the UK high court, not the EU one that's salient when discussing UK prisoners.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:06, Reply)

Well because a high court ruling has been overturned by the court of human rights
it's obviously the court of human rights that counts.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:10, Reply)

Apparently it doesn't.

( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:13, Reply)

I doubt the EU looks kindly on rendition either
still happened though.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:05, Reply)

Do you not think it prudent to prepare them for a life outside of prison for when they are released?
Then maybe they might stand a chance of not reoffending.
I never said anything about not imprisoning offenders or it not being fair. I'm just pointing out that there are (theoretically, at least) two strands to our criminal justice system - punishment and rehabilitation.
Otherwise you might as well just take the American approach and lock people away for as long as possible.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:46, Reply)

They get taught trades in jail.
I don't see how this is applicable. Prison is prison, it is not a holiday camp. They have their civil rights removed for crimes against society.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:49, Reply)

They have their freedom removed.
And they are taught trades as part of the rehabilitation program.
What purpose does removing a civil right, such as the right to vote, have anyway?
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:56, Reply)

If you're going down that road, then what purpose does removing their freedom of movement serve?
By putting them in prison you are, as a society, stating that this person is undesirable and does not deserve to be a free member of society. I'd say the freedom to vote and thereby have a say in the direction the country takes is a pretty big part of being a free member of society.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:58, Reply)

I'm not going down that road.
My point is that the removal of freedom is already the punishment part of it, so why is there any need to add further punishment?
By putting them in prison we are stating that this is their punishment and not all of these undesirable people receive custodial sentences.
Prisoners are still a part of society. They are still there and likely to return.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:03, Reply)

So what about the right to sit on a jury?
Do you think cons should be allowed to be called up for jury service?
(Reverend Fister "a disciplined fuckwit", Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:13, Reply)

Enough with the logical fallacies already.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:22, Reply)

Too many straw men in this argument.

( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:27, Reply)

yes, as far as possible while they are in jail.
get them to fuck off to australia perhaps.
( mark morrisons prison shoes I love Willie, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:42, Reply)

So you send all the nonces off to Australia
Where does that leave poor Poppet when Battered steps off the plane, eh?
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:11, Reply)

They're less likely to reoffend than people who don't get caught.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:44, Reply)

Perhaps, but that's really not what the discussion is about.
If you're going to imprison somebody and take away their rights as a free citizen, then that is what you should do.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:46, Reply)

"That is the punishment that society deems appropriate "
And that, right there, is the issue. What if society doesn't deem it appropriate? And I think there's a fair case to be made that it might not.

In case it's not clear among the crap I've been saying, I'm on the side of prisoners being allowed to vote in certain circumstances.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:39, Reply)

If society doesn't deem it appropriate, then imprisoning people for committing crimes
should be stopped. That, however, is not what the discussion is about.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:40, Reply)

That wasn't really my point actually, I may have made it badly.
The point you seem to be making is that 'this is what prison does and that's the end of the matter because it's what society deems appropriate'

The point I was hamfistedly trying to counter with was 'what if society doesn't actually think that taking someone off the streets for whatever reason should automatically mean they lose their right to vote'.

Prisoners don't have 'all' their rights removed anyway, so it becomes a question of where the punishment should end and the rehabilitation should begin. I happen to think that anything that keeps a prisoner who is going to be released actively interested in the outside world is likely to help reduce the risk of them reoffending. A person released back into a world that feels totally alien to them is likely to be less inclined to integrate with it than one who has been allowed to play a part, however small, in shaping it.

And that's the end of me being serious for today.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:42, Reply)

I do happen to think it should be a pretty black and white case, yes.
Removal of civil liberties. I'm not advocating removing *all* of their rights as a human being, but there's a difference between removal of civil righs and liberties and removing their basic rights as a human.

People are clouding the waters between the two things.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:54, Reply)

Hanging's too good

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:05, Reply)

It must be nice to be so confident in your view of how things houl db e.

( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:07, Reply)

It is, yes. It is, however, only my view of how things should be.

( Kroney, Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:08, Reply)