Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

[Tom]

Big issue at the minute.

[Patrick]

No.

They've been inside, how the hell do they know what's good for the country and that when some of them have been locked away for over 10, 20 years?

[Legend killer]

Depends on how serious thier crime was IMO

[Mystic Mock]

if your on about should they be allowed to vote for a goverment then no as they would vote labour back in.:joker:

[InOne]

All depends on the crime and how long they've been out of society. People are always quick to bring up extreme examples like Brady or The Yorkshire Ripper which is ridiculous of course.

[MTVN]

Yes, it should be a fundamental right in a democracy that all citizens get to vote. I dont think it would really matter either way, I cant imagine many serious criminals being particularly passionate about politics.

[Tom]

I think they should be allowed to vote if they're going to be released in the term. Otherwise its pointless and with an extra 80,000 there are huge flaws in it. An extreme example is that a party could come along and say they're going to release so many prisoners, and guess who gets the prison vote.

[Mystic Mock]

Yes, it should be a fundamental right in a democracy that all citizens get to vote. I dont think it would really matter either way, I cant imagine many serious criminals being particularly passionate about politics.

yes they would as they would want to keep there tvs,ps3s and xbox 360s.

[arista]

No.

Sadly we are still Stuck under Euro Laws
so it is forced onto us.
Or we would pay massive fines

[Jamie.....]

No, they lost their rights when they broke the law

[Smithy]

^

[MTVN]

I think they should be allowed to vote if they're going to be released in the term. Otherwise its pointless and with an extra 80,000 there are huge flaws in it.

Yeah that's a good point actually.

[BB_Eye]

Yes, it should be a fundamental right in a democracy that all citizens get to vote. I dont think it would really matter either way, I cant imagine many serious criminals being particularly passionate about politics.
But convicts are not citizens.

[Mystic Mock]

But convicts are not citizens.

this.

[Mrluvaluva]

I think it depends on the term and the sentence. Murderers, rapists etc should lose all human rights for life in my opinion.

[joeysteele]

No, for no other reason than the fact beiing in prison is the removal of your freedom,your free will loss is part of the punishment, so no, once the time is done and they rejoin society,then fine, those rights are restored.

The Human rights act is very flawed,the worst thing would be if this Govt failed to exclude murderers, paedophiles and sex crime offenders from being given the right to vote.

Its clear from the EU ruling that some prisoners now will have to have their voting rights restored, I would still say no to it though.

It cannot be right to say some people have to be removed from society but then have them have a say on who makes the laws in that society.

[MTVN]

But convicts are not citizens.

Is that technically true or is that just your opinion?

[Beastie]

No.

[Angus]

No, for no other reason than the fact beiing in prison is the removal of your freedom,your free will loss is part of the punishment, so no, once the time is done and they rejoin society,then fine, those rights are restored.

The Human rights act is very flawed,the worst thing would be if this Govt failed to exclude murderers, paedophiles and sex crime offenders from being given the right to vote.

Its clear from the EU ruling that some prisoners now will have to have their voting rights restored, I would still say no to it though.

It cannot be right to say some people have to be removed from society but then have them have a say on who makes the laws in that society.

Exactly. In order to have rights you also have commensurate responsibilities. If criminals have broken the law they have relinquished their rights for the duration of their imprisonment.

It's about time there was some commonsense brought to the justice system, else it won't be long before criminals use Human Rights legislation to argue that they have the right NOT to be locked up.

[Shasown]

Depends on the circumstances. Long term criminals probably wont get the right to vote.

Interestingly up to a fifth of the Scottish Prison population at any one time are fine defaulters. Some of them turn up to court having defaulted on a fine or Council Tax payment order and have no means to pay off the outstanding amount in a lump sum.

An example of this. A man I used to employ who was partially disabled, I employed him for some driving jobs, he then got a full time job as a delivery driver for the local council. He was charged for driving without due care and attention for being involved in an accident in which a large amount of damage to a house occured. He was fined over £1800.

He also lost his licence due to having points on his licence already due to speeding etc. he lost his job with the local council because he wasnt able to drive now, so couldnt repay the fine, as he wasnt assessed fit enough to carry out community service the sheriff could have dismissed the fine, dont think the sheriff was in too good a mood the day this lad went to court, the sheriff converted the fine into time and sent the lad down for 2 months.

[Lewis.]

On the fence for this one. At first thought It doesn't really bother me whether prisoners are able to vote or not, however after reading some opinions, it's kind of made me think again. What's the current situation with voting?

[BB_Eye]

Is that technically true or is that just your opinion?
Without the law, there would be no such thing as a citizen. How can you be prepared to define prisoners as citizens if...

a. They have broken the law of their nation state thereby failing to meet their responsibility as citizens

b. They have forfeited their right to liberty and privacy

Either way, the European Court of Human Rights cannot account for giving prisoners the same rights as law-abiding citizens. This is no surprise given that the hand-picked bureaucrats of the European commission were never elected to represent the interest of citizens in the first place.

[cupid stunt]

yes dont see why not, unless there nonces or rapists/child killers

[Shasown]

Without the law, there would be no such thing as a citizen. How can you be prepared to define prisoners as citizens if...

a. They have broken the law of their nation state thereby failing to meet their responsibility as citizens

b. They have forfeited their right to liberty and privacy

Either way, the European Court of Human Rights cannot account for giving prisoners the same rights as law-abiding citizens. This is no surprise given that the hand-picked bureaucrats of the European commission were never elected to represent the interest of citizens in the first place.

Except the ECHR are not trying to give prisoners the same rights as law abiding citizens, this is a ruling from 2004 declaring the blanket ban on all prisoners voting as defined in the Representation of the People Act of 1983 to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The last two administrations didnt bother dealing with it, apparently both Blair and Brown were too busy running the country into the ground.

[bananarama]

Fundamental right of anyone criminal or otherwise....The right to vote......

Remember Governments determin the laws that put people in jail and the duration and conditions of the sentence......Govenments affect prisoners so as such they should have the fundamental right to vote.......


Some say because you are a criminal you lose that right......Oh yeah......Think back to when the Government of the days would send sexually active homosexuals to jail for their activities........They made them criminals with no right to vote should a governemnet with morality be on offer.....

Governments invent bad laws and criminalise people for activities they simply dont like for personal or religious reasons........"In captial letters" Of course they should have the vote.........The Government of the day past and present are dictatorial repressive criminals for not allowing such a basic human right. Regardless of the nature of the crime Voting should be a sacred right to all that believe in a society with a voice and the right of expression for all.......

[Mystic Mock]

Fundamental right of anyone criminal or otherwise....The right to vote......

Remember Governments determin the laws that put people in jail and the duration and conditions of the sentence......Govenments affect prisoners so as such they should have the fundamental right to vote.......


Some say because you are a criminal you lose that right......Oh yeah......Think back to when the Government of the days would send sexually active homosexuals to jail for their activities........They made them criminals with no right to vote should a governemnet with morality be on offer.....

Governments invent bad laws and criminalise people for activities they simply dont like for personal or religious reasons........"In captial letters" Of course they should have the vote.........The Government of the day past and present are dictatorial repressive criminals for not allowing such a basic human right. Regardless of the nature of the crime Voting should be a sacred right to all that believe in a society with a voice and the right of expression for all.......

our goverment isnt like that anymore though,and your basically letting them have equal rights as citizens if they are allowed to decide who runs this country.

[Tom4784]

It's a difficult one, on one hand they shouldn't be able to vote as (like someone else said) they've failed their civil liberties by becoming a criminal but on the other hand as a democracy it'd be hypocritcal to take away the vote from a percentage of citizens because they're in prison.

I don't know where I stand on this one.

[GypsyGoth]

I think no.

[Kerry]

No. If you want rights, don't commit a crime

[Jords]

If their crime isnt too serious, then yeah.

[BB_Eye]

Except the ECHR are not trying to give prisoners the same rights as law abiding citizens, this is a ruling from 2004 declaring the blanket ban on all prisoners voting as defined in the Representation of the People Act of 1983 to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The last two administrations didnt bother dealing with it, apparently both Blair and Brown were too busy running the country into the ground.
Well I am not going to pretend a poor decision is half as bad as complete and utter indecision, which is something Gordon Brown had down to an art from.

The thing is I actually think Europe's human rights law has done far more good than harm. But that doesn't mean that the law isn't open to abuse and it certainly doesn't mean that a remote authority making decisions on behalf of one of its "member states" isn't prone to making serious mistakes.

Still the ECHR is a necessary evil when governments like our own cannot be trusted to give terror suspects the right to a fair trial without detaining them for months beforehand. Plus they recently reined in on Russia when they stepped out of line on gay rights.

[Zippy]

I doubt those skanks vote anyhow.

But no.

Prison is about losing privileges and voting is a major privilege. And who the fck wants a bunch of immoral thieves and murderers choosing who runs the country?

[Mystic Mock]

I doubt those skanks vote anyhow.

But no.

Prison is about losing privileges and voting is a major privilege. And who the fck wants a bunch of immoral thieves and murderers choosing who runs the country?

not me thats for sure.

[Angus]

Fundamental right of anyone criminal or otherwise....The right to vote......

Remember Governments determin the laws that put people in jail and the duration and conditions of the sentence......Govenments affect prisoners so as such they should have the fundamental right to vote.......


Some say because you are a criminal you lose that right......Oh yeah......Think back to when the Government of the days would send sexually active homosexuals to jail for their activities........They made them criminals with no right to vote should a governemnet with morality be on offer.....

Governments invent bad laws and criminalise people for activities they simply dont like for personal or religious reasons........"In captial letters" Of course they should have the vote.........The Government of the day past and present are dictatorial repressive criminals for not allowing such a basic human right. Regardless of the nature of the crime Voting should be a sacred right to all that believe in a society with a voice and the right of expression for all.......


This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read:bored:

Where are the reasons for stating so emphatically that voting for society's rules, regulations, laws and leaders should be a "sacred" right irrespective of whether the voter has BROKEN and FLOUTED those very laws.

Where is the commonsense and justice in allowing criminals to have ANY say at all in how the rest of us law abiding citizens live our lives? By breaking the law you have relinquished for the term of your imprisonment the right to participate in society, and that includes voting.

Where indeed is there any incentive for criminals to bother being law abiding when you have the politically correct muddle-headed liberal brigade insisting they should have no sanctions imposed on them whatsoever for their crimes against society in case it infringes THEIR (the criminals') human rights?

[Kazanne]

No,they are taken out of society when they go to prison,they should NOT have the same rights as law abiding citizens(Oh sounds like s film,Oh Gerard,lol)sorry,back on topic,all priviledges should be taken away,if I had my way,the very bad criminals would be lucky to have the priviledges they have now,there would be no games consoles,Tvs,they would get only necessaties and that would be at a push.

[Livia]

Under electoral law, the right to vote is one of the democratic freedoms removed when you commit a crime. So no, of course they shouldn't be allowed to vote. And really, if you want to get all worked up about it, I suggest you choose some other cause where you may have an outside chance of making a difference.

Half the people in this country don't even bother to vote. Get worked up about that.

[Enid]

They shouldn't even be allowed to live.

[Niamh.]

No,they are taken out of society when they go to prison,they should NOT have the same rights as law abiding citizens(Oh sounds like s film,Oh Gerard,lol)sorry,back on topic,all priviledges should be taken away,if I had my way,the very bad criminals would be lucky to have the priviledges they have now,there would be no games consoles,Tvs,they would get only necessaties and that would be at a push.

:lovedup:

[Shasown]

They shouldn't even be allowed to live.

PMSL

Interesting idea, the death penalty for prostitution, shoplifting, naked rambling or refusing to pay the Council Tax.

A tad draconian but probably effective.

[BB_Eye]

PMSL

Interesting idea, the death penalty for prostitution, shoplifting, naked rambling or refusing to pay the Council Tax.

A tad draconian but probably effective.
How about we just agree to give them their voting rights if the EU agrees to let us subject violent criminals to degrading public humiliation via reality TV to the delight of the viewing public.

I'm a Pathetic Waste of Space... Get me to the Safety of a Cushy UK Prison.

[AJ.]

I think no, when you get put in prison you give up some of your rights, I don't see why people who have been put away for any reason should get to decide what's best for the country & any party that slightly leans in favour atall towards prisoners would more then likely get 90% of there votes.

[Mystic Mock]

They shouldn't even be allowed to live.

i agree that the really bad criminals shouldnt be allowed to live.

[Shasown]

Its not about giving ALL prisoners the vote, its simply about removing a blanket ban on all prisoners voting.

The government needs to remove the blanket ban and then decide which way to categorise prisoners, then decide if a certain category should be allowed to vote or not.

Thats all, in the end it could mean most if not all categories of prisoners are still not allowed to vote. It could mean a judge or magistrate decides whether a prisoner will have the right to vote removed on sentencing.

Even if all prisoners were allowed to vote it would probably be done as either postal or proxy votes in which case it would have no significant effect on the outcome of an election.

[Mr XcX]

No!

[Angus]

Its not about giving ALL prisoners the vote, its simply about removing a blanket ban on all prisoners voting.

The government needs to remove the blanket ban and then decide which way to categorise prisoners, then decide if a certain category should be allowed to vote or not.

Thats all, in the end it could mean most if not all categories of prisoners are still not allowed to vote. It could mean a judge or magistrate decides whether a prisoner will have the right to vote removed on sentencing.

Even if all prisoners were allowed to vote it would probably be done as either postal or proxy votes in which case it would have no significant effect on the outcome of an election.

If someone has committed a crime which results in a custodial sentence, ie removal from society, then they have no business voting at all, since that is a privilege that should be reserved for those of us who abide by the laws of this country; laws that are formulated and implemented by our elected government.

I don't see there is any room for negotiation, and it should certainly not be up to an individual judge to decide.

[AJ.]

Its not about giving ALL prisoners the vote, its simply about removing a blanket ban on all prisoners voting.

Oh right, I agree in those circumstances but I don't think this vote is for removing the blanket, I think its for flipping it allowing everyone to vote? Thats how I saw it anyway, there was a murderer on tv the other day that thought it was digusting that he had no right to vote lol the irony. If this is what you say it is then I agree but if it is simply to allow everyone to vote then I think the current law is the better of the two.

[Livia]

Its not about giving ALL prisoners the vote, its simply about removing a blanket ban on all prisoners voting.

The government needs to remove the blanket ban and then decide which way to categorise prisoners, then decide if a certain category should be allowed to vote or not.

Thats all, in the end it could mean most if not all categories of prisoners are still not allowed to vote. It could mean a judge or magistrate decides whether a prisoner will have the right to vote removed on sentencing.

Even if all prisoners were allowed to vote it would probably be done as either postal or proxy votes in which case it would have no significant effect on the outcome of an election.

People are sent to prison for a reason and I'm not happy to have a massive amount of my tax spent on paying an already overburdened judicial system deciding which of them has some of their rights returned. If voting means so much to them, best they stay out of trouble.

Postal and proxy votes have a massive effect on the outcome of elections. In my constituency of around 90,000 voters and a usual turnout of about 60%, more than 20,000 people are registered for a postal or proxy vote, and the vast majority of those votes are cast at every election.

[Shasown]

If someone has committed a crime which results in a custodial sentence, ie removal from society, then they have no business voting at all, since that is a privilege that should be reserved for those of us who abide by the laws of this country; laws that are formulated and implemented by our elected government.

I don't see there is any room for negotiation, and it should certainly not be up to an individual judge to decide.

It is because of a European Court ruling that states the blanket ban is illegal. Consequently the legislation that removes the right to vote must be either removed or amended. One way to keep prisoners from voting is for judges on sentencing to consider removing their right to vote. Removal of the right to vote has to be considered individually.

Unfortunately we are caught between a rock and a hard place by having signed up to comply with ECHR rulings

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11/20101102/tpl-government-has-no-choice-on-prisoner-0a1c1a1.html



Oh right, I agree in those circumstances but I don't think this vote is for removing the blanket, I think its for flipping it allowing everyone to vote? Thats how I saw it anyway, there was a murderer on tv the other day that thought it was digusting that he had no right to vote lol the irony. If this is what you say it is then I agree but if it is simply to allow everyone to vote then I think the current law is the better of the two.

Nope the ruling the government must comply with was simply about a blanket ban as being discriminatory. Being sent to prison in the European Courts eyes removes liberty not the individuals identity. And the individuals right to be treated as an individual with rights and protections.

The government has yet to decide what form any proposed legislation will take, if they do in fact bring in any amendments or replacements to current statutes. they could simply send out instructions to ignore whichever part of the bill deals with voting. (Sentenced prisoners were originally denied the right to vote under the 1870 Forfeiture Act, and the ban was retained in the Representation of the People Act of 1983.)

It will be interesting to see whether the government pays compensation back to the ECHR ruling in 2004 or back to 1983.(Normally they go back the furthest.)

In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the UK's blanket ban on inmates voting was discriminatory and unlawful.

People are sent to prison for a reason and I'm not happy to have a massive amount of my tax spent on paying an already overburdened judicial system deciding which of them has some of their rights returned. If voting means so much to them, best they stay out of trouble.

Postal and proxy votes have a massive effect on the outcome of elections. In my constituency of around 90,000 voters and a usual turnout of about 60%, more than 20,000 people are registered for a postal or proxy vote, and the vast majority of those votes are cast at every election.

So you would be happy to spend even more money paying fines to the European Court for failure to comply with their rulings, legal aid for prisoners to claim compensation off the state for their "infringed" human rights, the compensation that the prisoners will then be awarded etc?

Because of the number of prisoners in custody at any one time from any one constituency will be relatively small, allowing prisoners to vote by post will have very little effect back in their home constituencies, if the vote is allowed and if it is decided it is simply for their home address (as a regular citizen has).

However the government will probably muck up that part and give them the choice of which constituency they can vote in.

Unless of course they do bring in proportional representation and one party in particular panders to prisoners. But they would lose enormous numbers of votes from law abiding citizens wouldnt they?

There are about 80,000 prisoners in England and Wales and about 7,000 in Scotland. Of which about 17% are unsentenced prisoners on remand (they are allowed to vote anyway not having being sentenced and technically being innocent.)

[Livia]

So you would be happy to spend even more money paying fines to the European Court for failure to comply with their rulings, legal aid for prisoners to claim compensation off the state for their "infringed" human rights, the compensation that the prisoners will then be awarded etc?

Because of the number of prisoners in custody at any one time from any one constituency will be relatively small, allowing prisoners to vote by post will have very little effect back in their home constituencies, if the vote is allowed and if it is decided it is simply for their home address (as a regular citizen has).

However the government will probably muck up that part and give them the choice of which constituency they can vote in.

Unless of course they do bring in proportional representation and one party in particular panders to prisoners. But they would lose enormous numbers of votes from law abiding citizens wouldnt they?

There are about 80,000 prisoners in England and Wales and about 7,000 in Scotland. Of which about 17% are unsentenced prisoners on remand (they are allowed to vote anyway not having being sentenced and technically being innocent.)

No I would not be happy to pay ANY money regarding this issue, either to our own courts or to Europe. We've already suffered enough by meekly following each and every whim that Europe dictates. We should be more like France when it comes to ignoring Europe. God... I can't believe I just said that LOL...

At the last County election I was involved in, one seat was one by just three votes and another by seven votes. Every single vote counts.

The prisoners would not be able to choose which area their vote went to, they would only be able to vote in the place where their name appears on the electoral roll.

[Lee.]

Give prisoners the right to vote? Nah, the only thing they should be given is a bucket to piss and **** in.

None of this namby pamby luxurious prison life!

[Shasown]

Perhaps the greatest irony about prisoners voting rights is currently there is a case from Austria having just gone through Europe called the Frodl case.

This actually allows a voting ban to be placed on those guilty of electoral fraud or abuse of public position, so any MP who gets sentenced to prison for lets say false expenses could automatically lose their rights to vote while convicted rapists and murderers are allowed to vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8110511/Jailed-MPs-could-be-denied-vote-after-latest-European-ruling.html

[Shasown]

No I would not be happy to pay ANY money regarding this issue, either to our own courts or to Europe. We've already suffered enough by meekly following each and every whim that Europe dictates. We should be more like France when it comes to ignoring Europe. God... I can't believe I just said that LOL...

At the last County election I was involved in, one seat was one by just three votes and another by seven votes. Every single vote counts.

The prisoners would not be able to choose which area their vote went to, they would only be able to vote in the place where their name appears on the electoral roll.

If the government sit down and talk it through with European Human Rights lawyers etc. They may come up with a workable solution which allows a ban on criminals sentenced to over a set number of years, or in certain crimes.

Incidentally ECHR is a problem of our own making as we were instrumental in helping to set it up as a result of WW2. It is a distinct separate entity from the European Union

[Livia]

Perhaps the greatest irony about prisoners voting rights is currently there is a case from Austria having just gone through Europe called the Frodl case.

This actually allows a voting ban to be placed on those guilty of electoral fraud or abuse of public position, so any MP who gets sentenced to prison for lets say false expenses could automatically lose their rights to vote while convicted rapists and murderers are allowed to vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8110511/Jailed-MPs-could-be-denied-vote-after-latest-European-ruling.html

Haha... now THAT is interesting and strangely amusing.

This isn't relevant to the main thread but to that story... Fiddling election expenses would result in a case of electoral fraud. Obviously the recent cases of MPs overclaiming and falsely claiming does not constitute "electoral" fraud. Electoral fraud would result in the MP and their agent being jailed because it's the agent who returns details of expenses to the Electoral Commission and signs their name to them. And that's me. And that's why my MPs expenses are always right! As a side note, and speaking personally, I think that MPs of all parties should be regularly placed in the pillories on College Green and pelted with rotten fruit by the elecorate... help them remember that they are public servants. But I didn't say that, obviously.

[Livia]

If the government sit down and talk it through with European Human Rights lawyers etc. They may come up with a workable solution which allows a ban on criminals sentenced to over a set number of years, or in certain crimes.

Incidentally ECHR is a problem of our own making as we were instrumental in helping to set it up as a result of WW2. It is a distinct separate entity from the European Union

Agreed. We created a monster.

[Shasown]

Haha... now THAT is interesting and strangely amusing.

This isn't relevant to the main thread but to that story... Fiddling election expenses would result in a case of electoral fraud. Obviously the recent cases of MPs overclaiming and falsely claiming does not constitute "electoral" fraud. Electoral fraud would result in the MP and their agent being jailed because it's the agent who returns details of expenses to the Electoral Commission and signs their name to them. And that's me. And that's why my MPs expenses are always right! As a side note, and speaking personally, I think that MPs of all parties should be regularly placed in the pillories on College Green and pelted with rotten fruit by the elecorate... help them remember that they are public servants. But I didn't say that, obviously.

Very true but MP's fiddling expenses from the Commons would be considered to have been guilty of an abuse of a public position.

Love the idea of the pillories, should bring back some other punishments from days gone by too.

[SoBig]

No, they lost their rights when they broke the law
My thoughts exactly.

[Livia]

Very true but MP's fiddling expenses from the Commons would be considered to have been guilty of an abuse of a public position.

Love the idea of the pillories, should bring back some other punishments from days gone by too.

I think the most annoying thing about the expenses scandal was that they weren't actually breaking the law. The system allowed them to abuse it. Of course this begs the question, should someone be in public office if they don't understand the difference between their legal right and their moral responsibility?

I'd vote for horse-whipping and the birch. But it's Friday... I might feel a little less aggressive come Monday.

[Pyramid*]

Should prisoners be allowed to vote. Hell NO.

Neither should they have the cushy lifestyle that modern day British prisons afford them either.

and please, don't bleat about 'Human Rights'. Most prisoners are in jail for not giving a **** about other peoples' Human Rights.

The Arabs have 'partly' the right idea when it comes to dealing with crime - so harsh prison life is, most people don't want to end up there. yes I know there is the argument for them being too harsh - but overall, prison and the thought of being punished and going to prison, should be a deterrent. It's not, not in our laid back Prisoners have rights, society.

Pisses me off no end. Jail should be a hardship - not a pampered 'choice o menu' 3 meals a day, no subsidised shopping, no games, no tv's, playstations, in room tvs. Lock them up and provide no stimulation. The had their chance to learn on the outside, why the hell should my taxes be used to afford them free further education that others on the outside have to bloody pay for.

[Enid]

Did anyone watch that new TV show Coppers? It was on last week and really did open my eyes. It costs £90,000 of tax payer's money to send one person to prison PER YEAR.

90 GRAND. PER PRISONER. PER YEAR. A WASTE OF OXYGEN AND RESOURCES IS COSTING US 90 GRAND. HOW AND WHY IS WHAT I ASK.

Again, they shouldn't be allowed to live. This may make me unpopular, but ol' Adolf was sort of going in the right direction... until he started killing all those Jews.

[Shasown]

Did anyone watch that new TV show Coppers? It was on last week and really did open my eyes. It costs £90,000 of tax payer's money to send one person to prison PER YEAR.

90 GRAND. PER PRISONER. PER YEAR. A WASTE OF OXYGEN AND RESOURCES IS COSTING US 90 GRAND. HOW AND WHY IS WHAT I ASK.

Again, they shouldn't be allowed to live. This may make me unpopular, but ol' Adolf was sort of going in the right direction... until he started killing all those Jews.

Yeah i saw Coppers too, wonder where they got that figure from? Official Home Office figures state a prison place in England and Wales costs £41000 per year

"Each new prison place costs £170,000 to build and maintain, and the cost per prisoner per year is £41,000.

Taking the cost of established places and the new build cost would give an average of £105,000 but thats only till the prison is paid for then costs fall back to lower than original levels.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8640399.stm

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/prisonValue.php

However with Scotland factored in it costs £37,500 as per 2007 figures

"The costs of actually keeping prisoners within prison vary significantly, but
average £37,500 per year."

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/publications_1997_to_2006/reducing_summary.pdf


Maybe the Americans can teach us something about prison costings, it costs on average $22,000 per prisoner per year, thats less than £15,000.

[MTVN]

This may make me unpopular, but ol' Adolf was sort of going in the right direction... until he started killing all those Jews.

I hope you're joking..

[30stone]

You comit a crime and go to prison you give up your rights imo.

[Enid]

I hope you're joking..
Semi.

Honestly, if you're not gonna behave like a human being, don't expect to be treated like one.

[Enid]

Yeah i saw Coppers too, wonder where they got that figure from? Official Home Office figures state a prison place in England and Wales costs £41000 per year

"Each new prison place costs £170,000 to build and maintain, and the cost per prisoner per year is £41,000.

Taking the cost of established places and the new build cost would give an average of £105,000 but thats only till the prison is paid for then costs fall back to lower than original levels.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8640399.stm

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/prisonValue.php

However with Scotland factored in it costs £37,500 as per 2007 figures

"The costs of actually keeping prisoners within prison vary significantly, but
average £37,500 per year."

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/publications_1997_to_2006/reducing_summary.pdf


Maybe the Americans can teach us something about prison costings, it costs on average $22,000 per prisoner per year, thats less than £15,000.
Even so.. that is still £41,000 better off elsewhere...

[Livia]

... ol' Adolf was sort of going in the right direction... until he started killing all those Jews.

... and gypsies, the disabled, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses and a myriad of other groups that didn't fit in with his ideals regardind the master race. The killing of the Jews and other groups was the culmination of years of abuse and victimisation, so to say he was going in the right direction is insulting.

[MTVN]

... and gypsies, the disabled, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses and a myriad of other groups that didn't fit in with his ideals regardind the master race. The killing of the Jews and other groups was the culmination of years of abuse and victimisation, so to say he was going in the right direction is insulting.

Agreed, the regime was deplorable in every way, and I'm not just talking about their racial discrimination either.