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.

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.

I think no.

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

If their crime isnt too serious, then yeah.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

They shouldn't even be allowed to live.

:lovedup:

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.

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.

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

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.

No!

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.

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.

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.

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...r-0a1c1a1.html



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.)

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.

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!