Notices

Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics.

Register to reply Log in to reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 05-11-2010, 10:06 AM #22
Shasown's Avatar
Shasown Shasown is offline
Account Vacant
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In my house.
Posts: 9,351
Shasown Shasown is offline
Account Vacant
Shasown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In my house.
Posts: 9,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angus58 View Post
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...r-0a1c1a1.html



Quote:
Originally Posted by DeejayAJ View Post
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.)

Quote:
In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the UK's blanket ban on inmates voting was discriminatory and unlawful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia View Post
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.)

Last edited by Shasown; 05-11-2010 at 10:16 AM.
Shasown is offline  
Register to reply Log in to reply

Bookmark/share this topic

Tags
allowed, prisoners, vote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

"Big Brother and UK Television Forum. Est. 2001"

 

© 2023
no new posts