[Livia]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by angus58

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

Originally Posted by DeejayAJ

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.

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.