I just had a horrible thought - please reassure me regarding prison voting.

fly_agaric

mackerski wrote:

I'm not sure I've picked you up correctly here. Are you saying that the right to vote is more fundamental than that of liberty?

Sorry for not being clear. I meant that a right to vote is far less fundamental than a right to liberty. The later is a human right independant of the political system of the state you live in IMO.
The state is giving a stiff punishment by taking away the prisoner's freedom. Taking away the vote as part of that is not much extra punishment.

However, (as I said) I don't like what it symbolises about the relationship between the prisoner and the state. It it very easy for the state to enable prisoners to vote (obviously they are all nicely grouped together in a few locations on election day!). I don't see why the state should be petty here and seek to deprive them of it (even if your examples of other citizens who have not committed any crimes but yet are unable to vote on the day provides a justification for your point of view - why should prisoners be able to vote and not these law-abiding citizens?).

brianthebard

fly_agaric wrote:

may as well reply while I'm browsing...



The key thing (supposedly??) about being a citizen in a democracy is being able to vote (or not vote, or spoil your vote!) in elections to choose who governs you.

Taking that away is like making the prisoners "not-citizens" IMO - not just depriving them of a right associated with citizenship.

Isn't that pretty much the point of imprisonment? I mean beyond basic human rights such as shelter food and clothing, prisoners don't get very much else. Why should they? The idea is to take away their freedom afaik and taking away their vote is part of that imo.

lostexpectation

brianthebard wrote:

Isn't that pretty much the point of imprisonment? I mean beyond basic human rights such as shelter food and clothing, prisoners don't get very much else. Why should they? The idea is to take away their freedom afaik and taking away their vote is part of that imo.

take away the freedom, as in _imprisonment_, this is for punishment and in particular to protect public from further violent behaviour, people always seem to forget that prisoners are locked away for years on end (well they get sentence for years).
that a huge thing, so what if they they can play ps3 all day they can't leave! imprisonment is the punishment what's that got to with voting.

somebody made a very good point up there where they pointed out the prisons may lose their freedom of movement but don't lose their citizenship thats crucial to this arguement.

Jesus Wept

FTA69 wrote:

The majority of them are ordinary fellas who have made many small mistakes (assualt, burglary, theft etc) and have been banged up as a result. More are drug addicts.



Bloody wags.

:eek:

I don't consider assualt, burglary or theft a small mistake.

Unpaid parking ticket is a small mistake.

brianthebard

lostexpectation wrote:

take away the freedom, as in _imprisonment_, this is for punishment and in particular to protect public from further violent behaviour, people always seem to forget that prisoners are locked away for years on end (well they get sentence for years).
that a huge thing, so what if they they can play ps3 all day they can't leave! imprisonment is the punishment what's that got to with voting.

somebody made a very good point up there where they pointed out the prisons may lose their freedom of movement but don't lose their citizenship thats crucial to this arguement.

Take away their freedom to vote. Fairly simple I thought.

johnnyskeleton

mackerski wrote:

Criminals who are locked up for their crimes are required to forfeit their right of liberty, one that most of us would prize even more highly than the right to vote. For me, the matter of their right to vote doesn't arise, since their loss of liberty has always denied them the opportunity to exercise it - this seems to be no more unfair than the other curtailments to a prisoner's lifestyle necessitated by his incarceration. I certainly don't see why he should be specially facilitated to vote in ways that the non-criminal holidaymaker would not be.

This is a very good point insofar as losing the right to vote is an incident of losing your liberty. It is also a good argument that liberty is a more treasured right than the right to vote, and depriving someone of their liberty but giving them the right to vote does seem logically strange.

I think it is important to keep the debate on the logic of (or lack of) prisoner's voting rights and the benefits/drawbacks thereof, rather than any need to punish prisoners.

I don't nessessarily believe that prisoners should be denied their right to vote as a punishment in the same way that they should be denied the right to liberty as a punishment. I'm not sure that denying them the right to vote is much of a punishment in reality - i.e. not a very good deterrent.

However, for those that do want to vote, I'm not sure that denying them this right would make them see the errors of their ways, nor can I see it bringing solace to any victim/victim's family. By contrast, I think that even if it is a minor or token gesture, it does reach out the hand of rehabilitation to offenders.

It would seem to me that denying them the right to vote, would be similar to denying them medical access, psychological access, etc.

As for the agrument on costs, I can't see the expense of prisoners voting being that high. It's postal vote and I imagine the prison staff would be the facilitators.

mackerski

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I don't nessessarily believe that prisoners should be denied their right to vote as a punishment in the same way that they should be denied the right to liberty as a punishment. I'm not sure that denying them the right to vote is much of a punishment in reality - i.e. not a very good deterrent.

This is a reasonable analysis and a valid way of looking at things. But while I'm not someone who'd advocate chain gangs and rock breaking and misery inside prisons, the punishment (or let's call it deterrant) aspect to imprisonment has to be considered here. Depriving a prisoner of his liberty is part of this - in theory, nobody should want to be locked up. The prospect of being imprisoned is enough to keep most of us within the law. Those who stray and have to experience the reality of prison should, in theory, quickly form the view that it's a place to be avoided. So much for the theory.

The reality, of course, is that modern prisons provide many of the trappings of normality in a way that wasn't always the case. Educational opportunities, television, telephones, a peer group, drugs and so on. So in an environment where many of the things that make life tolerable are already present, you're sometimes reduced to fairly symbolic measures to emphasise the loss of liberty. Prisons started out as hell-holes designed to contain, not rehabilitate. It was perfectly clear why you didn't want to be in there.

Prisoner's life has since migrated from zero rights, zero privileges to today's situation, where the principles of humane treatment, prisoner dignity and rehabilitation have reinstated some of the privileges (and I'm not calling them rights) of normal life. My reasoning is that any such privilege should be accorded a prisoner in keeping with the following:

• Contingent on good behaviour (which I understand is the case)
• Provides a link with real life to facilitate reintegration (I'm not convinced voting does this)
• Conveys no special treatment unavailable to the law-abiding public.

In other words, all other freedoms (again, I won't call them "rights") that a free person would enjoy - walking the dog, choosing your own mealtime, picking what society to keep, going to the polling station to vote - are by default withdrawn, and reinstated selectively if seen as contributing to prisoner rehabilitation.

FTA69

The-Rigger wrote:

:eek:

I don't consider assualt, burglary or theft a small mistake.

Unpaid parking ticket is a small mistake.

I was using the term "mistake" in the context of the original poster's terminology. And they are probably the smallest crimes which will warrant imprisonment, as well as the most common in deprived areas. People in jail will usually have a string of these sort of convictions.

johnnyskeleton

mackerski wrote:

The reality, of course, is that modern prisons provide many of the trappings of normality in a way that wasn't always the case. Educational opportunities, television, telephones, a peer group, drugs and so on. So in an environment where many of the things that make life tolerable are already present, you're sometimes reduced to fairly symbolic measures to emphasise the loss of liberty. Prisons started out as hell-holes designed to contain, not rehabilitate. It was perfectly clear why you didn't want to be in there.

I would posit the situation, which you are free to accept or reject, that there are two types attitude towards prison as a deterrent. These are:

1) the attitude of people who engage in, or who would consider engaging in, regular criminal activity and

2) the attitude of what you might call ordinary decent people.

The problem I have with punishment/retribution and deterrent theories of imprisonment is that for people in category 1), when deciding to commit a crime, or another crime, prison is a minor factor, not nearly as important as the risk of getting caught, and in any case the specifics of the punishment (e.g. bad food, cramped conditions, lack of sanitation, loss of the right to vote, etc) are not really considered.

For people in category 2) the idea of being in prison for even a month is so horrific that, apart from any sense of genuine decency on their part, they would not even think of committing an offence. For the ordinary man in the street, the idea of being associated with murderers, rapists and junkies is enough to scare them straight.

As for symbolic measures to emphasise the loss of liberty, when the old triangle goes jingle jangle on a friday evening, and you know you could be in the pub (or sitting by the fire reading a book, on boards.ie, going to the cinema etc), I would suggest that that will bring the situation pretty sharply to your attention.

But I like your phrase symbolic measure, because perhaps allowing prisoners to vote is a symbolic measure that, even though they are now in prison, society still holds out their hand to them, and there is still some light at the end of the tunnel.

irishsurfer

I work in shipping.
I am on the electoral register, but do not qualify for a postal vote.

That means a citizen, in jail, who has been convicted of something like child rape has more electoral rights than me.

That sucks.:mad:

I should be allowed to vote, as a citizen of the republic, the governments policies, particularly in Europe, have impact on my life.

It is also worth pointing out that a lot of students will miss out as it is election during exam times, on a Thursday.

Fear of the Left???

Zombrex

irishsurfer wrote:

I work in shipping.
I am on the electoral register, but do not qualify for a postal vote.

Do you mind if I ask why not? Just curious, not on topic

mackerski

Now that the election date has been announced, I'm in a position to add a real data point to the discussion. I'm an honest taxpayer with no criminal record. I am committed to a paid-for business event in London on the day of the election. No vote for me.

I hope my incarcerated brethern exercise their civil right wisely in solidarity with this poor disenfranchised individual.

Zombrex

mackerski wrote:

Now that the election date has been announced, I'm in a position to add a real data point to the discussion. I'm an honest taxpayer with no criminal record. I am committed to a paid-for business event in London on the day of the election. No vote for me.

I hope my incarcerated brethern exercise their civil right wisely in solidarity with this poor disenfranchised individual.

I think it should be a legal requirement that all companies make arrangements for employees to be able to vote.

Its a bit ridiculous that some people have to choose between their vote or their job, and that governments can abuse this situation to electoral advantage.

mackerski

Wicknight wrote:

I think it should be a legal requirement that all companies make arrangements for employees to be able to vote.

Its a bit ridiculous that some people have to choose between their vote or their job, and that governments can abuse this situation to electoral advantage.

It's my company

But ask yourself - what would a company do, that has committed to an international event? Travel is booked, the event goes ahead with or without us, we need to be there. If the government were to create such a legal requirement, they'd have to make reasonable accommodation for such cases (as they do for jury service). A postal vote springs to mind as a solution here...

irishsurfer

These, apparently, are the rules.
For a person overseas to vote they must be
:Diplomatic corps
:Defence Forces
:Garda
:UN Duty

Other postal votes are for disability, or being in Ireland, in a different area for work. You must go to a police station 2 weeks before the election for this.

Sorry - it is off topic, thats why I started a new thread.

Zombrex

mackerski wrote:

It's my company

But ask yourself - what would a company do, that has committed to an international event?

Manage. The same way they would manage if you were sick or hit by a bus.

mackerski wrote:

If the government were to create such a legal requirement, they'd have to make reasonable accommodation for such cases (as they do for jury service).

Actually as far as I know they don't do it for jury duty. It is up to the employer to keep paying you even if you don't make it into work


There is no payment for jury service. Travelling expenses are not allowed. If you are actually serving as a juror, lunch will be provided on the day or days that the trial is at hearing.

If you are self-employed and work alone and where your attendance at jury service may mean you cannot earn a living, you may qualify for excusal from jury service.

If you are in employment, section 29 of the Juries Act, 1976 places a duty on your employer to allow you attend for jury service. The law also states that the time spent on jury service is to be treated as if the employee were actually employed. In other words, if you are in employment and are attending for jury service, you are entitled to be paid while you are away from work. Anyone with a contract of employment (that is, temporary workers, contract workers etc.) is entitled to be paid by their employer while they are on jury service. There should be no loss of any other employment rights while you serve on a jury. The County Registrar will provide a certificate of attendance on request.

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/Library3.nsf/6556fea313d95d3180256a990052c571/40310af8417c9e638025709d0055a529?OpenDocument

The same should apply for voting I think

mackerski wrote:

A postal vote springs to mind as a solution here...

Well we have postal voting already, but I assume you mean for last minute

mackerski

Wicknight wrote:

Manage. The same way they would manage if you were sick or hit by a bus.

What would they do if their entire workforce were hit by a bus (lots of countries have overwhelmingly Irish staff)?

Wicknight wrote:

Actually as far as I know they don't do it for jury duty. It is up to the employer to keep paying you even if you don't make it into work

If called for jury service, you are free to ask to be excused a particular stint of service (which could be related to work circumstances during the affected time). While there's no automatic right to be excused in this context, it does happen, though in the case I'm aware of the individual got called again a few months later.

IOW, special circumstances can be catered for within the system. I understand that it isn't as easy (or safe) to be this flexible with voting arrangements. I even accept that I won't be allowed to vote. I just feel - see my earlier reasoning on this - that the same logic should apply to prisoners and why they should not be eligible to vote unless fortunate enough to be on day release on polling day.

Wicknight wrote:

Well we have postal voting already, but I assume you mean for last minute

Well I've been planning my business trip for a few months now. Bertie told us on the weekend when polling day will be. Was there an earlier moment when I could have tried to rescue my civil right?

Zombrex

mackerski wrote:

What would they do if their entire workforce were hit by a bus (lots of countries have overwhelmingly Irish staff)?

Again, manage.

Amazingly where I work the company holds it together some how when 95% of the work force go home for 2 days each week

mackerski wrote:

If called for jury service, you are free to ask to be excused a particular stint of service (which could be related to work circumstances during the affected time).

Only if you are self employed and your livelihood depends on it, or have a very valid reason, as far as I know.

Simply saying "I have important work" isn't a valid reason because I have known people who have tried this and it didn't work

mackerski wrote:

Well I've been planning my business trip for a few months now. Bertie told us on the weekend when polling day will be. Was there an earlier moment when I could have tried to rescue my civil right?

Well yes, you could have applied for postal voting if you knew you weren't going to be able to attend the vote. But you only knew that at the last minute, which is what I meant.

mackerski

Wicknight wrote:

Again, manage.

Amazingly where I work the company holds it together some how when 95% of the work force go home for 2 days each week

A company with an all-Irish workforce, all of whom wish to vote, can't wave a magic wand and "manage" to also have staff in another country on polling day. It reduces to somebody's tough luck, either the company's or the staff-member's.

Wicknight wrote:

Only if you are self employed and your livelihood depends on it, or have a very valid reason, as far as I know.

Simply saying "I have important work" isn't a valid reason because I have known people who have tried this and it didn't work

I'm not surprised - vagueness will get you nowhere, and lots of people try to duck jury service. However, you might say "I manage six people and the day you've called me is in our busiest two month period, can I be excused from that date?". I'm aware of a case where that worked. He was called again a few months later and had to attend, but he had avoided the huge impact of a week's absence at a really bad time, so both state and company were well served by the compromise.

Wicknight wrote:

Well yes, you could have applied for postal voting if you knew you weren't going to be able to attend the vote. But you only knew that at the last minute, which is what I meant.

The last minute is, in this case, also the first minute. So you can't make a (serious) case that a postal ballot is a usable option in such cases.

Zombrex

mackerski wrote:

A company with an all-Irish workforce, all of whom wish to vote, can't wave a magic wand and "manage" to also have staff in another country on polling day. It reduces to somebody's tough luck, either the company's or the staff-member's.

True, but as I said that is really an issue for the company.

Say I hand in my notice and I'll be gone before I'm supposed to give a bit presentation in Germany but I won't be at the company any more. The company is screwed because I am the only one who knows the presentation properly. That doesn't mean the company can make me stay on. It is a problem for the company to work out. And they might not work it out, but that still doesn't mean that I don't have the right to leave the company if I want to.

mackerski

Wicknight wrote:

And they might not work it out, but that still doesn't mean that I don't have the right to leave the company if I want to.

You'd get a glowing reference, I'm sure. You don't work in the public sector by any chance?