Should prisoners have the right to vote?

osarusan

Fair play to posters for an interesting debate so far.

It's a bit academic I think as we're very unlikely to go against the ECHR, but still interesting.

meeeeh

No, they should not.

Well that's one way to get rid of political opposition or dissidents. You put them in prison and don't let them vote.

Winterlong

Omackeral wrote: »

Okaaaaaayyyyyy

Let me dumb it down for you.

Felony disenfranchisement in the US affects black/hispanic people more than white people because they are more likely to be arrested and convicted.

1 in every 13 black people cannot vote for this reason.
1 in every 56 of white voters.

And you will find that the states where they have these laws were voted in by a white legislature.
That is why I say it is racist.

Clea

No, they should not.

I voted Yes on this very undecided pole, solely because I believe convicts should be given a chance.
As well as giving them a chance after they leave prison - when or if they do.

Maximus Alexander

No, they should not.

Omackeral wrote: »

However, if you commit a crime, are you infringing on other people's human rights? If you're not agreeing to abide by democratic rules then why should you get a say in how they're made, seen as you are opting to operate outside of them? It's a good debate and it's interesting to see the responses.

I would argue that your rights are much more fundamental than the democratic rules, as you put it, which are somewhat arbitrary or certainly subjective. A government can theoretically legislate for almost anything to be a crime punished by a custodial sentence, and you can be sent to prison without ever doing anything that is objectively immoral, or certainly without infringing on anyone else's rights.

If there's a general election and you happen to be serving a month for non-payment of fines, for example, would it be in any way reasonable to say "We are revoking your rights because you didn't respect the rights of others?"

At an even more basic level, I'd be seriously concerned about any government or organisation that was advocating reducing peoples' rights. That's pretty ominous.

It's all well and good to say "Yeah sure take away rights from that group of people over there that I'm not part of". But if everyone has that attitude it won't be long before we find that none of us have any left.

seamus

No, they should not.

Omackeral wrote: »

However, if you commit a crime, are you infringing on other people's human rights? If you're not agreeing to abide by democratic rules then why should you get a say in how they're made, seen as you are opting to operate outside of them? It's a good debate and it's interesting to see the responses.

Ultimately the UDHR details the rights that society recognises and protects for the individual, it's not a list of rights that individuals must recognise in other individuals.

Ultimately laws are then based on these rights which in effects force individuals to recognise human rights in other individuals.

The most critical part though is that the rights are universal - a failure by an individual to recognise these rights does not mean their own rights are forfeit. Because then you may as well not have them at all.

The only time it is appropriate to suspend these rights is to protect the rights of another. Which makes it legal to kill someone in order to protect someone else's right to life. But once a person has been killed, retroactive suspension of the killer's human rights serves no purpose.

If you can "lose" your rights by committing an act, then they're not rights at all, they're privileges.

NiallBoo

No, they should not.

I think this debate comes down to what people view the function of prison to be.

We're guilty of thinking of it as a way for society to get revenge on the person.

It should thought of as only:
1. A means of rehabilitation so that the person can in future become a "functioning" member of society.
2. Protecting the public from danger. (Rehabilitation aside, you need to protect people from that serial-killer/whatever)

If you think about why you punish a child, it's not because you want them to suffer - you send them to the naughty corner in the hope that when they're done they'll behave better. Prison isn't really that different.
Of course, providing support for this rehabilitation is something we're seriously lacking.

The idea of denying a vote is continued vengeance and prevents people fully integrating into society.
Making people outsiders takes away the value of society to them and makes it harder to see value in society's rules.

Turtyturd

No, they should not.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Voting is a privilege, a privilege which is temporarily suspended while you are incarcerated.

Didn't take long for someone to stupidly charge in and make a fool of themselves.

Prisoners is a term which generates a certain image in people's minds but the reality is that many of them don't fit the image. They should be as entitled to their say as anyone else.

meeeeh

No, they should not.

Any country which is serious about separation of government from judiciary should not prevent prisoners from voting. That is all there is to it.

biko

No, they should not.

Why have you chosen to make our votes public OP?

foggy_lad

I'm unsure.

Omackeral wrote: »

It's not suspended. They can vote and they do.

There was a time not too long ago when they could not vote. then the buffoons in Europe told us to give the convicts a vote.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see why. Your right to liberty is the only right you lose when imprisoned - you retain all your other rights. You're not "removed from civil society" - you can still write to people, phone people, engage in court proceedings, buy and sell property, validly enter into contracts and transactions, etc, etc.

The default position, then, is that your retain your rights and your legal status and legal capacities. Given that, there's no presumption that you should lose your voting rights on account of having also lost your physical liberty. The two are not linked in any special way.

You lose many other rights in prison, right to free association being one, the right to write letters is there but the prison service may censor any letter as it sees fit, calls are also monitored for the same security reasons.

endacl wrote: »

It wouldn't be a privilege. It would still be a right.

That's why it's important. It's a right. Not a privilege.

It should be a privilege and should be removed for convicts for as long as they have been sentences, including suspended sentences.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html#l862a3

Who can vote in elections and referenda?

You must be at least 18 years of age on 15 February, the day the Register comes into force. You must also have been ordinarily resident in the State on 1 September in the year before the Register comes into force.

While you may be entitled to register as a voter due to your residency, there may be a limit on the types of elections in which you can vote. The registration authority will need to know your citizenship because this will determine the elections at which you may vote.

The right to vote is as follows:

Irish citizens may vote at every election and referendum;
British citizens may vote at Dáil elections, European elections and local elections;
Other European Union (EU) citizens may vote at European and local elections*
Non-EU citizens may vote at local elections only.

*If you are an EU citizen, other than an Irish or British citizen, and you were not registered to vote in previous European elections in Ireland, you must also complete a declaration, Form EP1 (pdf), to guard against double voting in the election. The local council will register you to vote in your local constituency and send the information in your declaration to your home EU Member State. You can also get the form from your local authority.

You must be registered at one address only and you must live at that address on 1 September before the register comes into force. If you live away from the address at which you are registered, (for example, if you are a student living away from home), you will need to contact the registration authority and give them your new address.

If you leave your address but you plan to return there within 18 months, you can continue to be registered there, as long you do not register at any other address.

foggy_lad

I'm unsure.

biko wrote: »

Why have you chosen to make our votes public OP?

Even prisoners get a secret ballot!

seamus

No, they should not.

foggy_lad wrote: »

It should be a privilege and should be removed for convicts for as long as they have been sentences, including suspended sentences.

Why?

And what safeguards would you put in place to prevent abuse of this?

A Little Pony

Sure why not, Ian Huntley should be allowed the vote. He only murdered two children.

Clea

No, they should not.

Right to vote is given by citizenship afaik?
Being in jail does not take the citizenship away from convicts, therefore > does not take away their right to vote as well.

nhunter100

A Little Pony wrote:

Sure why not, Ian Huntley should be allowed the vote. He only murdered two children.

Not relevant , Huntley is in prison in the UK that's where he committed his crime, this thread is about prisoners in Ireland.

A Little Pony

nhunter100 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote:

Sure why not, Ian Huntley should be allowed the vote. He only murdered two children.

Not relevant , Huntley is in prison in the UK that's where he committed his crime, this thread is about prisoners in Ireland.

Asking if prisoners should get the vote is the most stupid question ever asked. Of course they shouldn't.

nhunter100

A Little Pony wrote:

Asking if prisoners should get the vote is the most stupid question ever asked. Of course they shouldn't.

Referencing the crimes of a killer in a foreign country to make a point is even stupider tbh.

nhunter100

A Little Pony wrote:

Asking if prisoners should get the vote is the most stupid question ever asked. Of course they shouldn't.

BTW way the question wasn't should they get the vote, they already have it. The question was should they be allowed to vote and yes they should it's a right conferred by our constitution. Their confinement to prison is their punishment for whatever crime they have committed.

animaal

I misread the question as "Should pensioners be allowed to vote".

That would have been a far more entertaining discussion.

Prisoners? That's interesting. I wonder if the prisoners could organise to transfer all their votes to a single constituency, and become a lobby?

jmayo

I'm unsure.

Winterlong wrote: »

They are citizens and should be allowed to vote. I would hate for us to end up like some states in the US where people convicted of crimes are ineligible to vote for life....but really it is a racist tool to ensure only 'our type' of people are allowed to vote.

BTW "our type" in this instance in Ireland translates to "law abiding non criminals"

Why are people so concerned about the rights of criminals ?
There are other recent threads about the rights of people involved in murder.
Hell I expect to shortly see our resident habitual jailbirds along to champion their right to vote whilst inside.

When are people going to start copping on that if anything we bestow too many rights on the very people who have pi**ed all over the rights of other citizens.
The right to life is supposedly the most important and yet we champion the rights of the very people who have removed this right from someone else.

What about the rights of their victims?
Yeah they have the right to die horribly, the right to suffer injuries, the right to be raped, the right to live with mental anguish for the rest of their lives and the right to see their tormentor get automatic remission just for actually staying in jail.

No wonder this country and many others are going down the sh**ter.

Winterlong wrote: »

Let me dumb it down for you.

Felony disenfranchisement in the US affects black/hispanic people more than white people because they are more likely to be arrested and convicted.

1 in every 13 black people cannot vote for this reason.
1 in every 56 of white voters.

And you will find that the states where they have these laws were voted in by a white legislature.
That is why I say it is racist.

Lets dumb it down for you.
Have you ever thought that there is a greater percentage per capita of black people in jail because per capita they commit more crimes ?
And lets not start going down the route of discussing death row because that is a different debate that I think would tie in more with your argument.

There have been huge recent debates about police officers shooting black people and the usual refrain is that black men are more likely to be killed in US society.
Of course the people making that argument fail to mention that most of those black men were killed by other black men. :rolleyes:

I think if you serve your time then you should be able to vote.
And yes I do agree that legislature in certain states have used these laws to prevent people with criminal records from voting.
And in the past it helped ensure a certain party did not win and it wasn't about race.

Winterlong

No, they should not.

Winterlong wrote: »

Let me dumb it down for you.

Felony disenfranchisement in the US affects black/hispanic people more than white people because they are more likely to be arrested and convicted.

1 in every 13 black people cannot vote for this reason.
1 in every 56 of white voters.

And you will find that the states where they have these laws were voted in by a white legislature.
That is why I say it is racist.

Ok I don't need anything dumbed down Einstein, but thanks. Taking away votes from prisoners is a racist tool? That's quite a stretch. I wonder if these fellas ever bothered their holes voting in the first place anyway before they decided to commit crime. Try another angle.

biko

No, they should not.

biko wrote: »

Why have you chosen to make our votes public OP?

To be honest I run a few polls in a different sports forum and always choose that option, force of habit I guess. No agenda. Do you think it makes people less likely to pick a side because others will see their viewpoint? That in itself is interesting. I suppose voting in general is anonymous though in real world situations so there's that to take into consideration. But again, force of habit more than anything!

foggy_lad

I'm unsure.

seamus wrote: »

Why?

And what safeguards would you put in place to prevent abuse of this?

The only way to punish convicted offenders is to remove their privileges and certain rights and this is one that should be removed to copper-stamp that they are convicted criminals and will only become normal members of society again when their sentence is finished. Don't make the prisons a home away from home for them!

What safeguards would be required? if the councils ae made aware of all convicted criminals currently serving a sentence in prison or suspended or on probation/early release that person should be removed from the register of electors if they are on it and should not be included on any register in the state until such time as their sentence is fully served.

Winterlong

Omackeral wrote: »

Ok I don't need anything dumbed down Einstein, but thanks. Taking away votes from prisoners is a racist tool? That's quite a stretch. I wonder if these fellas ever bothered their holes voting in the first place anyway before they decided to commit crime. Try another angle.

You need to study up on your history a bit.
Here is a NY times article on US felony disenfranchisement that describes it as racist too. I suppose they are stretching it too?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/opinion/virginia-needs-to-fix-its-racist-voting-law.html

Lucena

jmayo wrote: »

Why are people so concerned about the rights of criminals ?

Because they have rights.

The right to not be tortured. To be fed and housed properly during their sentence. The right to not have their organs harvested for medical purposes. Those are just three examples, there are probably hundreds more.

You can't do exactly what you like with people just because they're in prison.

Winterlong

No, they should not.

Winterlong wrote: »

You need to study up on your history a bit.
Here is a NY times article on US felony disenfranchisement that describes it as racist too. I suppose they are stretching it too?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/opinion/virginia-needs-to-fix-its-racist-voting-law.html

Bottom line, you're punishing all criminals regardless of colour. Not just black criminals. That's actually pretty much equal footing for everyone of every race and creed i.e. not racist. Also I'm speaking about here in Ireland so your point isn't relevant re racism anyway.

Mountainsandh

I'm unsure.

Lucena wrote: »

Because they have rights.

The right to not be tortured. To be fed and housed properly during their sentence. The right to not have their organs harvested for medical purposes. Those are just three examples, there are probably hundreds more.

You can't do exactly what you like with people just because they're in prison.

I don't see a problem with infringing/suspending a person's rights temporarily when they have infringed on somebody else's.

(non payment of fines included)

So I voted No in the poll.

edit : not all rights, but some specific ones.

This would not be random denying of people's rights, but targeted, pondered, suspension of rights. Of course this can be abused in a worst case despotic government scenario. Every government operates on the ex/implicit trust of its citizens, for many other aspects.

Winterlong

Omackeral wrote: »

Bottom line, you're punishing all criminals regardless of colour. Not just black criminals. That's actually pretty much equal footing for everyone of every race and creed i.e. not racist. Also I'm speaking about here in Ireland so your point isn't relevant re racism anyway.

What? The law in my example of virginia was put in place to "eliminate the darkey as a political factor" according to one of the delegates who proposed it.
If that is not racist then I do not know what is!!

Regarding the relevancy of the US, it is the biggest western country that has Felony disenfranchisement in place and so is probably a good example to use in a thread about felony disenfranchisement.
Like I said in my original post, it is used to ensure only 'our type' of people vote.

jmayo

I'm unsure.

Lucena wrote: »

Because they have rights.

The right to not be tortured. To be fed and housed properly during their sentence. The right to not have their organs harvested for medical purposes. Those are just three examples, there are probably hundreds more.

You can't do exactly what you like with people just because they're in prison.

So now the right to be able to put a tick in a ballot paper is equivalent to the right not to be experimented on, not have organs removed and not be tortured ?
Why do people always have to resort to outlandish hyperbole. :rolleyes:

The whole thing about voting is it allows a citizen have a say in the running of their country and to some extend (very little in reality) they get to be a part of the decision making process of a society.
Prisoners have exempted themselves from having a say in society when they step outside it's normal rules, i.e. it's laws.

Do prisoners have the right to go for a few pints to their favourite local pub ?
Do they have the right to go anywhere when it pleases them ?
Do they have the right to have a say in how the prison is run ?
Then again this is la la land Ireland so they probably do. :rolleyes: