Should prisoners have the right to vote?

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.

Omackeral

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.

Omackeral

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.

Omackeral

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:

jmayo

I'm unsure.

Winterlong wrote: »

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.

One side here were quick to jump down the throat of a poster who brought up child killer in UK having right to vote.
Well I could just as easily say WTF has black disenfranchisement in the US got to do with Ireland ?

osarusan

jmayo wrote: »

Well I could just as easily say WTF has black disenfranchisement in the US got to do with Ireland ?

It's an example of how disenfranchisement can be used as a political tool.

It's obviously very unlikely to be used in the same way here as the example in the US, but it's an example of how it functions as a tool.

Tasden

When I first read the op my initial thought was "all rights come with responsibilities" and if you can't behave responsibly in society, so much so that you were imprisoned, then you shouldn't have the right to vote on issues that influence that society either- while imprisoned.
But having read people's responses I've been completely swayed so op you're gonna win the debate

No, they should not.

Prison's purpose is to deprive a convicted person of their liberty as a form of punishment. That doesn't nullify all their other rights, nor should it.

Of course they should continue to vote.

Omackeral

No, they should not.

Winterlong wrote: »

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.

That's one stupid racist assh*le.

TPD

No, they should not.

I think they should be allowed to vote. If there's an issue up for a vote on which their opinion will be skewed by being a prisoner, surely the people voting should be on both sides of the fence? And if their opinion on the issue won't be skewed by being a prisoner, what harm?

endacl

suicide_circus wrote: »

Too early for your semantics. It's a right and we are lucky to have it.

No semantics. A right is not the same thing as a privilege.

Mountainsandh

I'm unsure.

endacl wrote: »

No semantics. A right is not the same thing as a privilege.

But rights can and are restricted in the same manner a privilege can be withdrawn.

Think freedom of expression, or religion for example.

PopePalpatine

No, they should not.

A Little Pony wrote: »

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

For every Ian Huntley, there's dozens of guys who got caught with a bit of weed in their pockets.

I think Maximus Alexander summed it up best in this thread, the removal of a prisoner's right to vote sets up a slippery slope where it's very tempting for a government to order the jailing of protesters, or for someone to extend that restriction to ex-convicts. It sounds like something Putin would do.

ligerdub

No, they should not.

You don't rehabilitate somebody by stripping them of all their rights. They should have as much a right to vote as if they were the same person except not in prison.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

They are in prison because they did not respect the rights of others...why should we care about them having rights?

nhunter100

brightspark wrote:

They are in prison because they did not respect the rights of others...why should we care about them having rights?

Their right of liberty has been removed, that's sufficient punishment. As an aside not everyone is in prison for the same offence.

Mountainsandh

I'm unsure.

ligerdub wrote: »

You don't rehabilitate somebody by stripping them of all their rights. They should have as much a right to vote as if they were the same person except not in prison.

The thread is not really about stripping them of all their rights.

Their freedom is restricted by default in prison, and imo their right to participate in decisions about the state should be restricted too.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

nhunter100 wrote: »

Their right of liberty has been removed, that's sufficient punishment. As an aside not everyone is in prison for the same offence.

Obviously not a sufficient punishment given that many go on to reoffend soon after release.

Doesn't matter what the offence is, if our laws have determined that a custodial sentence is appropriate then that person has been proven not to respect others.

Unlike some others I would allow them to vote again once released and any probation time completed.

Lavinia

No, they should not.

brightspark wrote: »

They are in prison because they did not respect the rights of others...why should we care about them having rights?

what a narrow minded 'argument'.. are you sure all people in prison are there for the 'reason' you enlisted?

mikeym

I'm unsure.

Scumbags dont care about the right to vote.

Scumbags have no respect for civilised society.

A lot of people in Prison are Scumbags.

They are not decent people.

Mountainsandh

I'm unsure.

Lavinia wrote: »

what a narrow minded 'argument'.. are you sure all people in prison are there for the 'reason' you enlisted?

Why are you saying that ? Because of the "unpaid fines" type or because of miscarriages of justice ?

Miscarriages of justice do and always will happen, and frankly, for these poor individuals who are unjustly detained, I don't think the right to vote is a major concern.

"Unpaid fines" is still a situation where the individual has broken the law.

nhunter100

brightspark wrote:

Obviously not a sufficient punishment given that many go on to reoffend soon after release.

The idea of prison is to both punish and rehabilitate, stripping further rights from a person is counterproductive. Do you advocate stripping the right to vote from all prisoners or is there a scale of criminality? Unfortunately we don't really do the rehabilitation thing too well here.

Mountainsandh

I'm unsure.

nhunter100 wrote: »

The idea of prison is to both punish and rehabilitate, stripping further rights from a person is counterproductive. Do you advocate stripping the right to vote from all prisoners or is there a scale of criminality? Unfortunately we don't really do the rehabilitation thing too well here.

How is it counterproductive ?
In my opinion there should be no scale, people who have broken the law enough for the justice system to send them to prison (that's a long stretch by Irish standards) should equally see some of their rights temporarily restricted.

Really if any adult incarcerated has any capacity to think about their actions, the consequences (ie their current situation), and their future self outside those walls, they will understand why the right to vote has been temporarily suspended for them.

Anyone who intends to become a better citizen will surely understand how their previous self found themselves without a voice as a consequence of their actions.

The "rehabilitate by protecting the individual's right to vote" stance looks to me like a negotiation, and I don't see how negotiating is sending a right message.

For the many who do not understand the seriousness of their actions, I don't think rehabilitation is really going to happen either way, no ?

Or maybe in a superficial, makey-uppy "Yes I promise I'll be better" way.

nhunter100

Mountainsandh wrote:

The "rehabilitate by protecting the individual's right to vote" stance looks to me like a negotiation, and I don't see how negotiating is sending a right message.

The right to vote should have no part of the punishment of an individual, my use of the word rehabilitation is what is supposed to happen in prison not a negotiation of punishment. Imprisonment is the punishment and that's it. If the state secures the right to suspend a persons right to vote for a temporary period of time I think it is only a matter of time before the floodgates to allow full suspension are opened. Disenfranchising a person IMHO further pushes them to edge of society. A suggestion I will never agree with. Lastly to suspend the voting rights of individuals would require a constitutional referendum and I do not believe Irish society as a whole is vindictive enough to ensure its passing. With that I'll say goodnight.

JupiterKid

No, they should not.

Voting is a civic duty and responsibility, not a privilege. I don't see any good reason to disenfranchise prisoners except for vindictiveness.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

nhunter100 wrote: »

The idea of prison is to both punish and rehabilitate, stripping further rights from a person is counterproductive. Do you advocate stripping the right to vote from all prisoners or is there a scale of criminality? Unfortunately we don't really do the rehabilitation thing too well here.

Does letting them vote would mean they won't offend again? Maybe if we didn't remove their "right" to freedom they would become model citizens? :rolleyes:

brightspark

I'm unsure.

JupiterKid wrote: »

Voting is a civic duty and responsibility, not a privilege. I don't see any good reason to disenfranchise prisoners except for vindictiveness.

Not breaking the law is a civic duty and responsibility too!

brightspark

I'm unsure.

nhunter100 wrote: »

The right to vote should have no part of the punishment of an individual, I do not believe Irish society as a whole is vindictive enough to ensure its passing. With that I'll say goodnight.

Not vindictive, but I for one am fed up with the revolving doors etc, prisoners have more rights and benefits than many old age pensioners and other disadvantaged people.

Let them earn the right to vote again by becoming good citizens when they are released.

Mountainsandh

I'm unsure.

And one key and surprising element that has completely been lost here, in consideration of the "rights" and/or "privileges" of the prisoner, is the fact that the prisoner's vote does count, with all that entails for the rest of society.

So a person who has broken the law (enough to get in prison, again a long stretch here) has a voice that may affect others.

I think while the "happy transformation" (rehabilitation) is taking place, until they can become someone who will make the right choices again, the right to vote of the prisoner should be restricted.

ligerdub

No, they should not.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The thread is not really about stripping them of all their rights.

Their freedom is restricted by default in prison, and imo their right to participate in decisions about the state should be restricted too.

Bear in mind that prisoners have a degree of severity of crime. You could be in prison for a month, but be a tax payer, and but for a very minor offence have been an upstanding citizen. What, for example if you were a prisoner for involuntary manslaughter, something which could happen to anybody?

I just don't think you improve anything by denying somebody, anybody, a basic right such as that. Punishment should be for protection of others, and for rehabilitation, it shouldn't be vindictive.

Mountainsandh

I'm unsure.

ligerdub wrote: »

You could be in prison for a month, but be a tax payer, and but for a very minor offence have been an upstanding citizen. What, for example if you were a prisoner for involuntary manslaughter, something which could happen to anybody?
.

Presumably sentence would be shorter, thereby keeping the restriction on my right to vote to a proportionally low duration.

Considering the justice system right now and how lenient it is, someone who does end up in prison has done enough to warrant to be struck off the register for the variable length of his/her sentence. Be it 48 hours or 2 years.

Thankfully the system's principle is to tailor the sentence to the seriousness of the crime. So whoever committed a "minor offence" (if you think there is such a thing) will lose their rights for a "minor" amount of time.

Why should it be otherwise ?
It makes sense : if the person made bad choices that led to offenses that are deemed "minor", then more than likely they will reform themselves quickly, which means that the rest of society can suspend trust in them for a shorter while.

ligerdub

No, they should not.

Fair enough. There clearly are such things as minor offences though. I think the law might even state a difference in severity in certain crimes.

Personally I think if you look at a presidential term of 7 years and a standard (if such a thing exists in Ireland) govt duration of 5 years, that if you were only going to be in prison for say 0.5% of that term then there's no way you should have your voting rights removed. Even as high up as say 20-30%.

Mountainsandh

I'm unsure.

I guess there would be an element of chance : the chance something important falls in the middle of that time when you can't vote.

Just like other events important to you might fall within that time when you are incarcerated.

You know, if it is the norm, and people know about it, it will be part of the weigh in when they made the wrong choice.

I mean if your civic rights are very important to you, and you decide to commit an offense, then you know just as well (as you are deciding what to do) that these civic rights will be curtailed for the duration of your sentence (should you get caught).

edit : just like you might know the cost of a fine before you commit an offence.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

As so many here are considering it a human right

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

If liberty is considered to be a human right, how can we imprison anyone?

Being in prison by its definition involves the removal of a basic human right, but people don't have to go to prison...they can respect the rights of everyone else and not break the law.

Break the rules of our society and loose the benefits of our society. There are plenty of innocent people we should worry about before we worry about the criminals.

ligerdub

No, they should not.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I guess there would be an element of chance : the chance something important falls in the middle of that time when you can't vote.

Just like other events important to you might fall within that time when you are incarcerated.

You know, if it is the norm, and people know about it, it will be part of the weigh in when they made the wrong choice.

I mean if your civic rights are very important to you, and you decide to commit an offense, then you know just as well (as you are deciding what to do) that these civic rights will be curtailed for the duration of your sentence.

I hear you, it's a fair argument.

osarusan

brightspark wrote: »

If liberty is considered to be a human right, how can we imprison anyone?

What human rights charter have you seen that doesn't allow for lawful imprisonment?

nhunter100

brightspark wrote:

Break the rules of our society and loose the benefits of our society. There are plenty of innocent people we should worry about before we worry about the criminals.

Our society is governed by a constitution, might be an idea to familiarise yourself with it.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

osarusan wrote: »

What human rights charter have you seen that doesn't allow for lawful imprisonment?

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

As quoted article 3 states Liberty is a right.

My point is if we can restrict liberty legally restricting the right to vote shouldn't be an issue either.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

nhunter100 wrote: »

Our society is governed by a constitution, might be an idea to familiarise yourself with it.

If our constitution benefits criminals more than pensioners than its time for a few more ammendments!

nhunter100

brightspark wrote:

If our constitution benefits criminals more than pensioners than its time for a few more ammendments!

By all means, let's see how many pass.

oik

I'm unsure.

No, I unlike the people above do see voting as something that should be a reward for civic engagement.

I think you should be able to lose the right to vote entirely as well for uncitizen like behaviour.

Not that it really matters to most criminals anyway. I'm sure the majority of them would never vote anyway.

nhunter100

oik wrote:

Not that it really matters to most criminals anyway. I'm sure the majority of them would never vote anyway.

Cool you know what every else thinks, any insight on the lotto numbers?

oik

I'm unsure.

nhunter100 wrote: »

Cool you know what every else thinks, any insight on the lotto numbers?

I can extrapolate from the demographic turnout statistics and the demographics of our prisons and make that judgement.

nhunter100

Here's your chance impress me.