Should prisoners have the right to vote?

brightspark

I'm unsure.

biko wrote: »

Because democracy.

But not everyone can vote anyway.

If someone is just under 18 they can't vote even though it will effect them

If for work purposes someone has to be abroad on business on the polling day they can't vote here (Some countries allow you to vote over a period of weeks)

If ill for a few days it may not be possible to vote.

All those have more of a "right" to vote than those who chose to commit crimes worthy of imprisionment.

nhunter100

brightspark wrote:

If for work purposes someone has to be abroad on business on the polling day they can't vote here (Some countries allow you to vote over a period of weeks)

brightspark wrote:

If ill for a few days it may not be possible to vote.

There right to vote still exists, the ability however maybe impeded. Strawman agruement.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

Fine, let prisoners be registered to vote, just don't have a polling station in the gaols.

(Ability maybe impeded)

nhunter100

brightspark wrote:

Fine, let prisoners be registered to vote, just don't have a pooling station in the gaols.

Postal vote so. Nothing to gain by removing the right to vote. Gald you now agree.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

nhunter100 wrote: »

Postal vote so. Nothing to gain by removing the right to vote. Gald you now agree.

Hopefully the post would be stolen!

nhunter100

brightspark wrote:

Hopefully the post would be stolen!

Childish retort. Have a good day.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

If we accept that removing a persons right to freedom is appropriate, then I fail to see why we can't also remove their right to vote.

nhunter100

brightspark wrote:

If we accept that removing a persons right to freedom is appropriate, then I fail to see why we can't also remove their right to vote.

The loss of freedom is the punishment and is sufficient adding to this is nothing more than petty vindictiveness. Removing the right to vote will take a constitutional amendment and I can nearly guarantee you it would not pass.

Skylinehead

No, they should not.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It's not about eroding the right to vote in the general population though, the focus is on people who have committed a crime.

That's seamus' point though - the state may target certain demographics to lock them up, then they've "committed a crime" and the votes are skewed because they can't partake in the election.

darkpagandeath

NO, They have been removed from society. For society's protection

HensVassal

Omackeral wrote: »

A friend of mine called me the other day wondering about this topic. She's bringing her secondary school pupils to a debate with the subject matter of prisoners having a voting being up for discussion. Her team is on the side of yes, they should be allowed to vote. What are your thoughts?

At present, they are allowed to vote via post. Do you think this is right? Should someone who broke the law have a say in how it's made? On the other hand, should someone who's doing a few months of a sentence be stripped of the right to vote on matters which will concern him/her and their children in the future e.g. same sex marriage, repealing the eighth?

I thought it might be interesting to get people's thoughts on this.

Should prisoners have the right to eat or sleep?

feargale

brightspark wrote: »

If we accept that removing a persons right to freedom is appropriate, then I fail to see why we can't also remove their right to vote.

And why remove their right to vote? For what good purpose? Would you take the vote from law breakers who have been lucky enough to escape prison, or who haven't even been brought to court? As another poster said just now this proposal smacks of vindictiveness.
By all means punish offenders, let life mean life, but leave them with a stake in society. Those without that stake are sure to be alienated

Annasopra

No, they should not.

brightspark wrote: »

Fine, let prisoners be registered to vote, just don't have a polling station in the gaols.

(Ability maybe impeded)

They couldnt because there would have to be different polling stations for the different constituencies that the prisoners usually live in and that would be a logistical nightmare.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

nhunter100 wrote: »

The loss of freedom is the punishment and is sufficient adding to this is nothing more than petty vindictiveness. Removing the right to vote will take a constitutional amendment and I can nearly guarantee you it would not pass.

Based on the poll so far 6 undecided, 87 in favour of criminals voting , 97 against?

If this was to apply in a referendum it would pass!

It's not petty vindictiveness, it's removing them from making decisions about a society they have been proven not to respect.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

feargale wrote: »

And why remove their right to vote? For what good purpose? Would you take the vote from law breakers who have been lucky enough to escape prison, or who haven't even been brought to court? As another poster said just now this proposal smacks of vindictiveness.
By all means punish offenders, let life mean life, but leave them with a stake in society. Those without that stake are sure to be alienated

Those who aren't in prison either haven't been convicted or it was felt their offence did not warrant their removal from society.

nhunter100

brightspark wrote:

If this was to apply in a referendum it would pass!

I remember a poll saying the Seanad would be abolished, actually several. Then the pros and cons were presented to the public. How did that vote go? Seanad gone.
Every civil liberty group would be out to oppose it and then there would be the matter of the ECJ over ruling any law to remove the voting rights of citizens. You get where I'm going. It might be something the more vindictive of our society might like to happen but I take comfort knowing it won't. Good topic for a debate but no more than that.

Mountainsandh

I'm unsure.

Skylinehead wrote: »

That's seamus' point though - the state may target certain demographics to lock them up, then they've "committed a crime" and the votes are skewed because they can't partake in the election.

When you have a state who does that, then I doubt that the right to vote from prison will help you out of the mess.

Do you think a state that conspires to lock up certain demographics will then accept their vote from prison because it's in the constitution ? It'd be a pretty tentative dictatorship.

It's a good point alright, in theory, I just don't think in real life it really matters.

brightspark

I'm unsure.

nhunter100 wrote: »

I remember a poll saying the Seanad would be abolished, actually several. Then the pros and cons were presented to the public. How did that vote go? Seanad gone.
Every civil liberty group would be out to oppose it and then there would be the matter of the ECJ over ruling any law to remove the voting rights of citizens. You get where I'm going. It might be something the more vindictive of our society might like to happen but I take comfort knowing it won't. Good topic for a debate but no more than that.

So the ECJ effectively would disenfranchise the electorate of the country.

nhunter100

brightspark wrote:

So the ECJ effectively would disenfranchise the electorate of the country.

Aren't you advocating disenfranchising a section of the electorate.
We have signed up to certain laws with the EU we cannot introduce laws contrary to the laws we agreed to abide by with the EU it's really that simple.

Annasopra

No, they should not.

Actually European law on this seems from what I can gather unclear and complex

A The European Court of Human Rights found around 2005 prisoners do have voting rights
B This ruling has been upheld by many human rights cases
C Most countries (in the Council of Europe) changed the law to reflect that
D The UK refused to change its laws to remove the ban
E The European Court of Justice did actually rule in a case in 2015 in that member states (of the EU) can impose a voting ban on prisoners convicted of serious crimes in some circumstances. It depends on the crime committed and the sentence.

AvBBrother

No, prisoners should not have the right to vote.

Skommando

I'm unsure.

I'd like to see some rights for the victims of criminals instead. That would be a welcome change in this country.

jimgoose

I'm unsure.

The whole point of prison is to remove certain individuals from society for a certain period of time. Therefore, this should include suspension of voting rights for the same duration.

Anesthetize

I'm unsure.

AvBBrother wrote: »

No, prisoners should not have the right to vote.

Why do you think prisoners should not have the right to vote?

Lavinia

No, they should not.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

What about them ?
There's nothing we can do about the undetected ones

We can only act on people who have been convicted. Some people escape conviction, that's life, and not much to do with the discussion here.

Much to do.
Variety of people do crimes for variety of reasons. Putting them all into one basket is very narrow-minded imho.
They are still citizens therefore have a right and even obligation to vote.
There is nothing to 'act on' about it.

Mountainsandh

I'm unsure.

Lavinia wrote: »

Much to do.
Variety of people do crimes for variety of reasons. Putting them all into one basket is very narrow-minded imho.
They are still citizens therefore have a right and even obligation to vote.
There is nothing to 'act on' about it.

I am not the one "putting them into one basket".
The justice system does its job, and decides who has committed crimes deserving of incarceration. It's one basket, with incarceration of various duration for various levels of crime.

That some people escape the justice system is completely irrelevant here. There is nothing that can be done about them as they are escaping justice, they are functioning as any other citizen, therefore will have their right to vote. But that's nothing to do with this discussion, which is about the ones who got caught, and have been sentenced.

If you get caught and are sentenced, and end up in actual prison, not with the all too common suspended sentences ... then you have been deemed to have made wrong choices to the point where society/justice needs to restrict your freedom. By the same token, I think it would be relevant to restrict your right to vote, until hopefully you are ready to become once again a law abiding citizen.

It's hard to put into words, but my own opinion is that hopefully prison is a time of reflection for people, and many will indeed reflect and understand that they were wrong to do whatever they did, and that it is right to abide by the law. I don't think this happens very quick with people who have committed more serious crimes, and so it is a good thing that their sentences are longer.
Say you take a prisoner who is guilty of very serious fraud, over several long years. If a vote is required within the first 6 months of incarceration, he may still be in a rebellious, defiant, remorseless, and self-absorbed frame of mind. His vote then might not be the same as his vote after 2 long years of reflection.

Maybe I am naive, but I guess the idea of rehabilitation hinges on this same idea, that with time to think, and time to experience the consequences of your crime, an individual will change.

I believe the vote of a remorseless, possibly defiant, self-absorbed criminal should not have a weight in the affairs of the state, and citizens. Criminals who are still in that zone are likely to disregard the rights of others imo. How can you be a part of the democratic process if you have no understanding of that basic concept, that others have rights as well as you, and responsibilities ?

note : I am using the adjective "remorseless" quite liberally here, as I believe that the justice system will tend to convict mostly those who do not show remorse. We all know of the very common "sorry 'bout wha' I done" stance, that we know to be hypocritical in a lot of case, but which bears fruit and saves a lot of criminals from severe sentences.

Lavinia

No, they should not.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I am not the one "putting them into one basket".
The justice system does its job, and decides who has committed crimes deserving of incarceration. It's one basket, with incarceration of various duration for various levels of crime.

That some people escape the justice system is completely irrelevant here. There is nothing that can be done about them as they are escaping justice, they are functioning as any other citizen, therefore will have their right to vote. But that's nothing to do with this discussion, which is about the ones who got caught, and have been sentenced.

If you get caught and are sentenced, and end up in actual prison, not with the all too common suspended sentences ... then you have been deemed to have made wrong choices to the point where society/justice needs to restrict your freedom. By the same token, I think it would be relevant to restrict your right to vote, until hopefully you are ready to become once again a law abiding citizen.

Geez let's kill them instantly, why bother feeding them and spending OUR money on those bast*rds...

If you are calling the current law then well, that same law is allowing them to vote.

feargale

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

They couldnt because there would have to be different polling stations for the different constituencies that the prisoners usually live in and that would be a logistical nightmare.

They could be allowed to register in the constituency in which the prison is situated, and told "sorry, we can't take you to Ballydehob to vote but you can vote here."
Alternatively, they could be given a postal vote like so many others.

Skylinehead

No, they should not.

Skommando wrote: »

I'd like to see some rights for the victims of criminals instead. That would be a welcome change in this country.

Do elaborate.

jimgoose wrote: »

The whole point of prison is to remove certain individuals from society for a certain period of time. Therefore, this should include suspension of voting rights for the same duration.

I know you're a programmer jim, but I'm struggling to see where the "therefore" comes into this logic.

RayM

No, they should not.

No, they absolutely shouldn't. In fact, if I had my way, I'd have them all killed.

Edit: Sorry, I misread the title and thought this was the "Should pensioners be allowed to vote?" thread. Yes, prisoners should have the right to vote.