votes for prisoners

[chaz]

well it looks like these people who due to no fault of their own have ended up in prison, are hoping that the government will not let them have the right to vote so they can then sue the government and get a few grand to spend when they get out.
The lawyers are hoping the same because they are as bad as the scumbags in jail, in Selby two law firms have been shut down and my solicitor was jailed, twice?
If it was up to me prisoners would have to repay the cost of being in jail, after all if you have to go into care due to ill health you have to hand over all what you have worked for.

[Grahamm]

If it was up to me prisoners would have to repay the cost of being in jail

Yeah! And why don't be bring back breaking rocks and Transporation too, since those worked so well in the past :rolleyes

[phillywilly]

they should have a 6 by 6 foot cell with nothing but straw on the floor -it would save the country billions keeping them in a cell for 23.5 hours a day like that and theres less chance of them re-offending if they know they are going back to them conditions
i read somewhere in the week it costs 6 times more keeping a young offender in prison than sending someone to eton for a year !!
if they will be able to sue for not being allowed to vote all these ambulance chasers will turn into prison chasers -bigger scum than the people they represent (if guilty of crime )

[DryRob]

can't they get round it during sentencing from now on if the judge says something like:

"...and as a consequence of your crimes you have also forfeited all normal privileges reserved for decent society including but not limited to the right to vote..."

It wouldn't work for current criminals but we'd have to stomach it due to the oversight of our current sentencing guidelines.

or they could just put their polling station outside the prison grounds or "lose" the ballot box in a fire

[Robbie8666]

i'm just speachless that the the human rights commision even entertained this!

sorry i was under the belief that if you were found guilty of commiting a crime and were sentenced to prison then you lost all rights!!

does this mean then in future they will be able to sue for loss of earnings whilst inside or loss of benefits?

I may seem sceptical but in military prisons you had to earn privillages and rights. the only thing they did allow was 3 cigerettes per day ( or 6 boiled sweets for non-smokers) and these were not allowed to be hoarded..
television was a privallage that had to be earnt by good behaviour allowed for 1 hour a day & programes were selected by inmates on week three of sentence.

[Slaninar]

they should have a 6 by 6 foot cell with nothing but straw on the floor -it would save the country billions keeping them in a cell for 23.5 hours a day like that and theres less chance of them re-offending if they know they are going back to them conditions

It's not all black and white.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/...ch-UK.html


I'd like to see yellow cards. You make one offence twice, second yellow - board walking! ARRRR!

[Robbie8666]

thats a good article about prisoners in Norway but could that really work in the uk?

[Grahamm]

sorry i was under the belief that if you were found guilty of commiting a crime and were sentenced to prison then you lost all rights!!

*ALL* Rights??

You mean they should lose the Right to life, the Right not to be tortured, the Right not to be forced into slavery...?

[Grahamm]

It's not all black and white.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/...ch-UK.html

" Live reports from Norway on the penal system that runs contrary to all our instincts"

Hmm, "All our instincts"? Well, the instincts of those who read the Daily Mail, perhaps who believe that "Prison Works!" and are probably in favour of bringing back the Birch too.

Except that "an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent. In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent. Thus Bastoy, at just 16 per cent, has the lowest reoffending rate in Europe."

But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good "Lock them up in horrible conditions and throw away the key!" rant...

[Robbie8666]

[quote author=Robbie8666 link=topic=5374.msg46877#msg46877 date=1353667905]sorry i was under the belief that if you were found guilty of commiting a crime and were sentenced to prison then you lost all rights!!

*ALL* Rights??

You mean they should lose the Right to life, the Right not to be tortured, the Right not to be forced into slavery...?
[/quote]

ok maybe i should have been more carefull with my choice of words however I do believe there are some crimes that should lose the right of life! as for right not to be tortured I agree with that , the right not to be forced into slavery.. what classes as slavery? doing a job for no pay
ie do you mean forced labour or chain gangs? or the conditions you are kept & live in?

not trying to be a smart ar$e with my comments or prevoke a flood of responses

if someone is convicted beyond all doubt that they are guilty of crimes such as Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, West & Bronson then why should they not be given the death penalty. they should never be allowed to be released from prison! so why have the expense of keeping them?

I'm not saying all murderers should be given the death penalty but each case be reviewed on its own merit.

[Robbie8666]

just like to point out this is only my opinion and not meant to cause offence to anyone

[Fazerider]

... if someone is convicted beyond all doubt that they are guilty of crimes such as Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, West & Bronson then why should they not be given the death penalty. they should never be allowed to be released from prison! so why have the expense of keeping them?

Because it's barbaric.
Because it puts the State in the hypocritical position of "Do as I say, not as I do".
Because it doesn't work as a deterrent.
Because it's actually more expensive than keeping people in jail.

[phillywilly]

[quote author=Robbie8666 link=topic=5374.msg46893#msg46893 date=1353672428]
... if someone is convicted beyond all doubt that they are guilty of crimes such as Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, West & Bronson then why should they not be given the death penalty. they should never be allowed to be released from prison! so why have the expense of keeping them?

Because it's barbaric.
Because it puts the State in the hypocritical position of "Do as I say, not as I do".
Because it doesn't work as a deterrent.
Because it's actually more expensive than keeping people in jail.
[/quote]


fazerider, i have read this myself about a couple of weeks ago -ref to it is more expensive to execute someone than keep them in jail for life , im not questioning you.........but how the HELL is it more expensive for a six foot length of rope and a kick stool , rather than paying guards,cell maintenance keeping the cell full,care work,health ect ect of someone like peter sutcliffe ?  like i said ,im not questioning you  :evil

[BBROWN1664]

I think we should have two prison systems.

System 1 - For those on remand. Not yet convicted so get to keep the TV's, PlayStations, gyms etc and allowed to vote etc (just kept locked inside) because at this stage they have not been convicted. Pretty much like the single system we have now.

System 2 - cells with multiple inmates sharing. No TV, PlayStation, gym etc and kept locked in their cells for 23 hours a day apart from the ones given jobs to do. These jobs will be thing like delivery of meal trays to cells. Should help stop people reoffending as they wont want to go back in.

The current system gives the inmates a better life than many of them had on the outside. No wonder they are not bothered about going back!

[VNA]

i'm just speachless that the the human rights commision even entertained this!

I dunno I'm not really that bothered by this.  But maybe it's been entertained becuase we are supposed to be a democracy and human rights are supposed to be universal.

Sure I can see how it upsets people, but on the other hand some people get locked up cos they haven't paid a fine, others might end up locked up on points of principle etc.  So if you have a prison population, and you accept that prisons are supposed to be about reform, and even maybe some of those folks shouldn't really be in there, well who then decides who gets a vote and who doesn't.

Plus don't forget that governments set and amend laws (not quite as simple as that but you know what I mean), so if democracy and government have the power to lock people up, is it really a good thing that they can also deny them their democratic rights.  You know how handy would it be to lock up your political opponents?

Further, there is nothing to stop a prisoner from standing for election, and I can think one MP who was voted in whilst behind bars.  So if you can stand whilst locked up, surely those locked up should have the vote.

As for locking people up, I have in the past here mentioned several voluntary schemes by which with agreement of both prisoners and victims, the prisoner can substantially reduce their sentence, they have been piloted and shown beyond any doubt to dramatically reduce re-offending, but such schemes whilst effective in rehabilitation, making our country safer, giving victims the opportunity to confront the perpetrators and participate in their rehabilitation whilst saving vast sums of money just don't play well to Daily Mail readers and as a result ain't a vote winner. 

Capital punishment, no no no.  The UK used, has now been prevented from, but would again hang the innocent.  Never again.

Give prisoners the vote?  I mean why not?

[Grahamm]

[quote author=Grahamm link=topic=5374.msg46890#msg46890 date=1353671181]
*ALL* Rights??

You mean they should lose the Right to life, the Right not to be tortured, the Right not to be forced into slavery...?

ok maybe i should have been more carefull with my choice of words however I do believe there are some crimes that should lose the right of life! [/quote]

I don't. This is simply legal murder. "You've killed someone? Ok, we'll kill you to balancee the books." Doesn't work, has never worked in the past, won't work in the future.

the right not to be forced into slavery.. what classes as slavery? doing a job for no pay
ie do you mean forced labour or chain gangs? or the conditions you are kept & live in?

One definition of slavery is if you are required to work and not permitted to withdraw your labour.

if someone is convicted beyond all doubt that they are guilty of crimes such as Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, West & Bronson then why should they not be given the death penalty. they should never be allowed to be released from prison! so why have the expense of keeping them?

What value do you put on a human life? *ANY* life? Does the value of one person's life diminish because they've done something others don't like?

Anyway, this is getting way off the topic, so I'm going to leave it here.

Getting back to the subject of votes for prisoners, the real question why should they not have the right to vote?

Is them having the vote going to have such a massive effect on society that they have to be denied that right to stop the election being skewed? Well, no.

What benefit is there to society of them losing their right to vote? Is someone who is about to commit a crime going to suddenly think "Wow, hang on, I'd better not do that otherwise I won't be able to vote"? I doubt it.

What about people who are doing Community Service or other such things? Should they still have the right to vote even though they're convicted criminals? Or is it only people who are locked up? If it's only people who are locked up, should it be *all* those who are locked up or only those in Class A prisons? Or perhaps those only serving a certain length of sentence (arbitrarily decided)?

This is really nothing more than Political Grandstanding designed to appeal to Middle England, rather than to actually do any real good.

[Grahamm]

System 2 - cells with multiple inmates sharing. No TV, PlayStation, gym etc and kept locked in their cells for 23 hours a day apart from the ones given jobs to do. These jobs will be thing like delivery of meal trays to cells. Should help stop people reoffending as they wont want to go back in.

Look at the history of the Victorian Prison system. They had that. It didn't stop reoffending.

[Tifa]

It's so tough trying to make a crust these days.
Who can blame the poor criminals for their behavior?
What does it matter that ordinary folks lives get destroyed in the process?
Bless them, they can't help it.
They need all the help society can give.

I suggest we all contribute £50 per month to give them that well deserved 'leg up'
Criminals have rights and feelings too.

[Agent Picolax]

All prisoners should have rights, but only the rights that exist within the prison walls. When they are released, give them some time to prove that they are going to be a law abiding citizen and a value to society and only then should they be given the rights that every other law abiding citizen has.

Basically, you do the crime, you do the time, and you will not have the rights of a law abiding citizen whilst doing time - end of!!

[MadDogMcQ]

All prisoners should have rights, but only the rights that exist within the prison walls. When they are released, give them some time to prove that they are going to be a law abiding citizen and a value to society and only then should they be given the rights that every other law abiding citizen has.

Basically, you do the crime, you do the time, and you will not have the rights of a law abiding citizen whilst doing time - end of!!

AMEN TO THAT!

Grahamm - do you also think that parents shouldn't be able to smack their kids? Just wonderin.  :rolleyes