Alias Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I think prisoners should be allowed to vote for a few reasons. Just because a law is legislated for does not mean it is beneficial to society - why should they not be able to elect a representative to vote against classification of their deed as a crime? Nearly everyone commits crimes, no matter how small. Also, the majority of the prison population still have freedom to look to - why shouldn't they have a say in what their country will be like when they rejoin the population? Perhaps you could say it could be removed for 'life' sentences, but then there should be a strict definition of what a life sentence is (I have no idea if there is currently) and what crimes it encompasses, and should be fairly resolute. I also think removing a person's 'rights to society' as a seperate part of a sentence would be a mistake, allowing groups of people to be ostracized from population. Once such a provision is made available, it is much easier to adapt (with minimal new legislation/debating) where this provision can be applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Say that a law was passed making it illegal to advocate the legalisation of drugs - sentence community service. Spook suggest would be that someone convicted of that crime would be banned from voting. That becomes a powerful tool in surprising all debate on the issue. Far-fetched? Maybe but change the offence to racial hatred and you begin to deny a section of the electorate the vote on the basis that they disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No, what I am saying is that those that pay should have the say. So, the unemployed should have no vote? What if someone is employed for 30 years, loses their job and finds another after 5 months - the election falls in that 5 months - so they should not have a vote? Very true, but that stake is in the form of an investment and a dependency on the one hand and just a dependency on the other. So the poor cannot vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Very true, but that stake is in the form of an investment and a dependency on the one hand and just a dependency on the other. As I wrote, and really believe, its those that pay should have the say. Can you elaborate please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 France got around it by saying that it would be dealt with at the time of sentencing, and with no retrospective aspect (i.e. no compensation payments). Now at sentencing basically everyone is told they lose their civil rights. So no change and the eurocrats are happy. What an excellent fudge it is as well and hopefully we'll go the same way! I think we could learn some lessons from the French way of splitting the state off from contentious issues. Banning overtly religious symbols from schools is another winner imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Say that a law was passed making it illegal to advocate the legalisation of drugs - sentence community service. Spook suggest would be that someone convicted of that crime would be banned from voting. That becomes a powerful tool in surprising all debate on the issue. If such a law was entered onto the statute books then where’s the problem? What I’m proposing is that as a part of the punishment for breaking a law the individual should be disenfranchised for the duration of that punishment. Far-fetched? Maybe but change the offence to racial hatred and you begin to deny a section of the electorate the vote on the basis that they disagree with you. Not with me, with the law of the land Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No, what I am saying is that those that pay should have the say. So, the unemployed should have no vote? What if someone is employed for 30 years, loses their job and finds another after 5 months - the election falls in that 5 months - so they should not have a vote? Very true, but that stake is in the form of an investment and a dependency on the one hand and just a dependency on the other. So the poor cannot vote? So, the unemployed should have no vote? What if someone is employed for 30 years, loses their job and finds another after 5 months - the election falls in that 5 months - so they should not have a vote? Not while they are in recipe of unemployment hand outs. Quote“Very true, but that stake is in the form of an investment and a dependency on the one hand and just a dependency on the other. “ So the poor cannot vote? Where did I suggest that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Very true, but that stake is in the form of an investment and a dependency on the one hand and just a dependency on the other. As I wrote, and really believe, it’s those that pay should have the say. Can you elaborate please? What is ambiguous about what I wrote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Far-fetched? Maybe but change the offence to racial hatred and you begin to deny a section of the electorate the vote on the basis that they disagree with you. Not with me, with the law of the land Which is set by the Government. Who are in place as a result of an election. Makes it easy to pass a law that a section of the govt's opponents will break, (say Trade Union membership or failing to fly the EU flag) then bind them over to keep the peace until after a crucial election. Re-election becomes easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Really this isn't that important an issue. You'd have to be hopelessly stuck in a liberal mindset and wedded to the idea of voting being of great worth to find it significant. Discussion on inmates changing laws and effecting any important change is nonsense when voting achieves so little. Votes from the prisoners aren't going to impact on the laws we have. You need only look at the lack of control that the existing public have on the passing or rescinding or laws to recognise that. People don't vote because they want a law or don't like a law. They usually vote because they are won in on a set of promises that are rarely kept or, more stupidly, vote for the other guy or party based on the experience of the current government. Spook - If such a law was entered onto the statute books then where’s the problem? What I’m proposing is that as a part of the punishment for breaking a law the individual should be disenfranchised for the duration of that punishment. But why? Because you wrongly think that prisoners and the unemployed do not have a stake in that society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 France got around it by saying that it would be dealt with at the time of sentencing, and with no retrospective aspect (i.e. no compensation payments). Now at sentencing basically everyone is told they lose their civil rights. So no change and the eurocrats are happy. What an excellent fudge it is as well and hopefully we'll go the same way! I think we could learn some lessons from the French way of splitting the state off from contentious issues. Banning overtly religious symbols from schools is another winner imho. Splitting the state off from contentious issues? How would that happen in practice and why would it be desirable? I am still curious to know what your thought process is on this matter of civil rights or just voting. You say people are at odds with society by the committing of an act, but why would you seek to distance them further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I earn loads of money, i should get two votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 But why? Because you wrongly think that prisoners and the unemployed do not have a stake in that society? Not wrongly think, rightly think. The only stake the unemployed and prisoners have in society is that they are dependent upon it for their survival. unless the former depend on charity. Look on it this way. If a man was totally dependent on the charity of another should the recipient be entitled to have any say in how the donor earned his living? Or how he lived? Of course not. It’s the same with the unemployed. They should have no say in how a society was governed. It’s the people who work and pay taxes who have the stake. The rest are parasites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 Did your mum work Spook, or was she just a parasite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Did your mum work Spook, or was she just a parasite? My mother and my father both worked, but even if my mother had not worked, as a married woman my father was taxed as a married man entitling her suffrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.