Votes for Convicts!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**mattyrm**

I am somewhat stunned that this point has not been brought up yet. Its been all over the news for days!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12409426

MPs have been told it is "not unjust" to deny convicted prisoners the right to vote as they have "broken their contract with society".

Tory backbencher David Davis urged ministers to defy a European Court of Human Rights ruling that a blanket ban was illegal.

Opening a debate on the issue, he said Parliament must "assert" itself on an issue of "great democratic importance".

Ministers say they have no choice but to comply with the ruling.

But they will do the "minimum necessary" under European law, restricting the right to inmates serving less than four years or even less. They have until April to say how they will respond to the court ruling.

'Simple concept'

MPs are expected to back a cross-party motion, tabled by Mr Davis and former home secretary Jack Straw, saying the matter should be left to "democratically-elected lawmakers" rather than unelected European judges.

If, as Mr Davis has predicted, MPs win the vote, expected at about 1800 GMT, he believes it will provoke a "mini constitutional crisis," with the UK government and other countries ammunition to challenge the European Court.

Mr Davis told MPs that while prisoners had rights - such as the right to be fed and protected from harm - he said they should not enjoy the same rights as "free British citizens".

When sentenced, they "sacrificed" rights such as their liberty and freedom of association and the right to vote should be removed as well.

"The concept is simple. If you break the law, you cannot make the law," he told MPs.

So, whats your take on it then lads? Yes they should be allowed? Or not?

No doubt many will think it is totally fair not to give criminals the vote (Matty feels like this, unsurprisingly he is also sick of hearing about European fething human rights laws!)

Some may think otherwise.

I would also like to put this question out there to Emp and the more left leaning chaps on the board, as I feel they are related.

If we remember the now locked Sharia law debate, I simply made the point that there is a clear "freedom" issue with regards to banning something, but if the citizens of a nation think that something is wrong, then it SHOULD be wrong. For that reason alone.
I want to know then, if you believe that banning Sharia courts is wrong, but you think banning convicts from voting is right, how do you square that circle?

We decided in the 1800s that criminals have forfeited their rights to vote, and parliament has never thought to discuss the issue further. If we decide by a large majority that something should be done about a certain law or bylaw or what have you, then why should that not be the case?

And for the record, yes, I think that criminals should absolutely be banned from voting.

**notprop**

This should have been an opportubnity for Dave to show his stuff but despite saying that the idea of Rapists and Murderers having the right to vote make him "sick to the stomach" he has also stated that they will have to comply.

I would have really wanted him to just stand up and say it ain't going to happen!

My spidey sense tells me that there is a compromise about to happen.

**Albatross**

Yeah, the question of national sovereignty is more important to me than whether or not kiddie-fiddlers vote.

**Frazzled**

Mmm... its good to be a faceless Brussels bureaucrat with no accountability isn't it? Good job if you can get it.

**notprop**

Damn Frederalies and ther pesky union!

I had just assumed that the Bureaucrats couldn't get MOD status and settled for 2nd best.

**Da Boss**

I dunno, I think it depends on your view with regard to rehabilitation and so on. It's not a question I have huge worries about. National sovereignty is pretty damn important, but then, we're talking about a country involved in two wars to overthrow governments in distant lands. Sometimes, it gets over written, and it's not always a bad thing.

**Frazzled**

Serious question, as how the European Union functions is somewhat confusing to me. Who appoints this specific European Court?

**Thaanos**

"The concept is simple. If you break the law, you cannot make the law," he told MPs.

Does anyone else find this ironic? How many politicians break the law?

**Hyenajoe**

We have no fething clue about this Frazzled.

Probably the Commision...

I hope UK will defend its sovereignty on this point.

**SilverMK2**

Thaanos wrote:
"The concept is simple. If you break the law, you cannot make the law," he told MPs.

Does anyone else find this ironic? How many politicians break the law?

I was just about the post that

However, I agree that once you have broken the law, no votes for you.

But according to the news story, people serving less than 4 years are exempt from this anyway. And since everyone except people caught speeding are in for less than 4 years these days, it means most people in our jails will now be able to vote...

**Albatross**

Frazzled wrote:Serious question, as how the European Union functions is somewhat confusing to me. Who appoints this specific European Court?

I would assume that it would be a matter for the European Parliament, who's members are elected by their home countries constituents.

But yeah, feth knows.... it's hard not to get the impression that the way the EU works is hard to understand ON PURPOSE.

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Serious question, as how the European Union functions is somewhat confusing to me. Who appoints this specific European Court?

I would assume that it would be a matter for the European Parliament, who's members are elected by their home countries constituents.

But yeah, feth knows.... it's hard not to get the impression that the way the EU works is hard to understand ON PURPOSE.

Alby looks right. from the website:
(wow 47 judges? Thats not sane)

How are the Court’s judges elected?
The judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from lists of three candidates proposed by each State. They are elected for a non-renewable term of nine years.

**mattyrm**

Short answer.

feth the fething EU, and all the hippy pinko labour fethers who think that the human rights bill for slime is a great idea.

I think we should bring flogging back. But in a modern and energetic way...

We can "text" the offendors their flogging dates, and tweet the photos of their tattered and torn bodies! ;D

**SilverMK2**

mattyrm wrote: We can "text" the offendors their flogging dates, and tweet the photos of their tattered and torn bodies! ;D

Would you support flogging them with a copy of the EU rules and regulations?

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
mattyrm wrote: We can "text" the offendors their flogging dates, and tweet the photos of their tattered and torn bodies! ;D

Would you support flogging them with a copy of the EU rules and regulations?

Now THAT would be cruel and unusual punishment.

**WARBOSS TZOO**

mattyrm wrote:We decided in the 1800s that criminals have forfeited their rights to vote, and parliament has never thought to discuss the issue further. If we decide by a large majority that something should be done about a certain law or bylaw or what have you, then why should that not be the case?

Should I assume that if a large majority of a given country decided that it was fine for homosexuals to be stoned to death for said homosexuality, you'd have no problem with this?

Or should I assume instead that you'd agree that the majority should not necessarily be able to run rampant over the rights of the minority?

**mattyrm**

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
mattyrm wrote:We decided in the 1800s that criminals have forfeited their rights to vote, and parliament has never thought to discuss the issue further. If we decide by a large majority that something should be done about a certain law or bylaw or what have you, then why should that not be the case?

Should I assume that if a large majority of a given country decided that it was fine for homosexuals to be stoned to death for said homosexuality, you'd have no problem with this?

Or should I assume instead that you'd agree that the majority should not necessarily be able to run rampant over the rights of the minority?

I am British, they wouldnt.

Possibly the worst answer i have ever read.

Lets just call my retort there shall we?

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
wow 47 judges? Thats not sane.

The court is divided into 5 sections, and only one section hears each case. The 2 larger (10 members, versus 9) sections generally preside over more important rulings.

**Frazzled**

OK, thats more realistic.

**mattyrm**

It really is a big unneccessary clusterfeth though isnt it? I have always been of the opinion that the smaller something is, the easier it is to organise. The bigger the military formation, the more likely it is to go to rat gak.

With that in mind, why the hell do we want to even enter this gak storm?!

It just seems mad to allow other nations any other say at all in the way you run your domestic legal system. Who in the UK actually supports giving convicts a vote?! I would love to see a statistic.

**Kilkrazy**

Personally I don't see why there should be a fundamental right to be able to vote when you have exiled yourself from normal society by committing a crime that gets you locked up.

To me it is a different thing to race or religion and that kind of thing.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, if prisoners are to be rehabilitated, this means they have to re-integrated into normal society. Members of normal society do a number of things including voting, so I can see a case why voting should be extended to prisoners who are being granted day release as part of their preparation for completion of their sentence.

However that is not what is proposed by the EU.

**mattyrm**

If even a sensible, well rounded individual (hippy

) like you agrees with me KK, i think its fair to say that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK are against this notion, so i shall reiterate my original point.

What the hell do we even have to talk about it for?!

Screw the EU!

Oh and make our convicts break rocks in stripey suits, like the good old days!

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

I'd be pissed if I didn't get my chance to vote for the new queen or king... I might be doing this wrong.

**Wolfun**

Break the law, give up your right to vote.

I'm sure that's pretty fair.

**Corpsesarefun**

mattyrm wrote:If even a sensible, well rounded individual (hippy ) like you agrees with me KK, i think its fair to say that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK are against this notion, so i shall reiterate my original point.

What the hell do we even have to talk about it for?!

Screw the EU!

Oh and make our convicts break rocks in stripey suits, like the good old days!

There is little I can say here that would explain my views on the matter as IMO crime is a major indicator of a vast amount of problems with our country but I will say that breaking rocks achieves nothing, you simply give the criminals a work out and a whole lot of wasted time they could have been used in a more productive task in.

**WARBOSS TZOO**

mattyrm wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
mattyrm wrote:We decided in the 1800s that criminals have forfeited their rights to vote, and parliament has never thought to discuss the issue further. If we decide by a large majority that something should be done about a certain law or bylaw or what have you, then why should that not be the case?

Should I assume that if a large majority of a given country decided that it was fine for homosexuals to be stoned to death for said homosexuality, you'd have no problem with this?

Or should I assume instead that you'd agree that the majority should not necessarily be able to run rampant over the rights of the minority?

I am British, they wouldnt.

Possibly the worst answer i have ever read.

Lets just call my retort there shall we?

Please check the bolded in your OP.

If a large majority of the UK wanted to legalise the stoning of homosexuals, should they not be allowed to?

**Kilkrazy**

This is where the fundamental human rights angle comes in.

I just don't see how either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the European Convention on Human Rights, leads to the idea that convicted criminals cannot be deprived of the vote during the term of their sentence.

**mattyrm**

Mate, its just a ridiculous thing to say.

I dont have my political views (centre right) because I am interested in history, I have them because i was born in 1980 and I am well aware of how the nation functions.

It would never happen, not ever, in modern Britain. If the majority vote for something in real life however, then yes of course it should happen. Such is democracy. Even if I happen to disagree with it.

For example, being a hot blooded vindictive fella, I want a version of the death penalty imposing for criminals who commit the worst crimes and are convicted via video or DNA evidence. I think we banned it years ago when mistakes were more likely to be made. It will never happen though will it? But does it concern me? No. Im in a minority, and thats the way it works, I suck it up and crack on.

What is the alternative? You personally think something is good but 90% of us disagree, so it just is good and you do it anyway? Is that how it works?

In a democracy of course the majority should make the decisions, thats the whole point surely?!

Your question is invalid because it is not based in reality, and I wasnt talking about stoning people to death.

**Da Boss**

Hmmmm, I hope I'm not mistaken but I thought the European Court of Human Rights was a seperate, independant body to the EU?
Indeed, I just checked, and it is linked to the Council of Europe rather than the EU (which contains 47 nations).
Let's get our facts straight before going off on one about the EU and Brussels like a Daily Mail columnist.

**mattyrm**

But... but... i want to hate right now!