Prisoners Have the Right To Vote. What's Your Opinion?

[zipppy]

Apparently David Cameron is livid with the decision by the European Court of Human Rights which has granted convicted prisoners the right to vote.

What do you guys think about the decision? Should prisoners be able to vote or not?

[LoftyLottie]

Of course they should.

[craft1948]

i assume it will be postal votes...........

[Avatar]

I think not because theyd probably all try to escape when queing up at the local polling office.

[LoftyLottie]

Very likely Craft :o)

(But they could have a polling room set up in the prison)

[jno]

yes, why not?

They could vote for Jeffrey Archer, one of their own.

[craft1948]

So more expense for the taxpayer then........

[LoftyLottie]

If the prison was the postal address it might have a rather significant impact on who was voted in in certain areas, e.g. Princetown!!

[craft1948]

Personally I don't think they should have the right to vote. If you're a convicted criminal you give up certain rights e.g. your freedom. I don't think the threat of losing your vote would deter anyone set on a life of crime.

[Bobbisox]

I agree craft, you give up your right to do what joe public on the outside does as a matter of course,

[LoftyLottie]

But you are still a citizen and you will still have a life after prison. The punishment is being in prison not to deprive you of your rights.

[ChuckFickens]

"Director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Frances Crook, said:.........One of the hallmarks of citizenship is the right to vote"

I'd say a greater hallmark of citizenship is not breaking the law and being put in prison in the first place!

The person who took this to the European courts claiming it was against his human rights was a guy called john Hirst, who was jailed for manslaughter after killing his landlady with an axe, challenged the ban in Europe.

Did he not think that killing somebody with an axe was maybe causing a issue with their human rights, like the right to live without being killed! John Hirst should have lost all rights to "human rights" when he choose to kill another person.

[craft1948]

So Ian Huntley can have a vote................none of the Royal family can.

[Bobbisox]

life after LL, Yes, but I assumed his rights to do as we do, should have been removed?

[craft1948]

I absolutely agree with Chuck.

[LoftyLottie]

There is another thread on this in News where Andy has given some more information. I stand firmly with Andy on this. Ian Huntley will not get the voting rights along will others.

[Gladeian]

Chuck Fickens is absolutely right - all this pedantry about the rights of convicted criminals is absolute tosh - they have relinquished thier right to vote the moment they are convicted. What is worse is having a bunch of clowns in the ECHR issuing instructions to the UK about the internal governance of its citizens, when there are probably judges sitting there from Latvia, Romania, Poland and so many other obviously more enlightened democracies than us !!

[jno]

as long as you are a human you have human rights. Hence the name.

[ChuckFickens]

But I'd class anyone that can, and does batter another person to death as sub human, not human.

[zipppy]

I have to confess that I agree with craft1948. I've recently been released from Belmarsh prison in London and so was intrigued by the European Court ruling.

Currently only remand and civil prisoners are provided with the opportunity to cast a vote in our elections which I subscribe to.

A convicted prisoner however relinquishes the priviledge to vote on receipt of his entry to prison because he has violated the laws of our society. This suspension of civic rights (and let's not forget responsibilities) should be accompanied by voting restrictions.

If I'm returned to prison for breaching our societies rules I certainly don't expect to be handed the right to vote. Anyway the issue is certainly stimulating some debate so thanks to everyone who's responded.