Starmer And The Southpost Triple...
News3 mins ago
Ok Convince Me....
27 Answers
http://
Is there any possible argument that criminal lowlives deserve the vote?
Is there any possible argument that criminal lowlives deserve the vote?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
none whatsover
http://
"If such a response is forthcoming Parliament will have signalled that it does not take Britain's sovereignty seriously. The ECHR will be confirmed, alongside the EU, as being dominant and Britain will rank as a mere outpost of an emerging European empire."
just about sums it up...not that we didnt realise thats the "master plan"
http://
"If such a response is forthcoming Parliament will have signalled that it does not take Britain's sovereignty seriously. The ECHR will be confirmed, alongside the EU, as being dominant and Britain will rank as a mere outpost of an emerging European empire."
just about sums it up...not that we didnt realise thats the "master plan"
Seems as if bas and the express are framing this in terms of the UK v. Europe. That's perhaps one aspect of it but then what about the issue at hand? After all if we keep on rejecting ideas just because Europe suggested them, that's bound to run the risk of rejecting good ideas out of spite.
The ruling only asks us to lift a blanket ban on prisoners voting -- and we can and should keep in place a ban on those prisoners with long sentences. There is no suggestion of, nor any need to consider, giving murderers, rapists, exceptionally violent criminals etc., the right to vote. And quite right too. But for those on short sentences, I think the arguments need to be more careful. Describing everyone in prison as a "lowlife" seems perhaps to overlook that for some people it may have been a moment of madness, of succumbing to temptation or the red mist, that led to them being caught, tried and convicted of a relatively minor offence. Such people aren't lowlifes, they just made a mistake that perhaps, on another day, anyone else would be capable of doing. You need only look as far as the August Riots of 2011, or what goes on whenever the cargo of some ship washes ashore, or what happened in one village when the only parking attendant was suspended and word got out, to see that if the opportunity is there to grab free stuff many people will take it -- many people who would probably think of themselves as law-abiding citizens, too. I think we should be careful to describe such people as lowlifes, when they aren't that far away from us really.
An important part of prison, too, is to try and help reintegrate the prisoner into society. Rehabilitation and all that. It could be argued that allowing those nearing the end of their sentence a right to vote might help in that respect, help them feel as if they belong again. Optimistically it might even help reduce the reoffending rate, but that's something that remains to be seen and I'm sure there's plenty else we can do to help rehabilitation work better.
Anyway, this particular law would bring the vote to those criminals who were only guilty of minor offences and perhaps would have been thought of previously as respectable people. Should they lose every right they have after what was possibly a moment of madness? I'm sure there are plenty of other people who never lost the right to vote, but whom we might not want to because they don't really engage in politics or consider the issues and just vote blue or red out of spite for the other side.
I'm hardly passionate about this issue, but -- well, maybe some of the above has at least given you something to think about, but I'm not exactly betting on it.
The ruling only asks us to lift a blanket ban on prisoners voting -- and we can and should keep in place a ban on those prisoners with long sentences. There is no suggestion of, nor any need to consider, giving murderers, rapists, exceptionally violent criminals etc., the right to vote. And quite right too. But for those on short sentences, I think the arguments need to be more careful. Describing everyone in prison as a "lowlife" seems perhaps to overlook that for some people it may have been a moment of madness, of succumbing to temptation or the red mist, that led to them being caught, tried and convicted of a relatively minor offence. Such people aren't lowlifes, they just made a mistake that perhaps, on another day, anyone else would be capable of doing. You need only look as far as the August Riots of 2011, or what goes on whenever the cargo of some ship washes ashore, or what happened in one village when the only parking attendant was suspended and word got out, to see that if the opportunity is there to grab free stuff many people will take it -- many people who would probably think of themselves as law-abiding citizens, too. I think we should be careful to describe such people as lowlifes, when they aren't that far away from us really.
An important part of prison, too, is to try and help reintegrate the prisoner into society. Rehabilitation and all that. It could be argued that allowing those nearing the end of their sentence a right to vote might help in that respect, help them feel as if they belong again. Optimistically it might even help reduce the reoffending rate, but that's something that remains to be seen and I'm sure there's plenty else we can do to help rehabilitation work better.
Anyway, this particular law would bring the vote to those criminals who were only guilty of minor offences and perhaps would have been thought of previously as respectable people. Should they lose every right they have after what was possibly a moment of madness? I'm sure there are plenty of other people who never lost the right to vote, but whom we might not want to because they don't really engage in politics or consider the issues and just vote blue or red out of spite for the other side.
I'm hardly passionate about this issue, but -- well, maybe some of the above has at least given you something to think about, but I'm not exactly betting on it.
some good points jim no doubt there are some people in jail because of a silly mistake, if we could identify them I'd be glad to give them the vote. The problem is that if we have a arbitrary length of sentence as the deciding factor then we are giving career petty criminals the vote too. Burglars rarely get over a year in jail for example.
The proposal is that the people in prison for less than a year or within a year and a half of release should be allowed to go onto the electoral role.
It recognises that they will be released, time served, fellow citizens for most of the term of any administration elected in any such vote - unless they are re-imprisoned of course.
It recognises that they will be released, time served, fellow citizens for most of the term of any administration elected in any such vote - unless they are re-imprisoned of course.
there is no suggestion that its stopped as a deterrent, it's for the matter they are criminals and should lose certain rights if in prison. I agree, they should. The point put across on the news from a senior Prison officer is that if it;s denied them, they will then have the right to petition the ECHR for compensation, according to him there are already over 2,000 cases pending, for compensation, so you give in to them because otherwise it's going to cost the country a small fortune in compo.
One man already won his case i believe, and received a small fortune, voila
One man already won his case i believe, and received a small fortune, voila
this explains in more detail
http://
http://
"An important part of prison, too, is to try and help reintegrate the prisoner into society. Rehabilitation and all that"
yeah voting will make all differnce to their rehabillitation !.....not
Its just more ECHR garbage that we seem to always bow down to.
We are no longer running our country.
If we want to govern ourselves then we need to extricate ourselves from this ridiculous organisation and from the eussr ..yes i know the difference , but one thing they have in common is the control they have over our right to govern ourselves
yeah voting will make all differnce to their rehabillitation !.....not
Its just more ECHR garbage that we seem to always bow down to.
We are no longer running our country.
If we want to govern ourselves then we need to extricate ourselves from this ridiculous organisation and from the eussr ..yes i know the difference , but one thing they have in common is the control they have over our right to govern ourselves
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
