News0 min ago
Prisoners and the vote (again).
I posted a Q yesterday about the absurdity of allowing prisoners the vote and was gobsmacked to discover that of those that replied the majority felt that they should be allowed to vote as they should be involved in the democratic process.
Taking their logic one step further, presumably they feel that prisoners should also be allowed to act as jurors?
Taking their logic one step further, presumably they feel that prisoners should also be allowed to act as jurors?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. 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.
flip-flop I have bad news for you, theoretically at least when a defendant is charged with burgling peoples houses, ALL the members of the jury can be ex-convicts who have all served time in jail for burglary.
The only stipulation is that they must have been "clean" for at least seven years.
Isn't our system wonderful?
By the way you can put ANY amount of money on the above being correct.
The only stipulation is that they must have been "clean" for at least seven years.
Isn't our system wonderful?
By the way you can put ANY amount of money on the above being correct.
Yep and we also feel that they should all be let out...
Just because we believe people should have the right to vote for somebody to represent them doesn't mean we think they should get every thing going.
Let's turn your argument around then.
Taking your logic one step further, presumably you feel that prisoners should not be allowed access to clean water and food and should be left to fend for themselves in a huge pit?
Just because we believe people should have the right to vote for somebody to represent them doesn't mean we think they should get every thing going.
Let's turn your argument around then.
Taking your logic one step further, presumably you feel that prisoners should not be allowed access to clean water and food and should be left to fend for themselves in a huge pit?
Why do you appear to think that because someone has a criminal record they are in some way different to you and unable to be subjective? You have a very nieve view of the world if you'll forgive me for saying so, where the good guys are nice, clean cut people with tidy shirts who have never seen the inside of a cell and life's baddies are all swarthy, mono-syllabic thugs, unable to differentiate right from wrong in any circumstance and carrying a large bag marked SWAG.
I hate to introduce the E word to this argument, but here goes...
"The European Court of Human Rights today (October 2006)ruled that it was a breach of the Human Rights Act to deny prisoners the right to vote."
I would be interested to see any stats on how many prisoners vote. My guess would be it would be low.
"The European Court of Human Rights today (October 2006)ruled that it was a breach of the Human Rights Act to deny prisoners the right to vote."
I would be interested to see any stats on how many prisoners vote. My guess would be it would be low.
Reading between the lines Kev it sounds as if your problem is not spefically with jurys or voting but with the whole concept of rehabilitation and "spent" convictions.
This would be under the 1974 Rehabilitation of offenders act
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/rehabact.htm
You seem to have a "Once a crim, always a crim" kind of attitude?
Well the act has been with us for over 30 years now and even Margaret Thatchers government thought it good enough to stand so you seem to be in a minority even amoungst the right wing
This would be under the 1974 Rehabilitation of offenders act
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/rehabact.htm
You seem to have a "Once a crim, always a crim" kind of attitude?
Well the act has been with us for over 30 years now and even Margaret Thatchers government thought it good enough to stand so you seem to be in a minority even amoungst the right wing
Famous people who have been to prison (there are loads more):
Ghandi
Nelson Mandella
Oscar Wilde
Jeffrey Archer (he deserved to stay there !)
Mick Jagger, Keith Richards (later quashed)
Leslie Grantham (Dirty Den, eastenders)
Mandella went on to lead his country, Ghandi became spiritual leader of his country.
Jagger has even been knighted since.
Just because you have been in prison you are not damaged for life and can still contribute.
Ghandi
Nelson Mandella
Oscar Wilde
Jeffrey Archer (he deserved to stay there !)
Mick Jagger, Keith Richards (later quashed)
Leslie Grantham (Dirty Den, eastenders)
Mandella went on to lead his country, Ghandi became spiritual leader of his country.
Jagger has even been knighted since.
Just because you have been in prison you are not damaged for life and can still contribute.
No a jury should consist of a reasonable cross section of the population and since 1 in 5 people have a criminal conviction, then that allows for approximately 2 people per jury in the interests of fairness.
It really doesn't do for every member of a jury to be a middle class , always had too much much money,type who has no concept of the real world.
Perhaps if we have a broader cross section of society it would stop people like the young girl who works for me being jailed for nicking a tin of baby milk when the DSS had cocked up her christmas benefit payment.
It really doesn't do for every member of a jury to be a middle class , always had too much much money,type who has no concept of the real world.
Perhaps if we have a broader cross section of society it would stop people like the young girl who works for me being jailed for nicking a tin of baby milk when the DSS had cocked up her christmas benefit payment.
I think I have been misunderstood.
I have no problem whatsoever in allowing people who have served their time in voting or sitting as a juror.
I do have a big problem with allowing prisoners, i.e, people who are in the process of serving their punishment for crimes they have committed, being allowed to vote.
I may live in slightly black and white world, but I find this possibilty just absurd - I mean breathtakingly stupidly absurd: these people are in prison first and foremost as a punishment for a crime, a crime of sufficient magnitude to warrant a custodial sentence...............and yet they are to be given the right to be in the decision making process of electing the people who make our laws, laws that these people ignore.
It is madness.
WoWo - your fourth paragraph: biggest load of ******** I've read in a long time.
I have no problem whatsoever in allowing people who have served their time in voting or sitting as a juror.
I do have a big problem with allowing prisoners, i.e, people who are in the process of serving their punishment for crimes they have committed, being allowed to vote.
I may live in slightly black and white world, but I find this possibilty just absurd - I mean breathtakingly stupidly absurd: these people are in prison first and foremost as a punishment for a crime, a crime of sufficient magnitude to warrant a custodial sentence...............and yet they are to be given the right to be in the decision making process of electing the people who make our laws, laws that these people ignore.
It is madness.
WoWo - your fourth paragraph: biggest load of ******** I've read in a long time.
First of all, kev100 is not quite correct.
The current legislation stipulates that a person is not eligible for jury service if they have ever served a sentence of 5 years or more, or have served any period of imprisonment within the last 10 years. Also not eligible in England and Wales are those who have served any kind of community punishment within the last ten years.
I believe there is sound reasoning behind this. Persons who have fallen foul of the law are, in general (though, I accept, not necessarily), more likely than those who have not to have a jaundiced view of the judicial process. They are less likely to take an objective view and reach a verdict based solely on the evidence placed before them.
Similarly, I believe police officers and some others involved in law enforcement may well be less objective in their decision making, albeit for completely different reasons. I believe it was a mistake to no longer provide automatic exemption from jury service for people in those occupations.
I am by no means suggesting that all convicted criminals will be unable to reach an objective decision or that all police officers would convict anybody before them. However, the principle aim of the jury system is to provide, as far as is reasonably possible, a selection of people who will come to the Court �without baggage� and arrive at an objective decision based solely on the evidence. To allow into the pool a group of people who are statistically far less likely to be able to do this would be irresponsible.
Circumstances often arise where the rights of the minority must be overridden by those of the majority. Unfortunately this is often overlooked in the current climate. The public has a right to expect justice to be fairly administered. If this means that the rights of a few convicted criminals are subjugated by them being barred from jury service, so be it.
The current legislation stipulates that a person is not eligible for jury service if they have ever served a sentence of 5 years or more, or have served any period of imprisonment within the last 10 years. Also not eligible in England and Wales are those who have served any kind of community punishment within the last ten years.
I believe there is sound reasoning behind this. Persons who have fallen foul of the law are, in general (though, I accept, not necessarily), more likely than those who have not to have a jaundiced view of the judicial process. They are less likely to take an objective view and reach a verdict based solely on the evidence placed before them.
Similarly, I believe police officers and some others involved in law enforcement may well be less objective in their decision making, albeit for completely different reasons. I believe it was a mistake to no longer provide automatic exemption from jury service for people in those occupations.
I am by no means suggesting that all convicted criminals will be unable to reach an objective decision or that all police officers would convict anybody before them. However, the principle aim of the jury system is to provide, as far as is reasonably possible, a selection of people who will come to the Court �without baggage� and arrive at an objective decision based solely on the evidence. To allow into the pool a group of people who are statistically far less likely to be able to do this would be irresponsible.
Circumstances often arise where the rights of the minority must be overridden by those of the majority. Unfortunately this is often overlooked in the current climate. The public has a right to expect justice to be fairly administered. If this means that the rights of a few convicted criminals are subjugated by them being barred from jury service, so be it.
Just because someone made a bad decision, for reasons you dont know you can not outcast them for the rest of their lives. I am sure you have made bad decisions and if you had someone behind you talking to you like a second class citizen everytime you were asked for your opinion, wanted rights (post release) it wouldnt be fair would it
Rehabilitation is exactly that and its not for 'good people' like yourself to judge a prisoner/ex prisoner. All the time they are in custody i agree that rights are lost and therefore voting is a privilidge lost, however they may only be banged up for 2 mths and they have to live with the current goverment post voting for x years.
Prisoners are not 2nd class citizens, they are people affected by circumstances in one way or another ( i am excluding rapists and murderers) and they will deal with the consequences of breaking the law themselves.
Rehabilitation is exactly that and its not for 'good people' like yourself to judge a prisoner/ex prisoner. All the time they are in custody i agree that rights are lost and therefore voting is a privilidge lost, however they may only be banged up for 2 mths and they have to live with the current goverment post voting for x years.
Prisoners are not 2nd class citizens, they are people affected by circumstances in one way or another ( i am excluding rapists and murderers) and they will deal with the consequences of breaking the law themselves.
Are you suggesting that people like Sylvia Hardy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/42800 40.stm) should not be allowed to vote (if an election had taken place in the 7 days she was incarcerated for?)
"A retired social worker from Devon has become the first woman pensioner to be jailed in England for refusing to pay part of an increase in her council tax.
Sylvia Hardy, 73, from Exeter, was jailed for seven days after missing a deadline to settle arrears of �53.71. "
I know she has stepped outside the rules of society....
......Maybe you would have preferred it if they had thrown away the key
"A retired social worker from Devon has become the first woman pensioner to be jailed in England for refusing to pay part of an increase in her council tax.
Sylvia Hardy, 73, from Exeter, was jailed for seven days after missing a deadline to settle arrears of �53.71. "
I know she has stepped outside the rules of society....
......Maybe you would have preferred it if they had thrown away the key
not sure voting is a 'privilege' as you call it. It's more than that, its a cornerstone of our society. In fact some countries (Australia, I believe) actually make it compulsory, and I think there's something to that idea. A society where some adults are barred from voting is a society that is not truly democratic.
One you left out vehelpfulguy.
Famous people who have been to prison.
Hitler , didn't he also go on to lead his country?
flip-flop, you should not be too gobsmacked by the majority of postings on this site. The Looney Left are taking over this site just as they are the country, while the larger majority are sitting on the fence just letting them. As long as this apathetic bunch get plentiful helpings of football, and reality television programmes, then it would seem they are happy, and they do not have to think too much of what is actually going on around them.
No prisoners should not have the vote, in fact when one is committed to prison then one should lose all privileges. Do away with the pool tables, gyms, TVs etc etc. Perhaps then they would not be too eager to re-offend and so get sent back to prison, time after time. We would then not have the problem of overcrowded prisons.
What as happened since the days that the majority took to the streets in protest over the Poll Tax for example? It worked for us then. The French still do, and it seems to continue to work nicely for them.
But until then flip-flop I suppose we must put up with the inmates running the asylum.
Famous people who have been to prison.
Hitler , didn't he also go on to lead his country?
flip-flop, you should not be too gobsmacked by the majority of postings on this site. The Looney Left are taking over this site just as they are the country, while the larger majority are sitting on the fence just letting them. As long as this apathetic bunch get plentiful helpings of football, and reality television programmes, then it would seem they are happy, and they do not have to think too much of what is actually going on around them.
No prisoners should not have the vote, in fact when one is committed to prison then one should lose all privileges. Do away with the pool tables, gyms, TVs etc etc. Perhaps then they would not be too eager to re-offend and so get sent back to prison, time after time. We would then not have the problem of overcrowded prisons.
What as happened since the days that the majority took to the streets in protest over the Poll Tax for example? It worked for us then. The French still do, and it seems to continue to work nicely for them.
But until then flip-flop I suppose we must put up with the inmates running the asylum.
"What as happened since the days that the majority took to the streets in protest over the Poll Tax for example? "
of course, it is now a criminal offence to take part in a demonstration that takes place within 1KM of Parliament Square without police permission.
Will look forward to reading about your protest, subsequent arrest and prison sentence.
of course, it is now a criminal offence to take part in a demonstration that takes place within 1KM of Parliament Square without police permission.
Will look forward to reading about your protest, subsequent arrest and prison sentence.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
